Defenseman Luca Sbisa will be re-assigned Monday at a destination to be determined. That means Sbisa, who was called up from juniors last season, cannot return to the NHL this season.
I doubt he'll go back to Lethbridge. My gut tells me that Lethbridge will trade him to Brandon unless another team comes up with a stellar proposal. With Brandon, he gets to play in the Memorial Cup for sure.
It's for the best. The kid will be a beast but it'll take time.
Edit. Pisses me off that the Flyers kept him up last season. We've now "lost" two seasons on his ELC.
Why that? We've only played 9 games this season, and that means, this season doesn't count against his ELC. One game more, it would. Or have I made a mistake with this post?
Why that? We've only played 9 games this season, and that means, this season doesn't count against his ELC. One game more, it would. Or have I made a mistake with this post?
Again, not 100% but i'm under the impression that once his ELC kicked in last year it runs continuously. Would be very odd if they allowed off-years in a contract.
Though it seems a bit too much of a coincidence they send him down after 9 games. But i still think it's a coincidence.
Last edited by Talentless Practise*: 10-25-2009 at 05:39 PM.
Yep, it's for the best. We saw flashes of what he could do with and without the puck, but he was far too inconsistent to be playing ahead of Mikk.
Get some confidence and fine tuning, bulk up a bit and see what happens next year.
He'll probably be in the AHL next season though, which is good, if the Ducks are patient with Luca, I have no doubt he'll be a solid #2, maybe #1 in the future.
It's for the best. The kid will be a beast but it'll take time.
Edit. Pisses me off that the Flyers kept him up last season. We've now "lost" two seasons on his ELC.
That pissed some of us off too. Although, good for the Ducks that they decided to do it before burning another year (they did not burn another year, the Ducks have only played 9 games, he would have needed to have played 10.) I only saw the game the Ducks were here in Philly, and I thought he looked about as I expected. Someone who will be a very good NHL defenseman -- but not just yet.
How does sending a player back to juniors affect his contract situation? [CBA Section 9.1(d)]
-- Quoted from CBA Section 9.1(d)(i): In the event that an 18 year old or 19 year old Player signs an SPC with a Club but does not play at least ten (10) NHL Games in the first season under that SPC, the term of his SPC and his number of years in the Entry Level System shall be extended for a period of one (1) year, except that this automatic extension will not apply to a Player who is 19 according to Section 9.2 by virtue of turning 20 between September 16 and December 31 in the year in which he first signs an SPC.
-- Summary: any player signing their ELC at age 18 or 19 will have their contract extended a year if they do not play in at least 10 NHL games. Players originally signed at 18 can be extended a 2nd time [at age 19] if they do not play in 10 NHL games again the second year. Once a player reaches the 10 NHL game threshold their contract cannot be extended in a future season. e.g. an 18 year old signs and plays 20 NHL games, then the next season at age 19 he plays zero NHL games: the contract cannot be extended.
Sbisa's contract will expire at the end of the 2010-11 season.
However, I believe this will affect his free agency eligibility. So he will now not be eligible to become a free agent until the age of 26, as he has not spent 40 games on the Ducks active roster this season.
Too bad for him. Hopefully this doesn't mess with his confidence and his future loyalty towards
the Ducks organisation. He'll be a great d-man in the future for sure.
OK here's some CBA research. Obviously I could be wrong as it's sometimes hard to understand, but here's the things as I understand them.
Philly had Sbisa up for 40 games last season, starting the timer for some things and not others. This affects:
1) Waiver eligiblilty. As an 18 year old he signing a contract, he gets 5 years and 160 games of waiver exemption. But since he played > 11 games, it gets reduced to 3 years, even if he's sent back down. Of course if he plays 160 NHL games (reg season or playoffs), then he's also waiver eligible. This year will count.
2) Salary arbitration. He's arbitration eligible after 4 years. Last season took off a year, but by sending him down, this year doesn't count.
3) ELC. His 1st year of ELC ticked off last year. Well technically it always ticks off, but it gets automatically extended 1 year if he plays fewer than 10 games (like say what happened with our 1st rounders that we signed but sent to juniors while they were < 20 YO). It doesn't appear he gets another extension this year though, even if he's sent to juniors. So the 2nd year will be burned off. (Unless being sent to juniors can be classified as "ceasing to render playing services except as a result of injury, illness, or disability," which I doubt it does.)
4) Free agency. He becomes an UFA after 7 accrued seasons or by age 27, whichever comes first. 7 seasons will come first. Last year was supposedly an accrued season as he was supposedly on the active roster for 40 games (I'm taking the word of Philly fans, he must have been scratched or somethi once). By sending him to the WHL, he will be "loaned" and no longer on the active roster... meaning this year will NOT count toward UFA.
PS. related to #4... what's stopping a team from loaning their minor league players who aren't going to be recalled to the NHL to Europe and not having a player get closer to UFA? Although the players wouldn't be happy about it.
Last edited by snarktacular: 10-25-2009 at 06:04 PM.
PS. related to #4... what's stopping a team from loaning their minor league players who aren't going to be recalled to the NHL to Europe and not having a player get closer to UFA? Although the players wouldn't be happy about it.
On this, "Accrued Season" is for time spent on an NHL roster. It wouldn't make a difference whether a player was assigned to the AHL or Europe, in either case the player wouldn't be on an NHL roster to earn an Accrued Season.
On this, "Accrued Season" is for time spent on an NHL roster. It wouldn't make a difference whether a player was assigned to the AHL or Europe, in either case the player wouldn't be on an NHL roster to earn an Accrued Season.
Well I had just assumed that AHL players were also on the active roster because I was kind of getting it confused with reserve list or something. Since active roster is all ppl on the reserve list who have a contract and who aren't loaned.
But looking at it more closely, yeah AHL isn't the active roster since active roster has the 23 man limit. AHL players must be considered "on loan" then.
Reading the CBA really sucks. I don't understand how contract lawyers and the like can do that job every day without blowing their brains out.
