Projecting the Newest Phantoms' Contributions
One thing that always interested me was Gabe Desjardins' NHL Equivalencies. It's really phenomenal work - trying to forecast what a players' production in a different league is equal to in the NHL. Scott Reynolds from The Copper & Blue has been running a series of great looks at every forward drafted by an NHL club from 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007 which are well worth reading.
Earlier this week, fellow Flyers blog Flyers Faithful ran a story looking at the Flyers prospects and what their NHL Equivalencies would be. Honestly, it's an idea I wish I had come up with first. Check that out, especially since it contains history that should put some skeptics in the "lean trust" column.
Instead of looking at what the Flyers' prospects could be expected to produce in the orange and black next year, we're going to look at what they can be expected to produce in Adirondack, since that's where they'll almost certainly be.
In looking at those players who will likely make their professional debut in Adirondack this year, there were only four leagues to pull them from: WHL, OHL, QMJHL, and NCAA. After converting their production to a per game rate and multiplying by 82 (to equate a full AHL season), Gabe's AHL Equivalency numbers come into play. Here are the multipliers to equate the leagues: WHL = 0.43; OHL = 0.45; QMJHL = 0.41; NCAA = 0.55. Obviously, these equivalencies don't take into account ice time, teammates, role, etc. They are, however, pretty accurate as evidenced by the Richards, Carter, and van Riemsdyk equivalencies found in the Flyers Faithful piece.
Two additional things: First, the NCAA equivalency is an estimate from Gabe Desjardins for all NCAA players. In doing this article, there was no equivalency from the NCAA to the AHL, so I spoke with Gabe about it. Just like in Canadian Major Juniors, the Conferences (or Leagues, in Canada) vary by difficulty. The Central Collegiate Hockey Association - which housed Andrew Rowe and Erik Gustafsson - has a 0.60 equivalency, one of the better conferences in the NCAA.
Second, age plays a huge role in these equivalencies. This in particular hurts Testwuide and Holmstrom, as they were 22 for their last NCAA seasons, as well as Andrew Rowe who was 21. As such, these three players are less likely to exceed, or even meet, these equivalencies. This is largely due to the fact that if a player was good enough to succeed in the AHL, they would play there sooner than age 22. The older a player is making his debut, the less successful they are likely to be.
With that said, these numbers should give you an idea of what we can expect out of the newest Phantoms next year.
To look at the full table, including age, league, and previous year's performance, click here.
| Player | G | A | Pts |
| Mike Testwuide | 26.3 | 12.5 | 38.8 |
| Andrew Rowe | 22.0 | 14.2 | 36.3 |
| Ben Holmstrom | 10.4 | 16.2 | 26.6 |
| Luke Pither | 19.8 | 31.9 | 51.8 |
| Shane Harper | 20.6 | 18.6 | 39.2 |
| Eric Wellwood | 17.6 | 21.0 | 38.6 |
| Zac Rinaldo | 6.2 | 9.2 | 15.4 |
| Dave Labrecque | 12.3 | 21.3 | 33.6 |
| Erik Gustafsson | 3.8 | 36.6 | 40.4 |
| Tyler Hostetter | 1.3 | 15.0 | 16.3 |
Looking at this, we see that the Flyers added a few solid players to their roster. Let's break it down:
Mike Testwuide, W
There was a lot of talk about Testwuide possibly competing for a job with the Flyers this year, but look at the roster. Where would he fit in? Plus, his $900,000 cap hit isn't exactly easy to squeeze in unless he somehow beats out Jody Shelley or Dan Carcillo.
Even still, a guy who's expected to chip in 39 points in the AHL at age 23 isn't exactly forcing his way into the NHL lineup. Last year, Jason Ward scored 29 points for the Phantoms in 56 games, equaling 42 points over an 82-game season. Testwuide would be on track to replace Ward's production, which would still be a net-win for the Phantoms since Testwuide is more likely to improve upon that expectation than Ward is. But that isn't an improvement for the Flyers, at least not this year.
Andrew Rowe, W
Rowe is somebody who really impressed me at camp, and these numbers back that up as he's projected to score 36 points in the AHL. The closest player to that production last year was Jon Kalinski, who had an 82-game mark of 33.3 points. While the two play a similar grinder-type of hockey, Kalinski is more defensive minded while Rowe is more of a power-forward.
