Quote:
Originally Posted by 1qqaaz
Especially for first round picks. Even more so for top 10 picks.
A top ten pick should be playing in the NHL after a year. It would rather stupid for a player not to sign an ELC after a D+1 year. Otherwise they could be pushing back their first RFA contract by several years and then lose out on several millions of dollars.
Lets use Gabriel Perreault for an example.
With 54 points in 31 NCAA games, he looks NHL ready.
He could sign a 3 year ECL and get his first real RFA contract at the age of 21 (and he could burn a year of the ELC by signing early). If he's good, he can potentially make 7 mill+ per year from the ages of 21 to 26. Then he can really cash in even more as a younger UFA.
Order, he could refuse to sign, and play with Boston College for another r3 years. He then signs his ELC at the age of 21, and then his first RFA contract at 24. At this point, he has less leverage, and he would have made much less money while in his early 20s.
For a guy like this, the difference could be tens of millions of dollars between agreeing to sign the ELC and holding out. I don't care how much he loves NYC or hates Canada (even though he was born in Canada). He'd be crazy to give up this much money.
|
I agree with this. For most really high 1st rounders, a player stands to potentially lose millions in career earnings if they don't sign with the team that drafts them. Most will at least sign an ELC and then work from that point to move on if they want to. For later rounds, if you think a player is going to progress like as with Fox, you make the pick and hope for best.
I think there is a mushy middle area though where the risk needs to be considered, like in the mid-first round where the pick is valuable, the prospect has tonnes of upside, but they may not be NHL ready until the "loophole" becomes a factor.
Honestly though, I think teams can get a good sense of where a player stands during the interview process. Like when drafting Coronato, I am sure they got to the bottom of it pretty fast to see where his priorities were. And to be fair, i think they do this with all high 1st round picks regardless of what system they are selected from. I think whether a player seems like they are going to be a malcontent or unagreeable, should be one of the factors a team considers when taking them. It's all relative though. Like Quebec selecting Lindros had to happen no matter what, but if you are selecting at say #15 where there isn't a lot that separates them from pack, it's one of the boxes you check off.
(Loophole is quotes, because that is what some people call it, even if it isn't technically a loophole)