[Rumour] Brooks: NHL will try to redefine HRR and set max 5 yr contracts in next CBA

[getbak]

Originally Posted by btimbit

We're seeing more and more guys opt to go free agency from college, it's going to be the next 'russian factor' in terms of making teams think twice about drafting these players.

The Flames have had two players in two years who have been traded away because there were doubts about the player's willingness to sign. How did the Flames react to that? They used 3 of their 5 draft picks yesterday to take College-bound players.


67 of the players drafted this year (31%) were NCAA (or NCAA committed) players, which is the highest number since 2012: https://www.collegehockeynews.com/ne...s-Taken-in.php

[Coach]

Originally Posted by btimbit

A rule simply giving the drafting team that players rights for a year after they leave school regardless of the situation would be nice. We're seeing more and more guys opt to go free agency from college, it's going to be the next 'russian factor' in terms of making teams think twice about drafting these players.

Obviously I have no clue about the business side of things and wether or not the logistics of such a rule makes sense or is even possible, but seeing so many of these guys walk is frustrating.

A CHL player can do exactly the same thing if they want, actually potentially earlier. Any player can refuse to sign with a team if they wait long enough, and actually CHL players can technically do it sooner, but they roll the dice as to who they end up with instead. And even then they can just hold out another two years and sign with whoever they want.

Another situation I find interesting is Matthews heading to Europe instead of Junior. Why not go play pro hockey, live in a European country as a teenager and make sweet money before heading back to play in the NHL?

[GreenLantern2814]

I actually kinda like that the league takes half a year off once a decade. It gives me a chance to miss hockey.

Plus, it's difficult to argue that the game hasn't gotten better after each work stoppage. Nobody wants to watch 2002 era NHL hockey.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by getbak

Blame your fellow fans for that then. As it stands, NHL fans have not really ever punished the league for its lockouts. MLB attendance plummeted after the cancelled World Series. It took a decade for attendance to return to its pre-strike numbers.

After the NHL lost a full season due to the 2004-05 lockout, attendance went up. After the lockout season, 21 teams saw their per game attendance either remain the same or increase. 8 teams had attendance increases greater than 1000 people per game. Of the 9 teams who saw attendance decreases, only 2 had drops that exceeded 1000 people per game. Also, one of the 9 teams who saw per game attendance drops was the Oilers and their drop was entirely the result of having hosted the Winter Classic in 2003, which skewed their per game attendance for that year.


If the 2012 and 1994 lockouts have shown anything, it's likely that shortened seasons are good for business. It's often said that the NHL makes its money in the playoffs because the players aren't getting paid during the playoffs, other than their per diems. By cancelling almost half the season, teams are only losing the revenue from the weaker early-season games where attendance tends to be lower and they don't have to pay the players for those cancelled games, while still being able to play a full playoff schedule, where the players are "free".




It's an NCAA rule that players can't sign pro contracts and still be eligible to play in the NCAA.

The only way the NHL could "fix" it would be to make NCAA players ineligible for the Draft, or change the rule to be like the NFL and NBA where a college player must leave college and declare himself Draft-eligible. Doing that wouldn't really "fix" the problem that people are complaining about though.

You can complain about the Flames trading away Hickey and Fox because they thought there would be issues getting them signed, but if the Flames didn't have those players' rights to include in those trades, what else would the Flames have given up?

Or change the rules regarding signing rights so that teams retain the rights to sign players who go to college for two years after those players earn their ultimate degree. The players then declare that they have finished their education and are subsequently eligible to sign an NHL contract, but only with the team that holds their rights via the draft or trade.

[dino7c]

How many lockouts do the players need to lose...they could have extended the CBA and gone to the Olympics. Now they are all gonna lose a year of earnings and come crawling back to a worse deal.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The NHL is in a league of it's own - baseball at least demonstrated the ability to learn from it's mutually assured destruction 24 years ago.

The NHL is only in "a league of its own" if you cherry pick data and arbitrarily exclude strikes and lockouts, yes.

Also, as far as baseball learning goes, wait until the next CBA is up. Like I said, Don Fehr was happy and prepared to throw hundreds of millions of dollars of his players's away to cancel another World Series. It was the players themselves that stepped off the ledge and overruled him. The NHLPA right now is still listening to him. And, the price they have paid for their labour peace has been continually sliding wages, relative to revenue. The MLBPA right now is in a rather odd spot where weak leadership resulted in a weak CBA for the players, then a post facto attempt to force changes via lawsuit. Early signs point to a significant labour battle when their CBA next comes up.

