How signing Bob differed from the Hyka situation

by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 24, 2011 4:38 PM EDT

Now that Section 8.9(b) has been analyzed regarding the Tomas Hyka situation, there seems to be a lot of confusion regarding why Sergei Bobrovsky wasn't affected by the same rule. Bobrovsky was signed as an Undrafted Free Agent, but happened to be 21 at the moment of the signing, when the rule clearly affects European players under 22. Compounding the confusion is that a player's First SPC Signing Age in Article 9 is listed as being calculated on September 15th, and Bob's 22nd birthday wasn't until September 20th.

So how were we able to sign him?

To start with, one of the major sources of confusion in the NHL CBA is the word "age". There are no less than 4 distinct and potentially contradictory definitions for age throughout the document; so you have to work hard to ensure that any interpretation is using the correct one.

In this case, the restrictions that we've been looking at are in Article 8. So we need to look for the proper definition of age for that article, and we find in 8.10:

8.10 Age of Players. As used in this Article, "age 18" means a Player reaching his eighteenth birthday between January 1 next preceding the Entry Draft and September 15 next following the Entry Draft, both dates included; "age 19" means a Player reaching his nineteenth birthday by no later than September 15 in the calendar year of the Entry Draft; "age 20" means a Player reaching his twent ieth birthday by no later than December 31 in the calendar year of the Entry Draft; "age 21" means a Player reaching his twenty-first birthday by December 31 in the calendar year of the Entry Draft and "age 22" means a Player reaching his twenty-second birthday by December 31 in the calendar year of the Entry Draft.

By the terms of Article 8, Bob would be '22' for the 2010 Entry Draft.

In 8.4, it is defined which players are draft eligible:

8.4 Eligibility for Claim.
(a) All Players age 18 or older are eligible for claim in the Entry Draft, except:
(i) a Player on the Reserve List of a Club, other than as a try-out;
(ii) a Player who has been claimed in two prior Entry Drafts;
(iii) a Player who previously played in the League and became a Free Agent pursuant to this Agreement;
(iv) a Player age 21 or older who: (A) has not been selected in a previous Entry Draft and (B) played hockey for at least one season in North America when he was age 18, 19, or 20 and shall be eligible to enter the League as an Unrestricted Free Agent pursuant to Article 10.1(d); and
(v) a Player age 22 or older who has not been selected in a previous Entry Draft and shall be eligible to enter the League as an Unrestricted Free Agent pursuant to Article 10.1(d).

In 2010, Bob was going to fall under (v), so he was not eligible for the upcoming Draft. But wait, we signed him on May 6th, 2010. The draft hadn't happened yet! True, but his contract didn't actually take effect until the start of the following season on July 1st, just like the other contracts signed that day.

Let's look back at 10.1(d):

(d) Draft Related Unrestricted Free Agents.

(i) Any Player not eligible for claim in any future Entry Draft pursuant to this Agreement and not on a Club's Reserve List shall be an Unrestricted Free Agent. Further, any Player eligible for claim in the Entry Draft, but who was unclaimed, shall be an Unrestricted Free Agent subject to the provisions of Section 8.9(b).

(ii) Each Player referred to in subsection (d)(i) above shall, during the period of his Free Agency in accordance with Section 8.9(b), if applicable, be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC with any Club,

So I'm left with two possibilities: The first is that since Bob was going to be 22 for the upcoming draft, he falls into the first part of 10.1(d)(i) [italicized above], which makes him a straight up UFA. In that case, his eligibility to play in the league could fall under 8.9(a) instead of 8.9(b), because his contract didn't start until the beginning of the new season.

We have to look back at 8.9 a little bit closer:

8.9 Eligibility for Play in the League. No Player shall be eligible for play in the League unless he:
(a) had been claimed in the last Entry Draft, or was ineligible for claim under Section 8.4; or
(b) had been eligible for claim in the last Entry Draft, but was unclaimed, and:
...
(iii) had played hockey outside of North America in the prior season signed an SPC which was signed and registered with the League between the conclusion of the Entry Draft and the commencement of the next NHL Season.
(iv) The words "eligible for claim in the last Entry Draft" in subparagraph (b) above mean "eligible for claim in all rounds of the last Entry Draft." The words "the prior season" in subparagraph (i), (ii) and (iii) above mean "a full season prior to the last Entry Draft."

The second possibility comes from what I emphasized in 8.9(b)(iii). Bob's case may have followed the same logical progression through Articles 8 and 10 that Hyka's did; but because his contract didn't start until 2010-11, it may not count as having been registered with the league until after the 2010 draft occurred and the date range in 8.9(b)(iii) began.

As I said previously, this is a theory; but the fact that Bob was not eligible for 2010 draft, while Hyka will be eligible for the 2012 draft, is a very big distinction between the two cases. The only gray area with Bob is the fact that his contract was signed before the 2010 Draft officially occurred, but that only matters in regards to whether signing him in May was allowable or if they were technically supposed to wait until late June. Either way, it's completely different from Hyka's case.

This item was written by a member of this community and is not necessarily endorsed by Broad Street Hockey.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | Add comment | 4 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Bill Meltzer should thank you for doing the research he should have done.

If Brzy doesn't do right by Bob I'll kick his $51 million ass across the WFC.

by BHMB on Sep 25, 2011 8:43 AM EDT reply actions

Like I said yesterday in a different thread, I don’t expect everybody to understand the intricacies of how different articles in the document fit together. It’s really not most people’s job to read it cover to cover. He did say on Twitter that he was looking forward to my article when I told him I was writing it, so that’s close enough to a thank you for me.

Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.

by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 25, 2011 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions

I’ll take your word for it, like I usually do. Thanks.