Really, Rowe looks to fill a void in Adirondack, providing depth to a team that sorely needs it. At 22, he isn't expected to have a breakout year, but he just might. While Mike Testwuide gets all the press, Rowe is expected to score 3 fewer points despite being a year younger. For this reason, I'm a lot more excited about Rowe than Testwuide.
Ben Holmstrom, LW
While Rowe impressed at camp, Holmstrom disappointed me and these projections just add to that. He scored 3 goals in 13 games for the Phantoms last year, but he's 23 years old and has never scored more than 10 goals in a single season during his career, and that was 5 years ago. And he played in 56 games.
I guess this is a case of high expectations tarnishing what you get, but Holmstrom chipping in 27 points isn't all that exciting. To give some reference, defenseman Joonas Lehtivuori scored 23 points in 66 games, good for 28.58 per 82-games last year. As a 23-year old, his window is closing fast and he needs to exceed these projections if he wants to have Philadelphians learn his name. Well, that or become a defensively responsible forward, something his even mark in plus/minus through 144 NCAA games doesn't bode well for.
Luke Pither, C
Pither is projected to immediately become the Phantoms first-line center, based on these numbers. At age 21, he's expected to put up 51 (51.77 to be exact, it matters later) points in the AHL, a pretty solid professional debut. Here's someone who could conceivably be an undrafted gem.
Even better news is that he seems to perfectly replace Jared Ross, who scored 46 points in 73 AHL games (51.67 pts/82 GP). That's almost an exact match in production, which is fantastic since the Flyers would have gotten 7 years younger and only spent an additional $100k in cap space to do it.
Shane Harper, RW
Harper is someone who is still young enough to be considered a prospect. This will be his age 21 season, and scoring 39 points at that age is pretty good. Stefan Legein just scored 37 points in the AHL (39 over an 82 game season) at age 21, so Harper should have some company. While Legein should score more next year (hopefully), Harper will make a pretty solid third-line winger.
Eric Wellwood, LW
Wellwood looks to slot into the second/third line winger role, just like Harper. The production is expected to be remarkably similar, which is good depending upon how you look at it. Personally, I'd like to see more out of Wellwood, but here's where age is important: Wellwood will be 20, a year younger than Harper. So while the expected production is the same, Wellwood is a full year ahead of Harper and three years ahead of Testwuide.
Which brings me back to: If Testwuide is expected to challenge for a roster spot, why isn't Wellwood? Well, that's probably because neither is realistically going to push their way past Andreas Nodl, David Laliberte, Jon Kalinski, Pat Maroon, and Stefan Legein. But hey, we can trumpet the new free agent signing, right? Why not a (rare) late-round draft success?
Zac Rinaldo, LW
Yes, the second-most talked about rookie will not score much. Such is the life of a Flyers fan. Still, 15 points for a 20 year old agitator is not bad at all. That's as much as Ryan Dingle would have put up over an 82 game season, but Rinaldo will also pester the opposition.
There's still room for growth with Rinaldo, and hopefully he can become a 25 or 30 point AHL player who learns restraint in the process (attn: Riley Cote).
Dave Labrecque, C
Another 20-year old (possible) Phantoms rookie, Labrecque is a guy not many people know. Personally, I know very little about him. The 2009 6th-rounder is probably going back to the Q this year, but possibly getting 33 points out of him in the AHL is pretty promising. Andreas Nodl only put up 34 points in 65 games last year, so Labrecque may turn out to be a solid AHL player. After two straight point-per-game seasons in the Q, this could be the defining year for Labrecque.
Defense
I'm not a big fan of breaking down defensemen's points, since that's not really what matters out of them. Yes, Marc-Andre Bourdon should probably be scoring more than 19 points in 61 games, but the Phantoms as a whole should have been scoring more last year.
With that said, Gustafsson looks solid. I wish I could watch him play next year since a 40-point projection puts him at a higher 82-game pace than any defenseman who dressed for the Phantoms last year except Danny Syvret. Last year, Gustafsson scored 7 points in 5 AHL games showing that he truly is an offensive-defenseman. I think this officially gives us reasons to get excited about the Phantoms defense.
