PDA

View Full Version : Article: Why Anthony Duclair is Unlikely to Stay in NHL for Eligibility Reasons



Phil in Absentia
09-29-2014, 10:47 AM
So here is my best attempt to explain what the Rangers are looking at contractually when they evaluate whether or not to keep Duclair on their regular season roster:

1. Duclair is 19 years old so he is not eligible to play in the AHL this season. If he is kept on the NHL roster, he cannot be sent back down to the Hartford Wolf Pack. He can only be sent back to his junior team. If he is sent to his junior team, whether during the preseason or the regular season, he most likely stays there for the rest of the season, because recalls from juniors are much more difficult – they may only be allowed to occur on an emergency basis, I believe.

2. If Duclair makes this season’s NHL roster at any point, even for one game, the Rangers have to cut a player under contract to remain at the 50-player limit for contracts. Duclair signed an entry-level deal with the Rangers on Jan. 2, 2014 (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/rangers/ny-rangers-agree-terms-2013-third-round-pick-left-wing-anthony-duclair-qmjhl-entry-level-deal-blog-entry-1.1636480), but it is not officially on the books yet because he hasn’t turned pro. If he turns pro now, the Rangers would have 51 players under contract and would need to get rid of someone else to trim back to 50.

3. Duclair signed his three-year entry-level contract in January, but when he continued playing in juniors that season, his contract did what is called an “entry-level slide” for the 2013-14 season – everything moved back one year. So right now his three-year contract looks like this (2014-15 season is Year 1; 2015-16 season is Year 2; 2016-17 season is Year 3 - link is to Capgeek.com breakdown) (http://www.capgeek.com/player/2851).

4. OK, so stay with me. This is where it gets confusing. Typically, Duclair’s contract would “slide” another full year ahead if he stayed in juniors this season, pushing the entire three-year deal back again. However, because Duclair did not sign until Jan. 2 – missing the Dec. 31, 2013 deadline – he does not get a second slide year. This means that no matter whether he plays in the NHL or juniors this season, Duclair will have only two years remaining on his entry-level deal after this season. He therefore will become eligible for restricted free agency in 2017 no matter what, without arbitration rights. It was reported that Duclair’s camp wanted it that way, which I don’t understand but will try to learn more about.

5. So we’ve established that Duclair’s contract will have only two years remaining on it after this season. That leaves two scenarios for this season: Duclair makes the team, the Rangers cut a player to stay at 50 contracts, and pay him for the first year of a three-year contract; OR, Duclair returns to juniors and the first year of this three-year deal disappears, the Rangers don’t need to cut a player, and the team doesn’t have to pay for it.

6. There is a way, however, that Duclair can make the Rangers roster but not force them to pay for that first contract year: Duclair can play in up to nine NHL games before returning to juniors without that Year One of the contract kicking in. The drawback of that, though, is that the team would have to cut a player to remain at the 50-player contract limit once Duclair played even one game.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/rangers/injuries-matthew-lombardi-ryan-malone-give-rangers-youngsters-kevin-hayes-oscar-lindberg-greater-opportunity-blog-entry-1.1956083

--

To clarify even farther, when Leonard mentions the term "cut", it is not in the same sense as it exists elsewhere, say the NFL for example. The Rangers would actually have to make a trade where a body doesn't come back to them (as in a deal for futures or a draft pick or picks) in order to get to 50 contracts again, presuming Duclair makes the roster. Players under the NHL CBA cannot have their contracts "cut" or walked away from unless both parties agree to a mutual termination, which rarely occurs, and most often occurs through $125 buyout waivers, where the player is leaving the NHL for Europe mid-season.

So Nashty
09-29-2014, 10:51 AM
He's 19 and looks great.. Let him dominate in juniors one more season. No reason to rush him or complicate things in my opinion.

AmericanJesus
09-29-2014, 10:53 AM
I don't think Leonard is right on the contract situation. I thought if a ELC doesn't slide, it counts against the 50 contact max.

Drew a Penalty
09-29-2014, 12:35 PM
I don't think Leonard is right on the contract situation. I thought if a ELC doesn't slide, it counts against the 50 contact max.

Correct. The only player we have under contract not on the 50 contract list is Ryan Graves.

Phil in Absentia
09-29-2014, 12:43 PM
I'm confused again. CapGeek has the Rangers at 52 contracts, with the only slide eligible deal being Ryan Graves.

How is it the Rangers get to 50 if Duclair doesn't slide? This makes no sense.

G1000
09-29-2014, 01:13 PM
I recognize the contractual stuff, and I recognize the whole concept of "ruining a player", but if the dude can hang with the big guns, I've got literally zero aversion to accommodating Duclair.

It's also largely because I hate this "well, he's great, but he's young and we shouldn't rush him" argument, because I'm a huge proponent of icing the best team possible. If Duclair is one of the best 12, I'd rather have him there.

TwoMinutesForNothing
09-29-2014, 01:16 PM
I'm confused again. CapGeek has the Rangers at 52 contracts, with the only slide eligible deal being Ryan Graves.

How is it the Rangers get to 50 if Duclair doesn't slide? This makes no sense.

Calle Andersson is in Europe.

Vodka Drunkenski
09-29-2014, 01:18 PM
I recognize the contractual stuff, and I recognize the whole concept of "ruining a player", but if the dude can hang with the big guns, I've got literally zero aversion to accommodating Duclair. It's also largely because I hate this "well, he's great, but he's young and we shouldn't rush him" argument, because I'm a huge proponent of icing the best team possible. If Duclair is one of the best 12, I'd rather have him there.