[zarrell]

Shorter season = better hockey. Bring on the lockout and I get way better value for my season ticket holder cost.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

Or change the rules regarding signing rights so that teams retain the rights to sign players who go to college for two years after those players earn their ultimate degree. The players then declare that they have finished their education and are subsequently eligible to sign an NHL contract, but only with the team that holds their rights via the draft or trade.

It's collective bargaining. You have to give to get. What should the teams give up in order to get that?

As it stands, any drafted player is able to wait 4 years from his draft and become a UFA. For CHL players, they have to re-enter the draft after 2 years and if they go undrafted the second time around, they become a UFA immediately. For college players, they have to wait the extra time from June 1 to August 15, which potentially decreases their number of destinations.

Changing the rules to extend draft rights beyond 4 years for just college players makes it an uneven playing field for those players. Why would the PA agree to that?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by SebC

You're not that stupid, you're just being obtuse.

I don’t see an NCAA problem. I see a some kids don’t want to sign with their drafting team problem. That problem can exist with any kids drafted out of any league. There is no NCAA problem. Tim Erixon didn’t want to sign with us either, we just got lucky Feaster made his only good trade when he dealt his rights to NYR.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I don’t see an NCAA problem. I see a some kids don’t want to sign with their drafting team problem. That problem can exist with any kids drafted out of any league. There is no NCAA problem. Tim Erixon didn’t want to sign with us either, we just got lucky Feaster made his only good trade when he dealt his rights to NYR.

You also don't often see NCAA 1st rounders fail to sign. Kevin Hayes is an anomaly.

The NCAA guys that go to free agency are mid to late round picks. If anything, it suggests taking fliers on NCAA players is a bit more of a risk, but hardly one that requires an overhaul of the rules.

Besides, if you can't sign a guy in 4 years, who's fault is that really. It's not the player's.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I don’t see an NCAA problem. I see a some kids don’t want to sign with their drafting team problem. That problem can exist with any kids drafted out of any league. There is no NCAA problem. Tim Erixon didn’t want to sign with us either, we just got lucky Feaster made his only good trade when he dealt his rights to NYR.

The difference is any other league you can get peace of mind by locking up your good, high quality prospects early and then let their EL contract slide.

If you draft a good kid out of junior, you can sign him immediately and be done with it until he's ready to go pro.

In the NCAA you can't do that. Meanwhile the lustre of being drafted wears off over time, and they start thinking about maybe going here, or going there. Basically just have to wait and finish my education and I can go wherever I want.

So in that sense the playing field isn't level. Because you can't sign these NCAA kids they should extend the length teams hold their rights to 5 years. A kid like Fox would get his degree and then have to sit around for a year if he didn't want to sign with Calgary. He wouldn't want to do that obviously, so he'd sign with Calgary.

If it deters kids from going the college route so be it. Then maybe they'll let teams sign these kids before they're ready to go pro. Don't have to give them a signing bonus, just get a legal commitment that they're rights now belong to the team that drafted them until they qualify for UFA status.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

The difference is any other league you can get peace of mind by locking up your good, high quality prospects early and then let their EL contract slide.

If you draft a good kid out of junior, you can sign him immediately and be done with it until he's ready to go pro.

In the NCAA you can't do that. Meanwhile the lustre of being drafted wears off over time, and they start thinking about maybe going here, or going there. Basically just have to wait and finish my education and I can go wherever I want.

So in that sense the playing field isn't level. Because you can't sign these NCAA kids they should extend the length teams hold their rights to 5 years. A kid like Fox would get his degree and then have to sit around for a year if he didn't want to sign with Calgary. He wouldn't want to do that obviously, so he'd sign with Calgary.

If it deters kids from going the college route so be it. Then maybe they'll let teams sign these kids before they're ready to go pro. Don't have to give them a signing bonus, just get a legal commitment that they're rights now belong to the team that drafted them until they qualify for UFA status.

I think the solution might be more along the lines of increasing the draft pick compensation rather than punishing the player an extra year.

Ie if you want to sign someone's former NCAA 1st rounder, you have to give up a 1st in return. You might really like Jimmy Vesey, but do you like him enough to give up a 2nd round pick for him?

Also, level playing fields are an illusion. The NCAA/CHL is close enough. Even actual playing fields slope to allow for water runoff.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I think the solution might be more along the lines of increasing the draft pick compensation rather than punishing the player an extra year.

Ie if you want to sign someone's former NCAA 1st rounder, you have to give up a 1st in return. You might really like Jimmy Vesey, but do you like him enough to give up a 2nd round pick for him?