Tyler Hostetter is a guy who's probably going back to the OHL (he'll only be 19 when this season starts), but after watching him at prospect camp for two years, I'm kind of excited to see what he becomes. His projected 16 points kind of surprised me, but he does seem to jump into the play a lot. Another good year in the OHL and he may find himself in Glens Falls sooner than later.
Conclusion
The Phantoms are losing Jon Matsumoto and Jared Ross down the middle, but they seem to have Ross' replacement in Luke Pither. Matsumoto's production will probably have to be replaced by veterans such as David Laliberte, Pat Maroon, or Stefan Legein (all wingers) since the team doesn't have anyone coming in who will score 62 points in the AHL.
But the team has done a good job filling out the bottom half of their roster while also getting some potential second-line players into the fold. Purely speculation at this point, but the Phantoms could roll out lines similar to this next year:
Maroon - Pither - Laliberte
Nodl - Kalinski - Legein
Wellwood - Moore - Testwuide
Rinaldo - Rowe - Harper
Holmstrom, Klotz, Clackson
Bourdon - Bartulis
Lehtivuori - Marshall
Gustafsson - Jancevski
Hostetter
Backlund
Bobrovsky/Riopel
Suddenly, the team looks pretty solid. At least one decent forward will be scratched every game (In my scenario, it's Holmstrom) and neither Klotz nor Clackson are in the lineup. The defense is a little unsettled because they only have 6 signed, one of whom is the 19-year old Hostetter. With the Flyers having 8 d-men on their team, one of them (Bartulis) could be joining the team.
Now, the Phantoms still may not make the playoffs, but that's a fairly formidable lineup: 130 points are expected to come out of your third line and 90 out of your fourth line. In addition, You have three players with NHL experience in your top six, one on the third line, two on defense, and one in net.
All in all, I think I'm getting excited about the Phantoms. Maybe not the forwards (a ton of right wings, not enough centers), but definitely the rearguard. What about you?
35 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
On Harper
Just random stuff – some guys from my 20 team fantasy hockey league and I were in Seattle in January for an annual hockey/stupidity trip. We drove up and caught an Everett game and saw Harper play. He’s very fast and extremely skilled. He also is not (yet) a two way player. A lot of circling in the neutral zone looking to cherry pick a bit. But he was potting goals left and right and opened the scoring that night very early and had another couple of chances. Could be a Scottie Upshall-type.
In our fantasy stupidity, the 6 of us that were there each drafted 5 skaters off each roster,player whose guys had the best stats won the pot. Pregame I traded my entire 5 for Harper and almost pulled it off. Fun to watch. Shame we dont have a junior league team nearby to go see, it’s like going to see a Lakewood game for Phils prospects. Cool arena too.
Nice Article
Nice work and it makes me feel a bit more comfortable about what will be on the ice at the GFCC this year. Gustafsson really impressed me last season. He was very confident as a “QB” at the point and on the power play, great vision and a heavy shot. In the few games that I saw Harper play, he had some flashes but was somewhat inconsistent. I am very excited to see Pither play, as he certainly had a great season with Barrie last year. I am also looking forward to seeing Rowe this season. I am assuming that Backlund with be in Philly next season. He was the only real bright spot here, and I think we lost 8 of the last 10 after his call up. I am also hoping the team chemistry is much better than last year. There seemed to be something, besides the veterans not producing, going on between the team and the coaching staff.
Excellent points. Gustafsson and Rowe were really impressive at rookie camp, so they’re two people I’m looking forward to following.
I didn’t see much out of Harper at camp, but these numbers suggest he has some skill. Both you and scottymac suggest he’s inconsistent, which is definitely concerning, especially since I drew the Legein comparison without even knowing that. Hopefully both find something in the next year or two.
As far as Pither goes, he showed flashes of great skill and vision at camp, and when that is paired with these numbers, I’m really excited for him too.
Backlund will probably need an injury or a meltdown to make it to Philly, since the Flyers would probably prefer he plays more than Boucher (presumed backup) will play. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s in Philly full-time by February.