If he's suppose to be a top 3 player in the future, what's the point of giving him bottom 6 minutes as a 19 year old? Doesn't make any sense to me.

G1000
09-29-2014, 01:20 PM
If he's suppose to be a top 3 player in the future, what's the point of giving him bottom 6 minutes as a 19 year old? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Don't most future top6 players start out on the third line?

I mean, the real source of this issue is the AHL having a minimum age requirement of 20, which in and all of itself is stupid.

Either way - if he's the best 3rd line LW we have, he should be our starting 3rd line LW - especially considering how Vigneault prefers a top 9 and bottom 3 as opposed to a top6/bottom6

Kevin
09-29-2014, 01:21 PM
It takes a special talent to make it in the NHL as an 18 y.o. but we see it happen every year. Duclair was given a whole additional season to dominate in juniors and not really sure what he can accomplish there doing the same again other than being the main target for other teams. I hate that he can't play in the AHL this season. My biggest fear is if they keep him up and the growing pains become too painful, what do you do with him without stalling his growth as a player?

AmericanJesus
09-29-2014, 01:22 PM
If he's suppose to be a top 3 player in the future, what's the point of giving him bottom 6 minutes as a 19 year old? Doesn't make any sense to me.

As long as those are top 9 and not bottom 3 minutes it should be fine. What would hurt is him on the fourth line or as a healthy scratch for too long. Kid has a few more preseason games and then possibly the start of the season if he makes it that far. If he can play a top 9 role in the NHL on a relatively deep team then he's probably out grown juniors, no?

Still a lot to prove but we shall see.

Slobberknocker
09-29-2014, 01:23 PM
given what he's done in the Quebec league I dont think the coaching staff is slotting him in the bottom six.

however i dont see a need to rush him regardless of what he does the next few pre season game. rather have him down in juniors and let him flourish. nothing to say he can't come up for the playoffs.

Phil in Absentia
09-29-2014, 01:30 PM
I recognize the contractual stuff, and I recognize the whole concept of "ruining a player", but if the dude can hang with the big guns, I've got literally zero aversion to accommodating Duclair.

It's also largely because I hate this "well, he's great, but he's young and we shouldn't rush him" argument, because I'm a huge proponent of icing the best team possible. If Duclair is one of the best 12, I'd rather have him there.

Which is fine in principle, but like Del Zotto before him, the problem is in the idea of him regressing during the year and not being able to be assigned to Hartford until the following season, which can be taken as a demotion (just ask Del Zotto).

You are basically throwing all your eggs into his basket and telling him "sink or swim".


Calle Andersson is in Europe.

And that allows his contract to slide as well?

Cash or Czech?
09-29-2014, 01:33 PM
Don't most future top6 players start out on the third line?

I mean, the real source of this issue is the AHL having a minimum age requirement of 20, which in and all of itself is stupid.

Either way - if he's the best 3rd line LW we have, he should be our starting 3rd line LW - especially considering how Vigneault prefers a top 9 and bottom 3 as opposed to a top6/bottom6

Actually that's a rule only for players drafted out of Canadian Juniors. If Duclair was drafted out of the NCAA, USHL, Europe or High School, he'd be eligible for the AHL right now. That's what happened to Miller and also is the case for Tambellini. Both were drafted as they were going into college. Miller decided to take the CHL route after and Tambellini switched halfway through. That's how Miller played in the AHL as a 19-year old.

I believe that with the injuries if Duclair earns it over other players such as Fast and Hayes, he should and will have a top-9 role for at least the first 9 games. If he isn't ready to be an NHLer full time and other players are performing better, send him back. It's not a case of if he's ready or not, it's if he's the best player for the spot. If he isn't, we're wasting his time and ours.

AmericanJesus
09-29-2014, 01:36 PM
From the CBA under definition of Reserve List:


Not more than 50 Players signed to an SPC and not less than 24 Players and 3
goalkeepers under an SPC. Age 18 and age 19 Players who were returned to Juniors, and who
have not played 11 NHL Games in one season, shall be exempt from inclusion in the 50 Player
limit.

This is different than the slide rule, which I believe relates to the calendar year in which the player signed their first contract. As Leonard noted, Duclair's camp wanted to sign after January 1st, so he can't slide a second time.

G1000
09-29-2014, 02:04 PM
Which is fine in principle, but like Del Zotto before him, the problem is in the idea of him regressing during the year and not being able to be assigned to Hartford until the following season, which can be taken as a demotion (just ask Del Zotto).

You are basically throwing all your eggs into his basket and telling him "sink or swim".


Eh, it's hard to compare what worked and didn't with DZ vs what will and won't with Duclair. There are way too many variables. I'd treat them uniquely - Duclair might be mentally resilient enough to deal with the "what if" part of it whereas DZ had his ups and downs there.

I think I'm mostly against the "beautiful, unique, don't melt the snowflake" approach here. Sometimes it's going to be better to let the wolf join the pack (no pun intended) as a pup.

Vodka Drunkenski
09-29-2014, 02:06 PM
Don't most future top6 players start out on the third line? I mean, the real source of this issue is the AHL having a minimum age requirement of 20, which in and all of itself is stupid. Either way - if he's the best 3rd line LW we have, he should be our starting 3rd line LW - especially considering how Vigneault prefers a top 9 and bottom 3 as opposed to a top6/bottom6

I agree that the root cause is the AHL rule

momentum
09-29-2014, 04:55 PM
It's a difficult situation because I'm a firm believer in icing the best team possible. If Duclair is ready to play with the big boys and is our best player at an offensive winger position I don't see any point whatsoever in letting him play on an inferior team against inferior opponents just to "age" another year. But at the same time if he made the team I would want the ability to send him down if he hit a wall or something.
This is a situation where it really comes down to what kind of kid Duclair is and how MATURE and READY he really is, some kids are ready at 19 some are not. It's up to the Rangers organisation to have smart enough experienced enough people there that can accurately judge the ability and maturity level of a kid like Duclair. They should probably go back and talk to every coach and mentor he ever had to find out about the true state of his mind and include that in their final judgement if he can stay or not.
If he is TRULY ready and is our best player at a given position he SHOULD PLAY, the question is simply to determine if he IS ready or not.

