[News] Sieloff will not return to Windsor

[sureLoss]

If he plays more than 9 games in the AHL and/or NHL it will burn a year off his contract.

But it sounds like Burke/Feaster/Weisbrod think Sieloff is close to being an NHL player if they send him back to junior they can't call him back up til Windsor's season is over or as an emergency recall.

[Oling_Roachinen]

I believe it's 10 NHL games, not pro games, that prevent the slide.

D'Amigo's 2010-2011 season slid but he played 43 games in the AHL.
http://www.capgeek.com/player/1866

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I believe it's 10 NHL games, not pro games, that prevent the slide.

D'Amigo's 2010-2011 season slid but he played 43 games in the AHL.
http://www.capgeek.com/player/1866

Right you are it is NHL games.

[Ashasx]

So he can play an entire season in the AHL without using up a year on his contract?

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

It's fun for the fans and I'm sure Sieloff would love another gold medal but I haven't seen anything to suggest it gives guys a leg up on becoming an NHL player.

I'd rather Sieloff play those 6-7 NHL games then return to a tournament with much lower competition for 6-7 games.

He will also be one of the leaders (if not captain) for Team USA, so this will give him a lot of development from that sense. I do think the quality of competition will be lower, but he will still be playing and defending against the elite in his age group. There is always something gained from an experience like that.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

So he can play an entire season in the AHL without using up a year on his contract?

Yes from the CBA 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. Unless a Player and Club
expressly agree to the contrary, in the event a Player's SPC is extended an
additional year in accordance with this subsection, all terms of the SPC,
with the exception of Signing Bonuses, but including Paragraph 1 Salary,
games played bonuses and Exhibit 5 bonuses, shall be extended; provided,
however, that the Player's Paragraph 1 Salary shall be extended in all
circumstances.

Sieloff turns 20 in May.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

He will also be one of the leaders (if not captain) for Team USA, so this will give him a lot of development from that sense. I do think the quality of competition will be lower, but he will still be playing and defending against the elite in his age group. There is always something gained from an experience like that.

This is similar to the Monahan back to the OHL or stick with the NHL debate... I don't think either is bad for development but I think if he's ready, and already playing in the NHL then it doesn't make sense to return him just for this tournament. It takes a lot of adjusting to make the NHL, the game is worlds faster, it really makes no sense to send him just for the World Juniors.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

This is similar to the Monahan back to the OHL or stick with the NHL debate... I don't think either is bad for development but I think if he's ready, and already playing in the NHL then it doesn't make sense to return him just for this tournament. It takes a lot of adjusting to make the NHL, the game is worlds faster, it really makes no sense to send him just for the World Juniors.

I definitely see validity from how you view it. Regardless of how you look at it, it is still a step-down.

Personally, I would allow both to suit up. It isn't often that players get to represent their country internationally. This will always provide them with some experience and some memories. Also, in both respective cases, they will most likely be at least assistant captains (doubt Monahan becomes the captain as Team Canada normally names a player that was there the previous year). Those opportunities I think are helpful for players - you need to build a player up skill-wise and inter-personally as well I think.

Also, the Flames are really not going anywhere this season. Heat have a better chance I would say, so Seiloff could be the more difficult case to let go for their respective teams. However, this also builds up some sort of 'goodwill' as well for those two respective players (whom I am sure would both love to represent their respective countries), and that is never a bad thing for the organization to remind them of later on.

There are pros and cons to allowing them to participate, and you can make legitimate cases both ways. I feel it would be great to send them with the expectations that the Flames will have this year, and it is only a few weeks' worth of time, so why not?

The adjustment time will just make the players more flexible perhaps. Yes, it may take them a few games and practices to get back to where they left off, but these are all things that I think help develop players (and people). The more changes and different circumstances that players find themselves in, the more they 'grow' personally and professionally. Just my opinion anyways.

I can definitely see the drawbacks with giving them that time. They do lose those few weeks of pro experience and development. I just think that because it is a short tournament, the gains could very well outweigh the losses, and the risk (and effect) to the Heat and the Flames are either fairly low or just not too relevant (as once again, the Flames are not expected to be fighting for a playoff spot).

Edit: One of the cons for sending Monahan to the WJC would be that he theoretically COULD be in the calder running, and the demotion may end up hurting him. I don't necessarily think he will outpace some of the guys entering the NHL this year (including past draftees and older NCAA guys entering the league for the first time this season).

[You Need a Thneed]

To me, putting him in the AHL means that they could see him jumping up to the NHL this season. Sending him back to Junior means he can't come back here.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

To me, putting him in the AHL means that they could see him jumping up to the NHL this season. Sending him back to Junior means he can't come back here.

I think that's exactly what it means

[Fire]

Originally Posted by strombad

Based in his current development, I'm thinking guys that said he was likely a 3-4 guy and nothing more (including myself) might be eating crow at some point in the near future.

I think most people would be quite happy if he becomes a 2nd pairing defenseman. Expecting him to be a top pairing D-man is a big reach imo.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

To those who are continuously concerned about "wasting" or using a year of the Flames' prospects' ELCs, think about this:

This team is in a rebuild. The Flames have the second most cap space in the league. Soon, the Flames will be without Cammalleri, Stajan and other vets who make good money. That frees up even more cap space. Even if these guys' ELCs run out, the Flames have money for days.

It's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. The only way it would be an issue is if this were 2008 again and the Flames were in the top 3 spending teams in the league.

[bigtmac19]

Boooooooooooooooooo!!! Seriously I'm very happy for Sieloff but it's going to make for a pretty sad year in Windsor for STH. Speaking from a totally selfish perspective, I'm bummed.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

To those who are continuously concerned about "wasting" or using a year of the Flames' prospects' ELCs, think about this:

This team is in a rebuild. The Flames have the second most cap space in the league. Soon, the Flames will be without Cammalleri, Stajan and other vets who make good money. That frees up even more cap space. Even if these guys' ELCs run out, the Flames have money for days.

It's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. The only way it would be an issue is if this were 2008 again and the Flames were in the top 3 spending teams in the league.

Exactly. If it comes down to Sieloff and his agent asking for a big pay raise because he's shown the development/performance, that's a problem I'd gladly sign up for.

[PlayfulGenius]

Does it burn a year of his ELC? ... if so, this is a mistake, no?

I mean, obviously Feaster and Co have thought this through... it just seems odd to me.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

Does it burn a year of his ELC? ... if so, this is a mistake, no?

I mean, obviously Feaster and Co have thought this through... it just seems odd to me.

Answered 9 posts before yours.

[nightfx]

What's with everyone's obsession with preserving the ELC? The Flames won't be near the cap any time soon where rookies on ELC's are useful

[TurnedTheCorner]

I'm OK with delaying contract negotiations with young players by not using a contract year on less than a full season of pro hockey.

[8sPOT]

Damn. I have a blank Flames jersey that I was going to get Backlund put on, then Brodie, then Baertschi, but I love the type of hockey Sieloff plays.

I think it's a matter of when, not if, we see him in the NHL this year. Especially after watching Feaster speak.

[FlameZilla]

Originally Posted by 8sPOT

Damn. I have a blank Flames jersey that I was going to get Backlund put on, then Brodie, then Baertschi, but I love the type of hockey Sieloff plays.

I think it's a matter of when, not if, we see him in the NHL this year. Especially after watching Feaster speak.

Bit of a gamble to get Sieloff on the jersey. What number would he wear if he made the team? 50 is a bit silly, and his preferred #10 is currently spoken for...