Lastly, I hope Cote can bridge that gap between the coaches and players, but also that the departing players (Matsumoto, Ross – the Captain -, Ward, Mormina, Curry, Kolanos, etc.) were a large part of the problem. With Maroon, Kalinski, Nodl, and Laliberte as the “veterans”, hopefully they have a better attitude than those who may have felt they should have been in the NHL (Moto and Ross, mainly).
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Aug 15, 2010 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Geoff, I honestly have no idea who the departing forwards are, but could you do a comparison between what they scored last year and the projected totals for the new guys. IE, will the Phantoms be any better off?
Backing Backlund for 2010-2011
Mourning Gagne forever.
Yeah, doing it now.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Aug 15, 2010 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Here’s the .xls file, but here’s what you need to know:
Seven forwards going out (Matsumoto, Ross, Kolanos, Ward, Dingle, Bellamy, and Beaulieu – I could (maybe should) have included Mika Pyorala, who played 35 games, but decided against it. Assume Greg Moore takes his spot.), seven forwards coming in. Two defensemen going out, one defensemen coming in.
Net result per 82 games: +13.50 G; +0.71 A; +14.22 Pts
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Aug 15, 2010 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks, Geoff
Would you consider that a wash then? Player growth and better system should help too,though.
Erik Gustafsson has the potential to be the top scoring defender, so that will be very interesting to follow
Backing Backlund for 2010-2011
Mourning Gagne forever.
I’d consider it a win since the team is gaining 8 prospects and losing guys who are 22, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 27, 28, and 30. It certainly hurts to lose Matsumoto’s production, but other than that, if you take out Sean Curry’s 13.5 points/82 to make it an even 8 for 8 swap, it looks like an even bigger net gain.
In all, if the young guys stay healthy (something neither Kolanos nor Ward could do, only playing 83 games combined), the Phantoms will be better. There isn’t much to say about the loss of Matsumoto. Someone will have to step up and take over that role. Laliberte isn’t far off (0.078 points per game behind), so while the team is losing their top two scorers, their 3 through 6 scorers were Nodl, Maroon, Legein, and Laliberte. If they become the top-4 scorers next year, they only need to score on average of 10 points more next season to make up the difference between last year’s top-4.
So, less top-heavy (if you can call the 09-10 Phantoms that) and more balanced. For a team that wasn’t very talented, I think the move from a top-line with a bunch of third- and fourth- liners to a team full of second-liners is a lot better.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Aug 15, 2010 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions
This all sounds reasonable. But if the Flyers have a decent farm system then….I’m confused.
Backing Backlund for 2010-2011
Mourning Gagne forever.
haha, decent? None of these guys are even close to NHL ready – except maybe Nodl – and even then, the forwards are better, not great. The fill-ins will be the same – Nodl, Kalinski, and Laliberte – but it means down the road, the Flyers may have Pither, Wellwood, Labrecque, and a bunch of defensemen.
Now, how good they’ll be in the NHL, if they make it to the Flyers, if they’re traded, if they bust, etc. is still unknown. Plus, when’s the last time the Flyers groomed a defensemen from the AHL to top-pairing NHL player? Hell, second-pairing NHL player? I can’t even remember. Chris Therien?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Aug 16, 2010 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Ha ok. None of those guys really fit the role that the Flyers need to fill anyway, except Laliberte being a scoring winger.
That second sentence is why I’m so hopeful for Bartulis.
Backing Backlund for 2010-2011
Mourning Gagne forever.
Well, they only have 7 forwards signed for 11-12, so it would certainly be nice if some of them could come up and replace a high-priced player. Problem is, the Flyers will need role players next off-season (Zherdev, Leino, Carcillo, Powe) to cost less than they do now, or else Carter/Giroux can’t be afforded.
But Bartulis will have to beat a guy out in order to make this team during the next two years. He has 6 guys ahead of him next year too.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Aug 16, 2010 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions
I meant this season specifically, but hopefully they can make their way up. I really respect teams who are able to fill out their bottom 6 with players they have developed.
If Walker and O’Donnell prove to be expendable then it shouldn’t be too difficult to move them next season, if it takes that long.
Backing Backlund for 2010-2011
Mourning Gagne forever.