If they want him on the team they need to have a serious sit down meeting with him and talk about potential pitfalls and scenarios and ask him how he would handle them etc. After talking to ppl who knows him his whole life and after having a serious interview him they should be able to analyze if he really is ready or not.

Phil in Absentia
09-29-2014, 05:03 PM
It's a difficult situation because I'm a firm believer in icing the best team possible. If Duclair is ready to play with the big boys and is our best player at an offensive winger position I don't see any point whatsoever in letting him play on an inferior team against inferior opponents just to "age" another year. But at the same time if he made the team I would want the ability to send him down if he hit a wall or something.
This is a situation where it really comes down to what kind of kid Duclair is and how MATURE and READY he really is, some kids are ready at 19 some are not. It's up to the Rangers organisation to have smart enough experienced enough people there that can accurately judge the ability and maturity level of a kid like Duclair. They should probably go back and talk to every coach and mentor he ever had to find out about the true state of his mind and include that in their final judgement if he can stay or not.
If he is TRULY ready and is our best player at a given position he SHOULD PLAY, the question is simply to determine if he IS ready or not.

If they want him on the team they need to have a serious sit down meeting with him and talk about potential pitfalls and scenarios and ask him how he would handle them etc. After talking to ppl who knows him his whole life and after having a serious interview him they should be able to analyze if he really is ready or not.

The only issue with this is that you'd be determining whether this kid is "ready" for the show based on a handful of preseason games where teams often only ice half their NHL talent in any given game, and his career in the Q to this point, which is a far cry from the talent level and readiness creation of the AHL.

In short, there's more to it than "did he show talent in his preseason games?"

You're taking a pretty substantial risk in jumping over the single greatest tool for readying players for the NHL/pro level, which is the AHL, when the player you are leap-frogging isn't eligible to play there in the event of catastrophic failure or regression.

TwoMinutesForNothing
09-29-2014, 05:08 PM
Which is fine in principle, but like Del Zotto before him, the problem is in the idea of him regressing during the year and not being able to be assigned to Hartford until the following season, which can be taken as a demotion (just ask Del Zotto).

You are basically throwing all your eggs into his basket and telling him "sink or swim".



And that allows his contract to slide as well?

Yeah I think anybody's contract slides while they are in Europe. It's why Nashville continued to hold Radulov's RFA rights.

Future
09-29-2014, 05:10 PM
We could still give him the 9 games early in the season though right? I would do that, and with Stepan injured, you don't have to cut anybody. Give him top 6 minutes and just see what happens. The Rangers play 9 games in October, and, if Stepan is back on Nov. 1, he doesn't miss a game. You might have to get cute at center for those first 9, but I think it would be worth it to see what Duclair brings to the table.

And on this team, the top 6 is essentially going to be the top 9. They're going to put three scoring lines out there on the ice.

Phil in Absentia
09-29-2014, 05:14 PM
We could still give him the 9 games early in the season though right? I would do that, and with Stepan injured, you don't have to cut anybody. Give him top 6 minutes and just see what happens. The Rangers play 9 games in October, and, if Stepan is back on Nov. 1, he doesn't miss a game. You might have to get cute at center for those first 9, but I think it would be worth it to see what Duclair brings to the table.

And on this team, the top 6 is essentially going to be the top 9. They're going to put three scoring lines out there on the ice.

Stepan would have to be placed on LTIR, and miss all nine of those games. If he came back earlier, Duclair would have to be sent to Junior immediately in order for the Rangers to be compliant on the 50 contract limit.

Future
09-29-2014, 05:20 PM
Stepan would have to be placed on LTIR, and miss all nine of those games. If he came back earlier, Duclair would have to be sent to Junior immediately in order for the Rangers to be compliant on the 50 contract limit.
Sounds like a good plan to me lol

AmericanJesus
09-29-2014, 05:25 PM
Stepan would have to be placed on LTIR, and miss all nine of those games. If he came back earlier, Duclair would have to be sent to Junior immediately in order for the Rangers to be compliant on the 50 contract limit.

To make this easier, here is CapGeek's Rangers reserve list:

http://www.capgeek.com/rangers/reserve-list/

As you can see, there are 52 names, with Graves and Duclair highlighted, meaning if they are returned to their Junior team, they won't count against the 50 contract limit. I have never seen anything saying that a player on LTIR does not count on the reserve list. So to keep it simple, if Duclair plays game 1, the Rangers have to shed at least 1 contract.

To be clear though, I'd imagine that if a guy like Lombardi, Stempniak or Malone hit waivers, there's a fair chance they would get claimed. There is also a chance Desjardin, either Bourque, Tarnasky or Kampfer get claimed when they're sent to Hartford.

Finally, we've been over Kristo's contract status. If he doesn't make the cut, it would be in the Rangers' best interest to try to pick up a draft pick from a team that might have use for him at the NHL level this season.

