[News] Kevin Hayes signs with the Rangers

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Eklund has the Flames, Bruins and Predators as finalists for what its worth.

It's worth a few more page views to him

[sureLoss]

Sounds like we may have a decision today:

Mark Divver @MarkDivver
Expecting news on Kevin Hayes by day's end. Was told a month ago that Avs were frontrunners. Will be interesting to see how it turns out.

[nik-]

I didn't even care if we signed Hayes at all, but the Avs are ####ing annoying.

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

sureLoss was dripping the sarcasm on there.....not sure if you picked that up.

Yes, I most definitely did. I was piling on Eklund, not sureLoss.

[tempz]

If he's choosing the Avs he is looking a bit further out than this season. Avs projected top RWs are Iginla and Tanguay. That will leave him fighting for at best 3rd line, but he'll be up against McGinn / Mitchell / Briere, all proven NHLers. However the Avs are arguably one of the shallowest team's in the league when it comes to Winger prospects. Given the age of the guys at the top of the RW depth chart and the talent level of players he will get to play with (eventually) I think the Avs would be a good fit for him.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by ClubFlames

..for the other 27 teams!

26. Chicago is also out of the mix.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Good point. I still think it is B.S. that a college player or in some cases a Euro can become a UFA by 21-22 years old. What a waste of a pick. So the Hawks are getting a 2nd as compensation, where was Hayes drafted?

I still hate when people say this, CHL have the same option.

They can refuse to sign for 2 years, re-enter the draft.

If they don't like the 2nd team that drafts them they can play another year of CHL & a year of minor Pro or Euro leagues.

Then they are FA's 2 months faster than the NCAA players.

We haven't seen it yet because, there are few unaffiliated NA minor pro teams, most CHL players don't want to jump strait to Europe at 21, NCAA is not an option and CIS is a bad option for top end players. But if a good player wanted to they could make it happen, and faster than the NCAA guys can, while screwing over 2 teams instead of 1.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by #-3

I still hate when people say this, CHL have the same option.

They can refuse to sign for 2 years, re-enter the draft.

If they don't like the 2nd team that drafts them they can play another year of CHL & a year of minor Pro or Euro leagues.

Then they are FA's 2 months faster than the NCAA players.

We haven't seen it yet because, there are few unaffiliated NA minor pro teams, most CHL players don't want to jump strait to Europe at 21, NCAA is not an option and CIS is a bad option for top end players. But if a good player wanted to they could make it happen, and faster than the NCAA guys can, while screwing over 2 teams instead of 1.

No, we haven't seen it yet because it would be career suicide.

While the timeline is the same (4 years), the situations are no where near the same. If a player plays out their 4 year college program (i.e. stays in school and gets their degree), they are 1 summer away from free agency. In other words there is no penalty for them at all to wait.

The system needs to be fixed.

(which isn't Hayes' fault)

[RM14]

Originally Posted by nik-

I didn't even care if we signed Hayes at all, but the Avs are ####ing annoying.

Funny how they bacame alot more annoying since not being in the same divison as the flames. It's not supposed to work like that!

[Gord Wappel]

The guy has basically no followers and is repeating an Eklund rumour

Maybe Steve Simmons and Eric Francis are following him

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

In other words there is no penalty for them at all to wait.

Why should there be a penalty?

The NHL has essentually set the standard for amateur rights retention at 4 years... 2+2 for CHL, 4 Years for Europeans, and graduation for NCAA bound players (typically a 4 year under-grad program). There's nothing broken here and as nothing is broken nothing needs to be fixed.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Why should there be a penalty?

The NHL has essentually set the standard for amateur rights retention at 4 years... 2+2 for CHL, 4 Years for Europeans, and graduation for NCAA bound players (typically a 4 year under-grad program). There's nothing broken here and as nothing is broken nothing needs to be fixed.

Read the context of the post.

My point was that the situation is in fact different between NCAA players and CHL players.

Any system that isn't fair for all needs to be fixed, regardless of your stance on when and if they should be allowed to become free agents.

