Sign in to follow this  
-Vintage Canuck-

Quinn Hughes | #43 | D

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Kosmo Kramer said:

He only needs to play one game is what I have read, based on his age and how the CBA is written.

@SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME broke it down pretty detailed which I can't sum it up as good as he can. 

 

Doesnt matter when he signs as far as expansion draft goes. If he plays one game for a professional team, he will need protecting by the time the draft comes.

*10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kosmo Kramer said:

He only needs to play one game is what I have read, based on his age and how the CBA is written.

@SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME broke it down pretty detailed which I can't sum it up as good as he can. 

 

Doesnt matter when he signs as far as expansion draft goes. If he plays one game for a professional team, he will need protecting by the time the draft comes.

One game burns a year of ELC. 10 games is a year of pro experience

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2019 at 10:25 PM, Grape said:

 

This, along with the fact that he is a defenseman, is why unlike Boeser or Pettersson, I don't expect too much out of Hughes in the first few games of his career. In fact, I would be patient with mistakes being made, and understand that more good is eventually going to come out of him than bad with his unique style of play. 

If/when Hughes arrives i fully expect him to get a long, long leash.  As you mentioned he's going to be thrown into arguably the most difficult position to play for a rookie and while he has all the skill in the world he's not physically on par with the average NHL player so let's realize that as well.  

 

People say the NHL is not a developmental league but something's got to give there because I don't expect Hughes to do the equivalent of what EP did here - I expect him to need some development. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, PlanB said:

If/when Hughes arrives i fully expect him to get a long, long leash.  As you mentioned he's going to be thrown into arguably the most difficult position to play for a rookie and while he has all the skill in the world he's not physically on par with the average NHL player so let's realize that as well.  

 

People say the NHL is not a developmental league but something's got to give there because I don't expect Hughes to do the equivalent of what EP did here - I expect him to need some development. 

Thing to remember, Hughes handled World Cup last year and didn't look out of place. In fact, as more NHL defensemen came over, he wasn't the one who wound up in the press box.

 

I expect him to play a smart game, similar to Stecher, but with elite skating and vision.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ About time the league reconfirms all the rules for the next expansion, I'd like to see it officially settled.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gurn said:

^ About time the league reconfirms all the rules for the next expansion, I'd like to see it officially settled.

You would think that the Canucks management team would be seeking clarification in writing from the NHL on this matter as it pertains to Quinn Hughes and may have, in fact, already done so

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kootenay Gold said:

You would think that the Canucks management team would be seeking clarification in writing from the NHL on this matter as it pertains to Quinn Hughes and may have, in fact, already done so

I’m sure all the NHL teams received a full package with all the expansion rules spelled out in great detail. Unfortunately, I’ve yet to see these details made public (at least when it comes to this stuff related to Hughes)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Ok, so I’m seeing a fair amount of confusion in here over the Quinn Hughes thing. And honestly, I don’t know the specific criteria the league uses for the expansion draft. 

 

Lately, most pundits are using Ryan Biech’s interpretation, which says Hughes will be considered an age 19 player, and will not use up a professional year, so long as he plays less than 11 games in the 2018-19 season. This would make him expansion exempt, so long as he plays less than 11 games this season.

 

Here’s Biech’s interpretation:

 

 

 

 

I like that Biech uses Article 13.4, because this fits with some of the more odd cases we saw from the last expansion draft. Players like Kyle Baun, who was considered to have played his first professional year in 2014-15, despite only playing 3 pro games.

 

I am a little surprised that the standard for a professional year for 18 and 19 years olds is 11 games. Just because every single drop of ink spilled on the expansion draft rules last time around cited 10 games as the standard. But then again, they were all wrong (as the Baun example showed), and the standard is clearly not 10 games for players age 20 and over.

 

But what about Quinn Hughes?

 

For me, it comes down to his age. Many portions of the CBA would consider Hughes to be age 20, if he signs a contract in the calendar year he turns 20. This is how the age calculation works for “signing age” and for considerations like contract slide (and a bunch of other aspects of contracts).

 

Ryan Biech says that Hughes will be age 19. 

 

But I’m still not sure I agree. 

 

If he’s basing the age off of the language in Article 13.4, then I’m not sure how he’s determining that Hughes will be age 19. Just because when you look at the age determinations in Article 13.4, you have the language in Note 2, which basically says age 18 is between Jan 1 and September 15, age 19 is calendar year, and age 20 is calendar year.

 

Quinn Hughes is 19 years old and turning 20 during calendar 2019. Seems to me, he’d still be considered “age 20” based on Article 13.4.