In short, there are plenty of avenues to get rid of a contract.

momentum
09-29-2014, 05:33 PM
The only issue with this is that you'd be determining whether this kid is "ready" for the show based on a handful of preseason games where teams often only ice half their NHL talent in any given game, and his career in the Q to this point, which is a far cry from the talent level and readiness creation of the AHL.

In short, there's more to it than "did he show talent in his preseason games?"

You're taking a pretty substantial risk in jumping over the single greatest tool for readying players for the NHL/pro level, which is the AHL, when the player you are leap-frogging isn't eligible to play there in the event of catastrophic failure or regression.

Everything you say is true yet still there are 19 year olds that are ready and can play in the NHL, Duclair could be one of them or perhaps he is not. The hard thing is determining if he is or he isn't because as you say it's only a few pre season games etc.
I think it's much more about the mental part that is in question than his actualy abillity to physcially play in the NHL, i'm sure he's better talent wise and skill wise than many players already playing in the NHL, the problem is the mental part when the goings get tough, how his confidence fares when in a slump etc.
One could say it's not worth the "risk" of something bad happening but it's always the WHAT IF he IS READY and is a superior player to many on our team, what if continuing in juniors would simply be holding him back from having a great rookie season in the NHL helping our team win....it's a really tough siutation imo.

Phil in Absentia
09-29-2014, 05:37 PM
Everything you say is true yet still there are 19 year olds that are ready and can play in the NHL, Duclair could be one of them or perhaps he is not. The hard thing is determining if he is or he isn't because as you say it's only a few pre season games etc.
I think it's much more about the mental part that is in question than his actualy abillity to physcially play in the NHL, i'm sure he's better talent wise and skill wise than many players already playing in the NHL, the problem is the mental part when the goings get tough, how his confidence fares when in a slump etc.

My worry is that they do with him what the Jackets did with Ryan Johansen, where they fast-track him to the show way to early and nearly derail his career in the process. Now, Johansen bounced-back just fine, but he was rapidly approaching the B-word before he re-defined it as bloom last year. Duclair doesn't have the same expectations as Johansen, because we're talking about 80th overall (Duclair) versus 4th overall, but what Johansen's case does show is that when a player really isn't ready, they really aren't ready, which is why teams tend to send Junior-eligible players back.

That said, I do agree that the best judge of character here is the Rangers' staff. If they decide he's ready, then its bright lights and he's got my full support either way. I just know that with kids like this, my worry is always what happens when the adrenaline wears off.

Gorilla Salad
09-29-2014, 05:45 PM
Which is fine in principle, but like Del Zotto before him, the problem is in the idea of him regressing during the year and not being able to be assigned to Hartford until the following season, which can be taken as a demotion (just ask Del Zotto).

You are basically throwing all your eggs into his basket and telling him "sink or swim".

And that allows his contract to slide as well?

This kid has confidence and poise. I'm sick and tired of the "ruining his development" argument. For once, let's see what we've got, the kid dominated juniors and even if he's on the 4th line, he's going to be happy as a pig in shit and will work his balls off to continue to get better. Maybe he'll earn a spot in the top 6, who knows? Just ONCE, I want to see this team have a prized jewel at a young age that comes in and is an immediate impact star.

Phil in Absentia
09-29-2014, 07:13 PM
This kid has confidence and poise. I'm sick and tired of the "ruining his development" argument. For once, let's see what we've got, the kid dominated juniors and even if he's on the 4th line, he's going to be happy as a pig in shit and will work his balls off to continue to get better. Maybe he'll earn a spot in the top 6, who knows? Just ONCE, I want to see this team have a prized jewel at a young age that comes in and is an immediate impact star.

You've seen it already. Chris Kreider most recently (who stepped in in the playoffs), and Michael Del Zotto before him.

And I'm not arguing that this will ruin his development. I'm presenting an argument that cites that as a concern. There's a big difference between the two.

AmericanJesus
09-29-2014, 08:38 PM
You've seen it already. Chris Kreider most recently (who stepped in in the playoffs), and Michael Del Zotto before him.

And I'm not arguing that this will ruin his development. I'm presenting an argument that cites that as a concern. There's a big difference between the two.

Given where we are, contention-wise, isn't now the time where you take that gamble? If he could have a MDZ type rookie season, that would be a huge boost to our Cup chances.

JOHN
09-29-2014, 09:01 PM
I'm sold on Duclair. Fuck logic, this kid is a goal scorer, is hungry and has the right attitude. He's not afraid to be an NHL'er.

Phil in Absentia
09-29-2014, 09:18 PM
Given where we are, contention-wise, isn't now the time where you take that gamble? If he could have a MDZ type rookie season, that would be a huge boost to our Cup chances.

Sure, and you could argue that based on the success of the team who won the Cup, that it's quite necessary for these types of impact young forwards/players to crack your line-up in winning seasons.

JOHN
09-29-2014, 09:23 PM
Sure, and you could argue that based on the success of the team who won the Cup, that it's quite necessary for these types of impact young forwards/players to crack your line-up in winning seasons.

I wouldn't say team, rather teams. The last 3 SC winners have all had impact rookies.

GordonGecko
09-30-2014, 12:10 AM
I think Tony D has definitely earned himself a 9 game tryout

EdMc28
09-30-2014, 01:18 AM
His size is the only thing that worries me. The guy is a twig. If he makes the team I hope the organization has some sort of plan as to how to have him add on some muscle as the season goes along.

Blue Heaven
09-30-2014, 08:00 AM
Its inevitable, he'll be up with the big club, around Game 44 he's gonna hit a wall and lots of people will say, he should have been sent back to Juniors.

