[Signing] Rangers sign Adam Fox to 7 year extension ($9.5 mil AAV)

[Zoller]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

That's preposterous and it would never happen.

Either way, it seems the problem isn't with NCAA prospects. So why do we keep calling it an NCAA loophole? Literally anyone can refuse to sign, it's their right.

Seems fairly straightforward and not preposterous at all actually.

[The Yen Man]

There's no loophole, but I still think it could be easily fixed by making it 5 years instead of 4. I don't think there's as much of an appetite to sit for a full year after your college career is over just to go to UFA. That's 5 years of earning potential, and probably 3 or 4 of of your prime years.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The objective/goal is that they get signed with the team that drafted them. That is why there is a draft, and why there is a period of time where the team owns players' rights.

No, it isn't a loophole, but there is currently inequity between the amateur paths that players can take.

Changing the term to 5 years for which teams hold players' rights, would significantly level the playing field, and reduce the number of players that shun their draft-teams

I've been suggesting that for a while now, I really like adding a year to it. Make them go play in Europe for a year or something (Even though playing overseas is awesome) so it's not as much of a 'safe' choice as it is to stay in school loving life and then as a bonus get to play wherever you like.

[rhino]

Who?

[iggyloob12]

Does anyone else think the Rangers are lightly trolling Carolina and the Flames with their “it was always meant to be” post? It’s not on the Hurricanes’ level but it has that flavour.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Insert Lucic knocking him down video

https://twitter.com/user/status/1452808639085830147

Maybe he can use the money to pay for a personal trainer.

Hit the gym, Focks.

[Ullr]

The reason Fox fell in his draft year was because he had the audacity to say he wouldn't sign with any team but the Rangers. Calgary picked him up knowing there was slim to none chances that he would sign here, but we at least had his player rights. When a superstar falls as far as Fox did in the draft, it's better to take that player and trade him later. Which is what Calgary did.

No surprises here other that Fox being an entitled piece of Kyit. The Rangers didn't even have their first pick in the 2016 draft until 81st overall. Fox was drafted (stolen) 66th OA.

For those on this board who have forgotten.. We used Fox's playing rights + Hamilton and Ferland to bring us Lindholm and Hanafin. We won the Fox trade.

Carolina even got a 2nd in 2019 and a conditional 3rd in 2020 for trading a player to the Rangers when he wouldn't play for any other team anyways. Those picks have yet to play an NHL game.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Zoller

Seems fairly straightforward and not preposterous at all actually.

You cannot make it so a players rights belong to a single team in perpetuity.

That would not only be preposterous, it would be illegal.

See the anti-trust litigation and reserve clause baseball went through.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

There's no loophole, but I still think it could be easily fixed by making it 5 years instead of 4. I don't think there's as much of an appetite to sit for a full year after your college career is over just to go to UFA. That's 5 years of earning potential, and probably 3 or 4 of of your prime years.

That would have to be collectively bargained and there is less than zero chance the PA would agree to that.

[Samonadreau]

I hope he crashes and burns and its an anchor of a contract.

[FlamesAddiction]

Yeah, it's a huge difference and I think something should be done about it.

A CHL player opting not to sign has so many cons for them.

- They have to re-enter the draft after 2 years and potentially get drafted by the same team again, or another team they don't want to go to.

- If they go undrafted, they will need to play in the CHL as an overage player (limited spots, and not a challenge), or try to get on in the ECHL, AHL, or a European team.

- As a free agent in a minor league, they aren't going to have focused development.

A university player gets a valuable education, will be developed properly, and gets to skip the minors in many cases.

While it's technically not a loophole, the two trajectories are not equal so I don't see why they need to be treated like they are. The whole point of the draft is supposed to be for fairness and parity. The NHL had different rules for European draftees before, so I don't see why it would be an issue here.

I agree that the easiest way to fix it would be to add a year of team control to both. That's fair, right? Unless the player isn't offered a deal of course.

[Flame On]

All the GM's know the position of a team when a player is about to walk for nothing, and can low-ball them. There's gotta be a way to compensate for that.

[Zoller]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You cannot make it so a players rights belong to a single team in perpetuity.

That would not only be preposterous, it would be illegal.

See the anti-trust litigation and reserve clause baseball went through.

It's not in perpetuity.

Could this not theoretically be collectively bargained?

[Kovaz]

The "loophole" is that NCAA players lose their NCAA eligibility if they sign a contract. Players in other leagues have the option to sign an ELC and go back to Juniors or be loaned back to Europe.



IMO what they should do is add a special provision for any league that prohibits signing an ELC. Instead of retaining rights for 4 years, it should be 4 years OR 1 year after their last played game in a league without a transfer agreement/ELC slide (whichever comes later).


It's high time for the NCAA to drop the pretense that it's an "amateur" sports organization, and once it does there should be no issue with letting ELC-signed players go back to college. It's purely out of greed - they make $1B in yearly revenue and yet they'll suspend a player if his coach gives him $50 for groceries.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

The "loophole" is that NCAA players lose their NCAA eligibility if they sign a contract. Players in other leagues have the option to sign an ELC and go back to Juniors or be loaned back to Europe.



IMO what they should do is add a special provision for any league that prohibits signing an ELC. Instead of retaining rights for 4 years, it should be 4 years OR 1 year after their last played game in a league without a transfer agreement/ELC slide (whichever comes later).


It's high time for the NCAA to drop the pretense that it's an "amateur" sports organization, and once it does there should be no issue with letting ELC-signed players go back to college. It's purely out of greed - they make $1B in yearly revenue and yet they'll suspend a player if his coach gives him $50 for groceries.

Some NCAA players making big money now and it's all out in the open.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Ullr

The reason Fox fell in his draft year was because he had the audacity to say he wouldn't sign with any team but the Rangers. Calgary picked him up knowing there was slim to none chances that he would sign here, but we at least had his player rights. When a superstar falls as far as Fox did in the draft, it's better to take that player and trade him later. Which is what Calgary did.

No surprises here other that Fox being an entitled piece of Kyit. The Rangers didn't even have their first pick in the 2016 draft until 81st overall. Fox was drafted (stolen) 66th OA.

For those on this board who have forgotten.. We used Fox's playing rights + Hamilton and Ferland to bring us Lindholm and Hanafin. We won the Fox trade.

Carolina even got a 2nd in 2019 and a conditional 3rd in 2020 for trading a player to the Rangers when he wouldn't play for any other team anyways. Those picks have yet to play an NHL game.

I have not heard this before.

[Jbo]

Treat this dude like any toxic ex and let us forget him forever.

[Hack&Lube]

Could any potential high draft pick (future McDavid) etc. pull the same stunt and say "I'm not signing with anybody except the Rangers"?

How does this **** even work?

That said, I'd rather have Zebulon and Hanafin.

[Stillman16]

Originally Posted by transplant99

That would have to be collectively bargained and there is less than zero chance the PA would agree to that.

My suggestion would be "the 5th year only gets tacked on if the team owning their rights offers a max rookie contract before rights expire, and the player doesn't sign".

I makes sense that there are limits to the rights, since the team also has the right to not offer a contract for that full time too, while the player can't just sign elsewhere either...so you can't have it both ways.

But if the team offers rookie max, there should be some compensation for the team, they can't offer more than that...

Another possible way to deal with it, could be to have a defined compensation to the rights holder that, again has offered rookie max before rights expire--if another team signs that player (original rights holder gets say a draft pick one round higher than the player was originally drafted, from the signing team...if it was a first round pick, a first and second are given).

[Reaper]

I hope he gets allergic to his equipment.