Hyka'n it up a notch.

by Brock on Sep 25, 2011 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions

Funny, because I think the opposite: if your job is to cover a hockey team, I think this is one thing you should know. At least to the point where you can look at it and make your own conclusions, not just take what is spoon fed from a team. (Speaking of the writers in general, not specifically Bill, or even just the Flyers writers.)

G, the second coming of Foppa.

by JerseyDriver on Sep 25, 2011 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Right, but this part is somewhat difficult, it’s not as black and white as Hyka’s explanation or the whole suspensions/salary cap thing. You can look things up in the document all you want, but until you’ve looked at the whole thing multiple times, you don’t understand the word “age”. Some of the writers have tried to look things up and I give them credit for attempting it, but they haven’t been forced to do a major study of document. It took me months to fully understand how “age” is defined and which definitions to use in which area. Article 8 is reasonable, because it tells you which definition to use in that section. Some of the others aren’t as clear, and you wrack your brain to figure it out.

Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.

by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 25, 2011 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes, I know you guys have mentioned definitions and facts are sometimes unclear and all over the place. But if this is your job, and the CBA has such a big part in the way hockey is played now because of its power over salaries to start with (who you can fit) and drafting and signings (all the fun stuff of this week), why wouldn’t you want to know it inside and out? Might help you get a “big” story when you ask the question no one else knows. Annoys me when we have the “kings new clothes” situation and it always seems to be a blogger who starts asking the right questions.

To make a comparison, I do work on fire alarms, and therefore have to know the code books for electrical and fire. My boss only has a cursory knowledge, and leans on me for more in depth insight when needed. If an inspector has a question, tells us we need to fix/change something and it’s going to cost our company money to complete, but he’s actually wrong, we need to know. This is where my head starts to hurt with the questions about the Flyers FO and who’s the CBA person; whomever they are, they should just know, or be able to quickly find the answer. They should be professional about it, and the writers should know enough to be able to ask the hard question.

G, the second coming of Foppa.

by JerseyDriver on Sep 25, 2011 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions

I think the Flyers people have to know because they’re getting paid to, but the writers only need to a) have knowledge of how things generally work and the things that are clearly stated, and b) know where to go to get information/who to ask on the complicated stuff so they can then ask the Flyers hard questions.

What I’m contesting is the idea that the beat writers themselves need to know the CBA inside and out the way I do, or the way you know your code books. If that’s not what you meant, then I misinterpreted you. But their job description does not include “spend months of your time memorizing the document and researching precedent of how all these rules have been used in the past”. I think that it’s unreasonable to expect them to understand the really complicated stuff that has taken me months of time to truly understand. They’re spending hours at the rink, not hours in front of the computer reading the CBA, and they’re not all dedicated solely to writing about the Flyers for 1 publication. Some of them have other topics to cover for the paper, or write for multiple places so that it adds up to a full time job. I’m not at the rink analyzing practice and trying to get player interviews, so I’m able to to focus solely on one thing. Being on a blog also means that I’m not subject to the type of hard deadlines a newpaper reporter is, and also that I’m allowed to explore this at my whim and it doesn’t matter whether or not my editor thinks it’s the most interesting thing to put in the paper the next day. Writing about the CBA will appeal to the diehards, but 95% of the people who pick up the paper in the morning don’t care enough to read about the CBA, they’ll see the article and their eyes will glaze over. The big scoops generated by the CBA will be few and far between, most of what I deal with here is trying to answer questions asked by those who care and not pander to the general population of the area.

Thus, it makes perfect sense to me that the people on the web who knows the CBA best are bloggers; the problem is that the team officials should know it as well or better than the bloggers do. The team has access to far more information than we have, so in a perfect world the writers would have the ability to trust the team to a certain degree, and should only need to have a thorough enough knowledge to say “that sounds wrong, hang on I need to get more information here”.

Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.

by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 25, 2011 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions

I understand your point and agree to an extent. Just think it would be one of those things you would want to spend some time on, and at this point, with all the things the team has gotten wrong, it would hopefully become more of a priority. Maybe enough you could get you boss to give you the time to get into the CBA in depth. But of course at this point you just have to start anew next off season with the new one.

G, the second coming of Foppa.

by JerseyDriver on Sep 25, 2011 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions

I’m a bit of a broken record here, but the key is, and what DG is sensational at, viewing the “combination” of paragraphs and determining “which paragraph is the primary control.” Taken at face value, many individual paragraphs are quite clear. However, the combination of paragraphs is extremely complex, and often in conflict. The Hyka case is classic in this regard. It requires flow-chart type of analysis.

Based on their deployment of cap resources, I don’t think the Flyers are especially good at that type of analysis.

And I don’t know too many sportswriters with graduate-level statistical or documentary analysis skills.

Hunter Pence will not guarantee a WS, but, then, neither does Carlos Beltran.

by Bud in TN on Sep 25, 2011 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions

True, so then I guess we need DGB to make up a flow chart for the head offices throughout the league?

G, the second coming of Foppa.

by JerseyDriver on Sep 25, 2011 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions

That should be pretty easy…. It could go something like this:

Q: What section are you having trouble with?

A) Article 50 (payroll) -—————→ Contact Matt from CapGeek
B) Article 26 (circumvention) -——> Contact Quisp from JftC
C) Free Agency or Waivers? -——→ Contact DG from BSH

That should cover most of it….

Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.

by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 25, 2011 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions

He did say on Twitter that he was looking forward to my article when I told him I was writing it

That’s pretty cool. Just sayin’.

Lightning strikes once, Hextall strikes twice!
"I think there is virtue in pissing off idiots." - Fehr and Balanced

by hintzy64 on Sep 25, 2011 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Fantastic work.

Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor

by Geoff Detweiler on Sep 25, 2011 12:28 PM EDT reply actions