Also, level playing fields are an illusion. The NCAA/CHL is close enough. Even actual playing fields slope to allow for water runoff.

They need to do something. It's not so much a problem with the higher profile, higher picked guys. They usually don't need a ton of development time and are ready to turn pro before the 4 years is up. It's more the later round guys that take a while to develop. Late picked, late bloomers are such a bonus for teams that used a valuable pick to select the player. It's always a shame when that player says after three years "heck, one more year and I can go wherever I want, and get a college degree to boot".

No junior player can say that.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

They need to do something. It's not so much a problem with the higher profile, higher picked guys. They usually don't need a ton of development time and are ready to turn pro before the 4 years is up. It's more the later round guys that take a while to develop. Late picked, late bloomers are such a bonus for teams that used a valuable pick to select the player. It's always a shame when that player says after three years "heck, one more year and I can go wherever I want, and get a college degree to boot".

No junior player can say that.

If you want to wait four years to play pro hockey, that's your right.

The Flames managed to get Johnny, Janko and Gillies under contract. They've signed other NCAA free agents, and yes, they have lost two recent college D. They lost them for the same reasons, and those reasons are too many bodies on the blue line.

They probably look at a guy like Wotherspoon and think it's better to simply try and catch on somewhere with less depth.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The NHL is only in "a league of its own" if you cherry pick data and arbitrarily exclude strikes and lockouts, yes.

Also, as far as baseball learning goes, wait until the next CBA is up. Like I said, Don Fehr was happy and prepared to throw hundreds of millions of dollars of his players's away to cancel another World Series. It was the players themselves that stepped off the ledge and overruled him. The NHLPA right now is still listening to him. And, the price they have paid for their labour peace has been continually sliding wages, relative to revenue. The MLBPA right now is in a rather odd spot where weak leadership resulted in a weak CBA for the players, then a post facto attempt to force changes via lawsuit. Early signs point to a significant labour battle when their CBA next comes up.

What did I exclude? Do you mean all of the strikes and lockouts that resulted in 0 games missed, or all of the ones that happened before 1988? Ignoring 'data' from before half the people on this board were born is not cherrypicking. Maybe you should go to the E=NG thread and remind everyone how many cups Edmonton won in the 80's.

I don't really give two craps whether they play or not. I think ideal season length is 70 games anyways. For me it's just laughable that they manage to squabble over the smallest of the pies, provide a decreasingly entertaining product, and continue to try to hold taxpayers hostage to build them arenas.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

If you want to wait four years to play pro hockey, that's your right.

The Flames managed to get Johnny, Janko and Gillies under contract. They've signed other NCAA free agents, and yes, they have lost two recent college D. They lost them for the same reasons, and those reasons are too many bodies on the blue line.

They probably look at a guy like Wotherspoon and think it's better to simply try and catch on somewhere with less depth.

Yes it is their right at the moment. I'm saying that should change or be adjusted because waiting 4 years to go pro is easy for a late blooming college player to do.

[GranteedEV]

There certainly is an NCAA problem. It's not the fact that the rule is exclusive for NCAA players, but rather the fact that college degrees happen to take four years to complete, which is added incentive for NCAA players to wait out until UFA. Players in Europe or the CHL are already pretty playing hockey for a living and the next logical step for them a year or two following their draft is to turn pro in North America.


For NCAA players, that option often doesn't exist in the same capacity because it usually means postponing their degrees (and in Ivy League schools, this may be more significant, as I don't believe those schools offer the same flexibility to complete a degree afterwards). The logical solution to this issue is to allow a team to elect to extend the team rights to a fifth year instead of four (perhaps at a cost, like increased ELC salary?). It would allow teams to ENCOURAGE players to get their 4 year degrees while having the fallback that should a player wish to go the UFA route, they have to have a dead year either playing hockey elsewhere (i.e. Europe) or doing something else. It still keeps the spirit of the "players can be UFAs if teams don't sign them soon after their draft" rule intact, but doesn't put the college system at odds with the NHL.

Guys like Schultz, Hayes, Vesey, Fox, Hickey etc wouldn't be able to bypass the draft solely by focusing on their post secondary education. They'd still be able to do so if they really wanted to go UFA, but just have to spend a year after completing their degrees doing something besides play in the NHL.

I think that's very fair, and I'm not just saying that because the Flames have been burned.

Remember, Russian players are considered "defected" and have their rights held by the drafting team until they are 27 - there's already precedent of unique situations.

[FlamesAddiction]

I wouldn't mind seeing 8 year max contacts with only 6 of the years being guaranteed and the remaining 2 allowing either side to walk away.

[GranteedEV]

wrong thread