JOHN
09-30-2014, 08:30 AM
Its inevitable, he'll be up with the big club, around Game 44 he's gonna hit a wall and lots of people will say, he should have been sent back to Juniors.

He's going to be on the third line once Malone and Stepan are back. I don't think a wall will really matter, especially if we are winning regardless.

The guys who needs to be looked at with harsh criticism are St. Louis, Nash, Stepan, Hagelin, Brassard and Zuke. They're the top 6, and they're the guys who needs to set the tone for this team. Haggarty and Duclair need to be evaluated and looked at consistently, and put into the right positions, but they definitely should not be under the microscope. If they are, then the coaching staff isn't making the right decisions.

Future
09-30-2014, 08:44 AM
He's going to be on the third line once Malone and Stepan are back. I don't think a wall will really matter, especially if we are winning regardless.

The guys who needs to be looked at with harsh criticism are St. Louis, Nash, Stepan, Hagelin, Brassard and Zuke. They're the top 6, and they're the guys who needs to set the tone for this team. Haggarty and Duclair need to be evaluated and looked at consistently, and put into the right positions, but they definitely should not be under the microscope. If they are, then the coaching staff isn't making the right decisions.
Third line is OK for him. 12 minutes a night in the NHL will do him more good than 20 in juniors, especially on a team that is going to roll 3 lines.

I'm almost tempted to want to see a line of Duclair - Miller - Haggerty, just to see what they would do. If that means kicking out Malone, so be it.

JOHN
09-30-2014, 08:46 AM
I really don't think Miller should be on this team, let alone on that line. He's a turnover machine, and I have yet to see enough evidence to change that perception of him.

phillyb™
09-30-2014, 09:02 AM
give him his 9 games.
ask him after each game how he think he's doing.
give him time with MSL.
make your final judgment between games 6-8.

what was the deal with mackinnon? isn't he just as young as duclair? he played a full season last year, right?
is he "better" than duclair?
or did colorado have the same kind of conundrum that we're in?

Future
09-30-2014, 09:27 AM
what was the deal with mackinnon? isn't he just as young as duclair? he played a full season last year, right?
is he "better" than duclair?
or did colorado have the same kind of conundrum that we're in?
Duclair is like a week older than Mackinnon I think.

I'd imagine Colorado went through the same process...Mackinnon's TOI started around 12 mpg and then gradually increased as the season went on, so I would assume that meant he was starting on the third line. Now Colorado doesn't have the same forward depth in the top 6 as the Rangers, so I don't think Duclair would get up to the 20 min mark, but you have to think that Colorado decided Mackinnon would learn more playing fewer minutes in the NHL than dominating in Juniors. I think the Rangers should have the same thoughts on Duclair.

One thing to note...Mackinnon never topped 78 points in Juniors, but Duclair had 99 last year. Granted, he was a year older, but that's wild production.

Pete
09-30-2014, 09:38 AM
Third line is OK for him. 12 minutes a night in the NHL will do him more good than 20 in juniors, especially on a team that is going to roll 3 lines.

I'm almost tempted to want to see a line of Duclair - Miller - Haggerty, just to see what they would do. If that means kicking out Malone, so be it.

This isn't exactly true.

He's going to have to be tested and learn in pressure situations. That test will come as a first liner in junior before a 3rd liner in the NHL. In tight games, the rooks are going to be the ones who sit when the bench gets shortened.

Simply put, if it comes down to him being the go-to option in junior, or him being sat for the last 10 minutes of a close game — then go back to junior, play in the WJC, etc. No player ever got worse by spending more time developing.

CreaseCrusader91
09-30-2014, 09:40 AM
I agree with the above, but think there is more value learning how to play in the NHL. Is he really going to get better schooling kids younger than him or his same age?

I'm not sure what more he can learn in a league where he isn't being tested.

I think they should move a body for flexibility and give him an extended NHL look and then send him back if he shows he can't hack it.

Pete
09-30-2014, 09:41 AM
Duclair is like a week older than Mackinnon I think.

I'd imagine Colorado went through the same process...Mackinnon's TOI started around 12 mpg and then gradually increased as the season went on, so I would assume that meant he was starting on the third line. Now Colorado doesn't have the same forward depth in the top 6 as the Rangers, so I don't think Duclair would get up to the 20 min mark, but you have to think that Colorado decided Mackinnon would learn more playing fewer minutes in the NHL than dominating in Juniors. I think the Rangers should have the same thoughts on Duclair.

One thing to note...Mackinnon never topped 78 points in Juniors, but Duclair had 99 last year. Granted, he was a year older, but that's wild production.

He was a year older and played more games, as well. MacKinnon had 78 in 58, then 75 in 44.

Future
09-30-2014, 10:00 AM
He was a year older and played more games, as well. MacKinnon had 78 in 58, then 75 in 44.
Ah, I didn't realize that. Forgot to look at games played. Still basically the same PPG though in their best years.

I agree with the above, but think there is more value learning how to play in the NHL. Is he really going to get better schooling kids younger than him or his same age?

I'm not sure what more he can learn in a league where he isn't being tested.

I think they should move a body for flexibility and give him an extended NHL look and then send him back if he shows he can't hack it.
I agree with that. I tend to think that there'd be a lot more pressure at the NHL level, even in the course of a regular game, than there would be late in a junior game. I don't think he's going to get any better playing against 17 year olds.

lefty9
09-30-2014, 10:10 AM
I don't want to take anything away from the kid he has done great, but I think he would be better off learning in the Ahl level instead of nhl, I know it's not an option, so going back to juniors could be his best option

phillyb™
09-30-2014, 10:18 AM
#wecareforduclair

Puck Head
09-30-2014, 01:03 PM
I understand how everyone could be pretty excited about Duclair....I also feel it.
But it might be time to curb our enthusiasm a little bit.