 

And if he’s “age 20,” then the first sentence of article 13.4 would apply, and “one (1) or more Professional Games shall constitute the first year.”

 

So I’m not sure Article 13.4 really gives Quinn Hughes a free 10 games with the Canucks this season.

 

I could easily be wrong. But I’m just not convinced (yet) that 11 games is the standard for a professional year that will applicable to Quinn Hughes. And I’m not really swayed by the various pundits who are parroting that it’s 11 games, because they are all just going off of what Ryan Biech is saying, and none of them really know. And Biech is just offering his interpretation of one section of the CBA. He freely admits, he doesn’t know if the NHL actually uses that section for their expansion rules. It’s just his best guess. 

 

Last time around, with the Vegas expansion, everyone said it was 10 NHL games for teenagers and 10 professional games for age 20 and older. They were wrong. The standard for age 20 or older was just one game. And if Article 13.4 is the section of the CBA being used, when it comes to expansion, then the standard for teenagers should have been 11 games. So they were wrong on that too.

 

If 13.4 is the standard, then the requirement for a professional year should be 11 games for ages 18 and 19. And just 1 pro game for ages 20 and older.

 

In the case of Quinn Hughes, the critical factor is whether the expansion rules consider him age 19 or age 20. Based on Article 13.4, I’m having a hard time thinking he’s age 19. Looks more like he’d be considered age 20.

 

But again, I could easily be wrong. The fact is, I just don’t know. And Ryan Biech doesn’t really know either. The NHL has not made the rules public (when it comes to the specific details of how professional years and player ages are determined for expansion), so we’re all just trying our best to come up with an answer that fits with how things worked last time, and which players were eligible for, and exempt from, the Vegas expansion draft.

 

I’d be very happy if Biech is right and I’m wrong. I hope the NHL considers Quinn Hughes to be an age 19 player when we sign him, and lets him play 10 games without burning a pro year. I’m just not seeing nearly enough evidence (yet) that this interpretation is actually correct.

We went through is last week, and C.d.c decided Quinn could play 10 games for us this spring, and still not be eligible for expansion.  Who cares about the NHL and its stupid rules.  WE *@$#&*# RULE!!!   :frantic:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Ok, so I’m seeing a fair amount of confusion in here over the Quinn Hughes thing. And honestly, I don’t know the specific criteria the league uses for the expansion draft. 

 

Lately, most pundits are using Ryan Biech’s interpretation, which says Hughes will be considered an age 19 player, and will not use up a professional year, so long as he plays less than 11 games in the 2018-19 season. This would make him expansion exempt, so long as he plays less than 11 games this season.

 

Here’s Biech’s interpretation:

 

 

 

 

I like that Biech uses Article 13.4, because this fits with some of the more odd cases we saw from the last expansion draft. Players like Kyle Baun, who was considered to have played his first professional year in 2014-15, despite only playing 3 pro games.

 

I am a little surprised that the standard for a professional year for 18 and 19 years olds is 11 games. Just because every single drop of ink spilled on the expansion draft rules last time around cited 10 games as the standard. But then again, they were all wrong (as the Baun example showed), and the standard is clearly not 10 games for players age 20 and over.

 

But what about Quinn Hughes?

 

For me, it comes down to his age. Many portions of the CBA would consider Hughes to be age 20, if he signs a contract in the calendar year he turns 20. This is how the age calculation works for “signing age” and for considerations like contract slide (and a bunch of other aspects of contracts).

 

Ryan Biech says that Hughes will be age 19. 

 

But I’m still not sure I agree. 

 

If he’s basing the age off of the language in Article 13.4, then I’m not sure how he’s determining that Hughes will be age 19. Just because when you look at the age determinations in Article 13.4, you have the language in Note 2, which basically says age 18 is between Jan 1 and September 15, age 19 is calendar year, and age 20 is calendar year.

 

Quinn Hughes is 19 years old and turning 20 during calendar 2019. Seems to me, he’d still be considered “age 20” based on Article 13.4.

 

And if he’s “age 20,” then the first sentence of article 13.4 would apply, and “one (1) or more Professional Games shall constitute the first year.”

 

So I’m not sure Article 13.4 really gives Quinn Hughes a free 10 games with the Canucks this season.

 

I could easily be wrong. But I’m just not convinced (yet) that 11 games is the standard for a professional year that will applicable to Quinn Hughes. And I’m not really swayed by the various pundits who are parroting that it’s 11 games, because they are all just going off of what Ryan Biech is saying, and none of them really know. And Biech is just offering his interpretation of one section of the CBA. He freely admits, he doesn’t know if the NHL actually uses that section for their expansion rules. It’s just his best guess. 