Im assuming the Moto had some problem with the organization, considering he could be a third center for the Canes this upcoming year.
saying "F**k Homer" since 7-19-10
Yeah, that’s why I mean he could have been a problem. Less of a team-first guy, more of a “I’ll show them” kinda guy. And it’s not at all that I blame him, really.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Aug 15, 2010 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions
My problem is that, we have three all star caliber centers(Richie, Briere, Giroux). So he wouldnt have been a top 3 liner, and he is probably above Betts, but:
A) why wast talent on the 4th line
B) isnt a defensive player, so he wouldnt work as well as Betts does on that line anyway.
So I dont mind him being traded. BUT, however, I dont under stand how a young, former third rounder, AHL all-star, whos about to take the biggest stride in his career, was traded for a 6th rounder??? Color me surprised there, I guess they took advantage of us knowing we wouldnt have used him ever, but still.
saying "F**k Homer" since 7-19-10
Entirely agree. I would like to know why they didn’t try him as a winger. Or bring him up last year on the west coast swing for two reasons: 1) See what he has in the NHL; and 2) As a gesture (maybe, treating him like family??) to show that the organization is willing to give him a chance rather than bury him in the minors, never to see him play.
I certainly understand why Ross was called up to replace Betts, but Moto wasn’t even a black ace. He wasn’t given the chance as a winger with the Flyers, so the team kept him blocked in the system. Curious.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Aug 15, 2010 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Good point
My theory is, although I agree that its wrong in most cases, is that any center can play wing in hockey, but not very winger can play center. I mean, the only thing that makes a center is just a forward thats either a playmaker or good at faceoffs. So Moto could have played wing with us too.
saying "F**k Homer" since 7-19-10
Exactly. Which makes me think it’s a good thing he went to Carolina. But any of this “the Flyers treated him like family, trading him somewhere he could play” crap and I’ll explode. Kid leads your putrid farm team in scoring two consecutive years, going over 60 points each time, scoring 20 goals per season in the AHL for three straight years, and he never even puts on a Flyers jersey?
He got a raw deal here and I wouldn’t be surprised – or upset – if he resented the organization and was a problem in the Adirondack locker room.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Aug 15, 2010 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Does that say as much about the Canes team as his possible problem with the Flyers?
Backing Backlund for 2010-2011
Mourning Gagne forever.
No
Moto could be a very, very good NHL player. Not saying Staal level, but with a good season or two, he could become their 2nd line C. With his skill level, and how he produced with the Phantoms, he has every right to be upset with The Flyers, who took lesser talents(Ross, Nodl) as call-ups. Every Player wants to play in the NHL, and Hes gonna get his wish this year with Carolina, where he wouldnt have gotten that with us.
saying "F**k Homer" since 7-19-10
Geoff: with regard to the 8 defenseman, if they send Bartulis down – does he have to clear waivers ?
haha, I wish I could answer that. Frank Seravalli has separate sources that conflict; Jen (DragonGirl) says he doesn’t, but that’s dependent on an unclear interpretation.
Answer: I don’t know, but I’m going to go with Jen on this one and say no.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Aug 15, 2010 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Bartulis signed his three-year entry-level contract in 2006, at age 19. That means this is his fourth season, since his extension kicks in this year. He’s played 60 NHL games so far (both regular season and playoff games count). Per the CBA, waiver exemption lasts for the shorter of 4 years or 160 games for a 19-year-old on his first contract. Thus, he should be exempt for this season. The number of games he has left on exemption is 99 (after the 160th game, he’s no longer exempt), which could not be reached until the Eastern Conference Finals at the earliest.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
If you saw the original thread I where I posted the whole mess, the issue is in the special definition for “age” provided in Article 13.
By that special definition for age in the notes section of 13.4, Bartulis meets definition for age 18. Breaking down the entire section, it’s not entirely clear whether he should be treated as 19 or as 18, and whether he needed 4 years or 5 years. Hence the confusion, because he has 4 years but he doesn’t have 5. It’s kind of a mess. That’s why I just left it all out there in that one thread a while back, because even though there’s an example of a player who was drafted at 18 but signs the following summer, that example doesn’t actually say whether that player is treated as an 18 year old or as a 19 year old, it leaves it ambiguous. I’m not really confident in either answer, really.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 16, 2010 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m trying to figure out how he meets the definition for an 18 year old: He was born in 1987. He signed in 2006, at which point he was 19 years old. Based on the language in the note (which is horribly written – seriously, “January 1 next preceding”? Oi vey), it looks like he should be counted as 19. He reached his 19th birthday in the calendar year of the 2006 Entry Draft.