First off really can't compare Duclair to MacKinnon. Mackinnon had 75pts in 44 games leading to his draft year.
Duclair had 50 pts in 55 games. MacKinnon was a #1 overall draft pick, think Tavares, Stampkos, etc. He's a franchise player.

I'm all for giving Duclair as much experience here as we can. But once Stepan is healthy, I just don't see any spot for Duclair.
Stepan, Kredier, MSL, Nash, Zucc, Brassard, and Hagelin are pretty much locks on the top 3 lines.
Add Miller, and that only leaves one spot open. Between Malone, Hayes, Haggerty, etc....I think it would be a mistake to keep Duclair here.

CreaseCrusader91
09-30-2014, 01:09 PM
I understand how everyone could be pretty excited about Duclair....I also feel it.
But it might be time to curb our enthusiasm a little bit.

First off really can't compare Duclair to MacKinnon. Mackinnon had 75pts in 44 games leading to his draft year.
Duclair had 50 pts in 55 games. MacKinnon was a #1 overall draft pick, think Tavares, Stampkos, etc. He's a franchise player.

I'm all for giving Duclair as much experience here as we can. But once Stepan is healthy, I just don't see any spot for Duclair.
Stepan, Kredier, MSL, Nash, Zucc, Brassard, and Hagelin are pretty much locks on the top 3 lines.
Add Miller, and that only leaves one spot open. Between Malone, Hayes, Haggerty, etc....I think it would be a mistake to keep Duclair here.

I think the best players should make the team. If he shows he is capable he shouldn't be demoted when Stepan comes back to shift one of our C/W back to the wing. I feel we should keep him as long as we can since the deal slides. If he shows he can hack it, keep him. If not demote him. I think the comparisons are being drawn because he was supposed to be a first round talent.

I agree they aren't close, but to be fair both are different players in style.

Future
09-30-2014, 01:11 PM
I'm all for giving Duclair as much experience here as we can. But once Stepan is healthy, I just don't see any spot for Duclair.
Stepan, Kredier, MSL, Nash, Zucc, Brassard, and Hagelin are pretty much locks on the top 3 lines.
Add Miller, and that only leaves one spot open. Between Malone, Hayes, Haggerty, etc....I think it would be a mistake to keep Duclair here.
The difference is that Hayes and Haggerty can get pro experience in the AHL. Unless there's a significant argument that says one of those two will be better for this team than Duclair, and I think you could make that, then you almost have to keep him, imo.

I get the argument for playign 20 min a night in juniors, but I just don't necessarily agree with it, especially for him. He's peaked there already, I can't come to terms with the argument that he's going to be more ready to play in the NHL after another season in juniors. He'd essentially be at the same point he's at now - maybe a bit stronger - if he doesn't play with the big club this year.

Puck Head
09-30-2014, 01:12 PM
The difference is that Hayes and Haggerty can get pro experience in the AHL. Unless there's a significant argument that says one of those two will be better for this team than Duclair, and I think you could make that, then you almost have to keep him, imo.

I get the argument for playign 20 min a night in juniors, but I just don't necessarily agree with it, especially for him. He's peaked there already, I can't come to terms with the argument that he's going to be more ready to play in the NHL after another season in juniors. He'd essentially be at the same point he's at now - maybe a bit stronger - if he doesn't play with the big club this year.

And what about Malone?

Future
09-30-2014, 01:19 PM
And what about Malone?
13th forward, ideally, but he could still fit on that third line...and I don't trust him to give us anything this year anyways. 34 years old...already injured. I think the ceiling is pretty low for him. I think you could keep 2/3 out of Duke, Haggerty, and Hayes. I just don't like the idea of keeping any of them without having them in the lineup every night.

Nash - MSL - Steps
Zucc - Brassard - Kreider
Miller - Duclair - Malone/Haggerty
Glass - Moore - Fast

Puck Head
09-30-2014, 01:21 PM
Why does everyone hate Hagelin around here?
One of our best forwards in the playoffs....poor guy gets no respect

:)

SyKeS
09-30-2014, 01:46 PM
I think this is the best pool of rookies we've had/seen in a very long time. Any of these kids really could make the squad, those that dont will certainly see action at some point this year. I really feel for Lombardi, Stempniak and Malone. I know were only 3-games into PRE-season but the kids are certainly out performing them at this point.

DiJock94
09-30-2014, 02:26 PM
I like Duclair a lot he looks like a player but there is really no room for him on this team. Besides it's much smarter to have a contract that slide from the ahl to the nhl.

CreaseCrusader91
09-30-2014, 02:27 PM
I like Duclair a lot he looks like a player but there is really no room for him on this team. Besides it's much smarter to have a contract that slide from the ahl to the nhl.
His contract doesn't slide.

Future
09-30-2014, 02:27 PM
Why does everyone hate Hagelin around here?
One of our best forwards in the playoffs....poor guy gets no respect

:)
lol damnit I knew I missed someone.

That has happened a bunch though.

AmericanJesus
09-30-2014, 02:28 PM
His contract doesn't slide.

Think he means a player that can move from the NHL to the AHL and back again.

AmericanJesus
09-30-2014, 02:29 PM
Why does everyone hate Hagelin around here?
One of our best forwards in the playoffs....poor guy gets no respect

:)

It's the flow.

CreaseCrusader91
09-30-2014, 02:29 PM
Think he means a player that can move from the NHL to the AHL and back again.
OK, that would make sense.