 

Last time around, with the Vegas expansion, everyone said it was 10 NHL games for teenagers and 10 professional games for age 20 and older. They were wrong. The standard for age 20 or older was just one game. And if Article 13.4 is the section of the CBA being used, when it comes to expansion, then the standard for teenagers should have been 11 games. So they were wrong on that too.

 

If 13.4 is the standard, then the requirement for a professional year should be 11 games for ages 18 and 19. And just 1 pro game for ages 20 and older.

 

In the case of Quinn Hughes, the critical factor is whether the expansion rules consider him age 19 or age 20. Based on Article 13.4, I’m having a hard time thinking he’s age 19. Looks more like he’d be considered age 20.

 

But again, I could easily be wrong. The fact is, I just don’t know. And Ryan Biech doesn’t really know either. The NHL has not made the rules public (when it comes to the specific details of how professional years and player ages are determined for expansion), so we’re all just trying our best to come up with an answer that fits with how things worked last time, and which players were eligible for, and exempt from, the Vegas expansion draft.

 

I’d be very happy if Biech is right and I’m wrong. I hope the NHL considers Quinn Hughes to be an age 19 player when we sign him, and lets him play 10 games without burning a pro year. I’m just not seeing nearly enough evidence (yet) that this interpretation is actually correct.

Thanks for the response and the clarification there.

 

Hopefully you are wrong in this case then I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Grape said:

What standing are these? Michigan is 3rd in their conference and everyone is in the playoffs so it'll likely be a week or two before he's done

I didn't see conference rankings... just league wide, NCAA website sucks

 

They should be playoff bound for sure 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, does Hughes still have games to play in College after today, of is he all done and free to sign?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kootenay Gold said:

You would think that the Canucks management team would be seeking clarification in writing from the NHL on this matter as it pertains to Quinn Hughes and may have, in fact, already done so

I would guess they have, as I seem to recall a JB interview (around the WJC maybe?) where it was established QH would remain in Michigan & at the time I interpreted that as finishing the school year as opposed to the hockey season. obviously I could have misread that, but I was surprised when the word came in a couple weeks back that he would join the team after the season was complete. 

 

either way, this is one of those situations where you want the mgmt to be very sure of the decision 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playoff starts for Hughes and Lockwood:

 

 

If Michigan doesn't make it past Minnesota, Hughes will likely join the Canucks after March 10th and maybe Lockwood goes to Utica on a PTO. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Michigan is a 6seed and plays at 3seed Minnesota in best of 3 starting Friday.  Lose and QH college season is over. 

(Doh, look above for better info lol. Was typing this out and was no info at the time)

Edited by Get real canuck fans
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's interesting to me that ohio state is tops in the conference. I wouldn't normally think of them as a hockey power (though I could be wrong on that, too, since I don't usually follow college hockey anymore than the individual progress of certain prospects). I'll have to take a peek at their roster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Off_The_Schneid! said:

We will have 13 games remaining after March 10th

Two sets of back to Back games 

Sounds perfect...sign him up and have him miss the first game while practising with the team and then miss one of each of the back to back's and viola we have a 10 game stint and Seattle has to keep there hands off Hughes...!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

I’m sure all the NHL teams received a full package with all the expansion rules spelled out in great detail. Unfortunately, I’ve yet to see these details made public (at least when it comes to this stuff related to Hughes)

You would have to hope that management has already looked into this situation for more clarity just so they don't mess up and have to protect him. You would think there would be some kind of 1-800  NHL CBA rule help line for these teams or something of the sort lol. I find it crazy that these multi million dollar franchises are in the dark when it comes to these things. So i'll just take Benning at face value when he says "it won't be an issue".

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Attila Umbrus said:

You would have to hope that management has already looked into this situation for more clarity just so they don't mess up and have to protect him. You would think there would be some kind of 1-800  NHL CBA rule help line for these teams or something of the sort lol. I find it crazy that these multi million dollar franchises are in the dark when it comes to these things. So i'll just take Benning at face value when he says "it won't be an issue".

So many are so concerned with his, off-ice, situation.

I'm just excited to see what this kid brings to our team.

Though I'm trying to keep my expectations at a realistic level, I can't help letting in the thought that he could have an equal, all-be-it shorter, impact on this season as Petey.

It's not hard to envision Hughes and Pettersson becoming one of the most feared PP matchups in the NHL.

He should add a whole new dynamic to our blueline and should solidify our first powerplay unit.

I am really excited to see QH here.

 

 

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.