A fifth year for all players would go a long way to eliminating the issue.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Why should there be a penalty?

The NHL has essentually set the standard for amateur rights retention at 4 years... 2+2 for CHL, 4 Years for Europeans, and graduation for NCAA bound players (typically a 4 year under-grad program). There's nothing broken here and as nothing is broken nothing needs to be fixed.

Agreed. I might state otherwise if there was a demonstrable problem for teams drafting and then signing players out of the NCAA, but as it stands now, players like Schultz, Hayes, Knight and Wheeler are the exception, not the rule. It just doesn't happen often enough for it to be thought a serious issue.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Agreed. I might state otherwise if there was a demonstrable problem for teams drafting and then signing players out of the NCAA, but as it stands now, players like Schultz, Hayes, Knight and Wheeler are the exception, not the rule. It just doesn't happen often enough for it to be thought a serious issue.

Part of the reason it hasn't happened a lot in the past is that there were fewer quality players taking the NCAA route.

Now that there are more, it is happening more and more often - pretty much annually.

It doesn't happen at all with CHL players, therefore there is an imbalance that needs to be addressed.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by tempz

To add to what people have already provided in reply to this particular post, here are his stats before and after joining Johnny Hockey's line:

Before: 14 GP, 8G, 13A, 21 Points - 1.50 points per game
After: 26 GP, 19G, 25A, 44 Points - 1.69 points per game

There are other factors involved with players having breakout years, not just who they are playing with.

I stand (somewhat) corrected.

I will still say that based on his NCAA career I think Hayes has the potential to be a half decent NHL player, but no more so than Arnold or perhaps Knight. I still will be happy if we sign him, but I won't lose a second of sleep over it if we don't.

Further, if it is true that he is expecting a fast track to the NHL based on his one good NCAA season, then I'd much rather we stay away from him. The Flames are trying to develop a culture of earning your position through competition, and I'd hope they continue down that path.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

My point was that the situation is in fact different between NCAA players and CHL players.

Any system that isn't fair for all needs to be fixed.

So you'd be in favor of removing any redraft options and setting the exclusive rights retention period to three years for all? That's the logical conclusion if fairness is the true concern.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Part of the reason it hasn't happened a lot in the past is that there were fewer quality players taking the NCAA route.

Now that there are more, it is happening more and more often - pretty much annually.

It doesn't happen at all with CHL players, therefore there is an imbalance that needs to be addressed.

So, in 2012 there was Schultz, last year it was Knight, and then there is Kevin Hayes this year. There have been a handful of other players with little in the way of legitimate NHL prospects, but beyond them these three represent the bounty that has been caused by this "imbalance." Again, if it starts happening with bonafide blue chip draftees on a consistent basis, then there is indeed an issue. But as it stands now, the players who are good enough to make an NHL impact are almost always signed by the end of their juniour year by the team who drafted them. That is not likely to change, and by extension, it further means that it is not likely to be any more significant a "problem" in the future than it is today.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, in 2012 there was Schultz, last year it was Knight, and then there is Kevin Hayes this year.

Right and that's out of 630 players selected... or to put it another way less then one half of 1%.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Right and that's out of 630 players selected... or to put it another way less then one half of 1%.

No, you would have to look at per year

What - about 40 or 50 NCAA draftees each year?

Compare that to somewhere between 100-150 CHL draftees each year (from which this pretty much never happens)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, in 2012 there was Schultz, last year it was Knight, and then there is Kevin Hayes this year. There have been a handful of other players with little in the way of legitimate NHL prospects, but beyond them these three represent the bounty that has been caused by this "imbalance." Again, if it starts happening with bonafide blue chip draftees on a consistent basis, then there is indeed an issue. But as it stands now, the players who are good enough to make an NHL impact are almost always signed by the end of their juniour year by the team who drafted them. That is not likely to change, and by extension, it further means that it is not likely to be any more significant a "problem" in the future than it is today.

Look at the last 3 years and compare that to any prior 3 years. It is definitely becoming more popular. And each year there are more draftees going the NCAA route.

If you don't see a trend, fine. I certainly do.