Slobberknocker
09-30-2014, 02:29 PM
he has done outstanding in this brief window of opportunity but nothing wrong with him hitting the weights some and filling out. You will get blown up out there if the competition thinks you can't handle the hits.

you gotta love his mindset though. He's not playing like he expects to be sent back to juniors. He's playing hungry and wants a spot on this club. These are the efforts that has made this preseason must watch hockey in my opinion.

his job is to give management a tremendously difficult decision. he's held up his end of the bargain as have Hayes, Haggerty, Fast and Mueller. great thing to see.

DiJock94
09-30-2014, 03:35 PM
Think he means a player that can move from the NHL to the AHL and back again.

Yea that's what I meant

SaveByRichter35
09-30-2014, 06:26 PM
His contract doesn't slide so there is no need to worry about sending him back to Junior after nine games so why do so many of you keep bringing that up? That's a stipulation for players who have an ELC that is elligible to slide. Whether he plays one game, nine games, or fortynine games it doesn't matter for his contract. I say we keep him around until Stepan gets back and then see where he stands. The biggest problem is his age prohibiting himself from being AHL elligible. That is where I think he belongs most. I think being a top guy in Hartford is more beneficial than being a top guy in Junior. Here's my question, would he be eligible for the ECHL? I would think that should still be better compitition than Junior no?

AmericanJesus
09-30-2014, 06:32 PM
His contract doesn't slide so there is no need to worry about sending him back to Junior after nine games so why do so many of you keep bringing that up? That's a stipulation for players who have an ELC that is elligible to slide. Whether he plays one game, nine games, or fortynine games it doesn't matter for his contract. I say we keep him around until Stepan gets back and then see where he stands. The biggest problem is his age prohibiting himself from being AHL elligible. That is where I think he belongs most. I think being a top guy in Hartford is more beneficial than being a top guy in Junior. Here's my question, would he be eligible for the ECHL? I would think that should still be better compitition than Junior no?

There is the 51 contract issue. We'll have to get rid of a contract if he stays up for even 1 game. The other issue is that development-wise, you may want him to have a consistent environment the entire season. Maybe the ideal would be to have him play the year in Hartford, but obviously, that's not an option. If he played 30 games at the NHL level, then got sent back to Juniors, it might be hard for him mentally to cope with that and still get anything positive out of his Junior season. Finally, there's a concern as to how he'll handle the physical rigors of playing in the NHL. Lets say his skill is ready, which it looks like it is. His body may not be physically mature enough to handle an 82 game schedule. It might break down after 10-15 games. If he gets injured that can stall his development as well. He already had a concussion playing against kids. Another concussion could be a big issue and it's much easier to get concussed when you're significantly smaller than the guys you're playing against.

That said, if he earns it and is clearly better than other options we might have, then I think he should stay. It's a risk, but we're in a win now mode and an outstanding rookie getting $900K is a huge boost for us.

SaveByRichter35
09-30-2014, 07:00 PM
I know the 50 contract rule, that was taken into consideration in my post. I should have mentioned that. Other than that, your post didn't really answer anything I asked in my post. But thanks for telling me how you think he may or may not cope mentally in the NHL :p

edit - sorry that sounded kinda douchey, I did not mean for it to come off that way

Puck Head
09-30-2014, 07:07 PM
Yes, ECHL much better then Junior hockey

SaveByRichter35
09-30-2014, 07:20 PM
Yes, ECHL much better then Junior hockey

But is there an age restriction with the ECHL as there is with the AHL?

Puck Head
09-30-2014, 07:29 PM
But is there an age restriction with the ECHL as there is with the AHL?

Not age (neither does AHL).
It's the issue of agreement between CHL and NHL

SaveByRichter35
09-30-2014, 07:34 PM
There's an age restriction on players coming out of the CHL. They said it on the broadcast last night. You have to be at least 20 years old to move to the AHL when coming out of the CHL. Coming out of NCAA, USHL, or Europe there is no such stipulation. So again, does the ECHL have the same stipulation?

Puck Head
09-30-2014, 07:38 PM
There's an age restriction on players coming out of the CHL. They said it on the broadcast last night. You have to be at least 20 years old to move to the AHL when coming out of the CHL. Coming out of NCAA, USHL, or Europe there is no such stipulation. So again, does the ECHL have the same stipulation?

You mentioned age restriction, and my point is that there is NO age restriction in the AHL, (you simply have to be 18)
There is however a standing agreement between the CHL and NHL, in regards to drafted players out of the CHL.
So yes, the ECHL and AHL adhere to the same agreement.

The broadcast last night would have been incorrect saying that there is a magic "age" in which CHL players can jump to the AHL.
Has less to do with age, and more to do with lack of Jr eligibility. (which happens to be 20)

CreaseCrusader91
09-30-2014, 07:40 PM
You mentioned age restriction, and my point is that there is NO age restriction in the AHL, (you simply have to be 18)
There is however a standing agreement between the CHL and NHL, in regards to drafted players out of the CHL.
So yes, the ECHL and AHL adhere to the same agreement.
And there was a transfer agreement until 2012. Wish they renewed it.

Puck Head
09-30-2014, 07:48 PM
CHL is starting to see some issue with this.
Idea is that they get to keep the top end talent a few years, (money to be made).
And in return, continue to be the top developmental league in the world.

Problem is this, you are seeing more and more players hit the USHL then maybe a year of NCAA.
At the age of 18/19 they can make the jump to the AHL, (like we would love Duclair to do).

Or even better, play one year in the USHL, then jump to the CHL such as Miller did.
Then no transfer agreement applies to him.