And my confusion was in figuring when the contract took effect – I was thinking the Mocton year didn’t count, that he had signed in 2006-07 for a contract that started in 2007-08, but I think it was just slid a year.
Another question would be whether the waiver requirement is considered a term and provision of the contract, since Exhibit 16.4.b says that all terms and provisions of a slid contract slide with it. So now we’ve got three potentially relevant sections.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
But he was 18 at the time he was drafted in 2005, and that’s the real problem…. he was 19 when he signed, but I think it’s talking about the calendar year of the draft in which he was drafted, not the fact that there happened to be another draft in year he actually signed (2006). That’s where the ambiguity gets really ugly. And as I noted below, the slide rule talks about extending the contract for an additional year, but still, does it really change the signing date?
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 16, 2010 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Example b from 13.4 is why I’m thinking it’s the signing year – it talks about an 18-year-old being drafted but not signing until 19, and the age 18 year is marked as “n/a” rather than “exempt.”
And for the slide rule, I think the waiver exemption slides only if it’s considered a provision of the contract. I don’t think it is, but I remembered there being some odd wording in Exhibit 16 regarding slides, and that has slightly broader wording than Article 9.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
I agree with you about that example b, but that’s the one I said in the original reply that doesn’t actually say whether he’s 18 or 19, it leaves it open. It’s definitely N/A for age 18 because he wasn’t privy to an SPC anyway so there’s no way that year could count, but do the years elapsed since signing change from 5 to 4, or do they stay 5? It doesn’t actually tell us that, because it assumes the player will actually be called up at some point, invoking the section where it drops to 3 years after they get called up to the NHL early on in the contract. None of the examples give us any indication for the guys that actually need the 4 years or 5 years because they never get called up to have their years needed drop down to 3.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 16, 2010 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Looking at that example in a vacuum, I’m not sure that the difference is significant in the example or in Bartulis’ case, since in both it’s either from drafting and 5 years (age 23) or from signing and 4 years (age 23). Looking at it overall, I don’t see a way to argue that it’s 5 years from age 18, because the age when drafted isn’t referred to in Article 13. Everything refers to using the draft to determine the player’s age when signing. Regardless, either way the age 23 season is when the exemption expires. It would matter more if, for example, the player was drafted at 20 but signed at 21, since then the age of expiration and the games played requirement change (from 23 to 24 and 160 to 80). Based on the fact that the chart says “Years from Signing” and not “Years from Draft Selection,” along with example (b), I’m strongly inclined to go with signing and 4 years, but I can see how it’s a bit fuzzy.
I also read over the SPC, and the waiver exemption is not in the SPC, so it shouldn’t slide with the contract.
And I wasn’t happy with the examples either. Except for (d), every example lasts three years.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
The Slide Rule in Article 9 adds to the mess, too. During the 06-07 season, he was playing in the Q, but technically was privy to an SPC at the time and could have been called up to the Phantoms or Flyers. The Slide Rule’s language says it extends the contract for an additional year, it never say its changes the actual signing date; but then the 3 year contract gets treated as if 07-08 is the first year of the three year SPC. Then the Waiver exemption table wants the years from signing, it doesn’t say that it wants 3 years from whatever year was the first year of the SPC. So since it was signed in September of 2006, 4 playing seasons have elapsed (06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10), and this could be year 5 because nothing specifically tells us not to count 06-07. But it’s possible they don’t intend for us to count 06-07, though the special definitions in Article 13 don’t mention anything about it. So there’s the 2nd source of confusion. It’s not surprising for this to be difficult for the Flyers to figure out, even though I agree with Geoff, they should just make the phone calls to find out for sure.
So while I failed to mention it in the first reply, there were actually 2 major sources of confusion for this. I’ve been looking around trying to find precedent, but haven’t had the time to search around as much as I’d like, so I haven’t had much luck finding a situation that matches Bartulis’ case closely enough that includes enough details to determine what the exact precedent that has been set is.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 16, 2010 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions

by 



