SaveByRichter35
09-30-2014, 07:52 PM
You mentioned age restriction, and my point is that there is NO age restriction in the AHL, (you simply have to be 18)
There is however a standing agreement between the CHL and NHL, in regards to drafted players out of the CHL.
So yes, the ECHL and AHL adhere to the same agreement.

The broadcast last night would have been incorrect saying that there is a magic "age" in which CHL players can jump to the AHL.
Has less to do with age, and more to do with lack of Jr eligibility. (which happens to be 20)

Can anyone else confirm this?

Drew a Penalty
09-30-2014, 07:53 PM
Can anyone else confirm this?

Puck Head knows what he's talking about. Though I disagree with the ECHL being better than the QMJHL. It might be a pro league, but it's filled with AHL rejects or projects. No way I'd want him there rather than get at least 71 games leading the Remparts + Canada at the WJC.

SaveByRichter35
09-30-2014, 08:02 PM
Puck Head knows what he's talking about. Though I disagree with the ECHL being better than the QMJHL. It might be a pro league, but it's filled with AHL rejects or projects. No way I'd want him there rather than get at least 71 games leading the Remparts + Canada at the WJC.

I'm not saying he doesn't know what he is talking about. I am simply asking a 3rd party to confirm what he says or what last night's broadcast says. No need for anyone to get all defensive or anything.

Regarding the rest of your post I agree. I'd rather give the kid a chance to represent Canada in December and January. Though, as an American I'm not so sure I want to see him on that Canadian roster lol.

Puck Head
09-30-2014, 09:32 PM
Puck Head knows what he's talking about. Though I disagree with the ECHL being better than the QMJHL. It might be a pro league, but it's filled with AHL rejects or projects. No way I'd want him there rather than get at least 71 games leading the Remparts + Canada at the WJC.

My point in regards to ECHL vs CHL is that you can't even compare the two.
Any average ECHL would destroy...I mean destroy a CHL team, especially one from the "Q"

It would be apples to oranges comparing the two leagues.

Drew a Penalty
09-30-2014, 09:34 PM
My point in regards to ECHL vs CHL is that you can't even compare the two.
Any average ECHL would destroy...I mean destroy a CHL team.

It would be apples to oranges comparing the two leagues.

Maybe they could, but developmentally the Q is so much better for him. He might not be playing against men, but it's still better than playing against mostly goons or projects. The ECHL might make him stronger, but I don't think it would make him better. Nowhere even close to what the AHL could do.

Puck Head
09-30-2014, 09:37 PM
Maybe they could, but developmentally the Q is so much better for him. He might not be playing against men, but it's still better than playing against mostly goons or projects. The ECHL might make him stronger, but I don't think it would make him better. Nowhere even close to what the AHL could do.

Agree 100%, and would never say that.
My point is that, I've sent many players to the CHL, (WHL) over the years.
They would be considered a big step bellow a NCAA team, and a NCAA team is a HUGE step below a ECHL team.

Not in regards to top in prospects, in regards to the fact the CHL is FILLED with players that will never get to the ECHL, (I'd guess 80%)

Drew a Penalty
09-30-2014, 09:39 PM
Agree 100%, and would never say that.
My point is that, I've sent many players to the CHL, (WHL) over the years.
They would be considered a big step bellow a NCAA team, and a NCAA team is a HUGE step below a ECHL team.

Not in regards to top in prospects, in regards to the fact the CHL is FILLED with players that will never get to the ECHL, (I'd guess 80%)

I get what you mean. Luckily we probably won't ever have to worry about including Duclair and ECHL in the same sentence though.

Puck Head
09-30-2014, 09:42 PM
I get what you mean. Luckily we probably won't ever have to worry about including Duclair and ECHL in the same sentence though.

I hear that!

Phil in Absentia
09-30-2014, 09:45 PM
:tweet: @AGrossRecord: Duclair again the story. AV praises his play. Says he's definitely opened eyes in organization.

Puck Head
09-30-2014, 09:56 PM
I'm not saying he doesn't know what he is talking about. I am simply asking a 3rd party to confirm what he says or what last night's broadcast says. No need for anyone to get all defensive or anything.

Regarding the rest of your post I agree. I'd rather give the kid a chance to represent Canada in December and January. Though, as an American I'm not so sure I want to see him on that Canadian roster lol.

The NHL agreement with the CHL can be found online.
The only flexibility is if a player has fulfilled 4 years in the CHL, he can then play in the AHL at age 19, (under ager).
ANY CHL player can move up the AHL once their season has ended to participate in AHL playoffs, (from age 18 on up).

There is a big misconception that there is a "age" issue from drafted players moving from CHL to AHL.
Fact is it has to do with CHL teams wanting players to fulfill their eligibility if not in the NHL.

SaveByRichter35
09-30-2014, 10:40 PM
The NHL agreement with the CHL can be found online.
The only flexibility is if a player has fulfilled 4 years in the CHL, he can then play in the AHL at age 19, (under ager).
ANY CHL player can move up the AHL once their season has ended to participate in AHL playoffs, (from age 18 on up).

There is a big misconception that there is a "age" issue from drafted players moving from CHL to AHL.
Fact is it has to do with CHL teams wanting players to fulfill their eligibility if not in the NHL.

Ah I see, thanks for clearing that up.

TwoMinutesForNothing
10-01-2014, 01:44 AM
I really don't think Miller should be on this team, let alone on that line. He's a turnover machine, and I have yet to see enough evidence to change that perception of him.

He seems to be very mentally soft. Has the skills, but one little thing goes wrong and it seems to just spin out of control for him and he's trash for the rest of the game.