(Discussion) should rookie qualification in the NHL be changed?

[Krumpalicious]

although I believe Petterson is a shoe in for the Calder, he totally had a run for his money by Jordan Binnington. If the votes weren’t cast before the playoffs started to avoid bias I think Binnington would be the clear shoe in as of now. Regardless I think petey has nothing to worry about. 

 

Looking into the rules and what it takes to qualify as a rookie in the NHL. The rule defines it as: 

 

Rookie Qualifications. To be considered a rookie, a player must not have played in more than 25 NHL games in any preceding seasons, nor in six or more NHL games in each of any two preceding seasons. Any player at least 26 years of age (by September 15th of that season) is not considered a rookie.

 

binnington turns 26 on July 11 2019. So he BARELY squeaks into being qualified for the designation. Personally I think that’s too old to be able to qualify as a rookie. The game limits make sense, but I think 26 is too old. That’s potentially 5 years in AHL after they qualify at the age of 20. That ALOT of time in a professional hockey league IMO. I think it should be capped out at 23 at the start of that seasons training camp. 

 

Thoughts?

 

[Rob_Zepp]

6 minutes ago, Krumpalicious said:

although I believe Petterson is a shoe in for the Calder, he totally had a run for his money by Jordan Binnington. If the votes weren’t cast before the playoffs started to avoid bias I think Binnington would be the clear shoe in as of now. Regardless I think petey has nothing to worry about. 

 

Looking into the rules and what it takes to qualify as a rookie in the NHL. The rule defines it as: 

 

Rookie Qualifications. To be considered a rookie, a player must not have played in more than 25 NHL games in any preceding seasons, nor in six or more NHL games in each of any two preceding seasons. Any player at least 26 years of age (by September 15th of that season) is not considered a rookie.

 

binnington turns 26 on July 11 2019. So he BARELY squeaks into being qualified for the designation. Personally I think that’s too old to be able to qualify as a rookie. The game limits make sense, but I think 26 is too old. That’s potentially 5 years in AHL after they qualify at the age of 20. That ALOT of time in a professional hockey league IMO. I think it should be capped out at 23 at the start of that seasons training camp. 

 

Thoughts?

 

Why have an age thing?   If you are the best first year in the NHL player, you are the best first year in the NHL player.    The age thing is silly even at 26.   Who cares?   What if someone 30 took up hockey and got into the league at 35 and scored 60 goals.   However unlikely, why would that person be unqualified for the Calder?

[NewbieCanuckFan]

Just now, Rob_Zepp said:

Why have an age thing?   If you are the best first year in the NHL player, you are the best first year in the NHL player.    The age thing is silly even at 26.   Who cares?   What if someone 30 took up hockey and got into the league at 35 and scored 60 goals.   However unlikely, why would that person be unqualified for the Calder?

Ivan Hlinka fan?  He didn’t win the Calder obviously but did give it a good run in his “rookie” NHL year as a 30+ year old.

[WHL rocks]

He's a rookie according to the rules.

 

He should/would be rookie of the year if votes were take after the play offs. Even though the award is for regular season play..

 

EP will win it but he had a big drop off in play towards the end whilst Binington got better and better. 

 

Having said that i highly doubt he cares at all. There is only one trophy he wants and that's the Cup.. 

 

Maybe he gets the Conn Smythe to go along with Cup. I bet he prefers that over the Calder.

[goalie13]

I'm fine with 26.

 

Goalies develop differently and have fewer spots available.  It may take until they're 24 or 25 to break into the league.   Demko is already 23 and is this will be his first full season.

 

2 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Why have an age thing?   If you are the best first year in the NHL player, you are the best first year in the NHL player.    The age thing is silly even at 26.   Who cares?   What if someone 30 took up hockey and got into the league at 35 and scored 60 goals.   However unlikely, why would that person be unqualified for the Calder?

It's because of the Soviets.

 

Makarov won the Calder as the top rookie at the age of 31 after playing for many years for CSKA Moscow. 

 

[Generational.EP40]

47 minutes ago, goalie13 said:

I'm fine with 26.

 

Goalies develop differently and have fewer spots available.  It may take until they're 24 or 25 to break into the league.   Demko is already 23 and is this will be his first full season.

 

Pretty much this. 

 

And why Binnington is in the discussion (will be runner up though for obvious reason ). It’d be rather odd if he wasn’t considered a rookie and allowed as a candidate for the Calder after the great half season he’s had which turned around an entire franchise’s fortune.

[Chris12345]

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Why have an age thing?   If you are the best first year in the NHL player, you are the best first year in the NHL player.    The age thing is silly even at 26.   Who cares?   What if someone 30 took up hockey and got into the league at 35 and scored 60 goals.   However unlikely, why would that person be unqualified for the Calder?

I agree. No age statement required.

[luckylager]

I'm sure the guys casting the votes take age into account already and they probably look at AHL/SEL etc.. "pro" games played as well.

[Mollyworld]

16 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Ivan Hlinka fan?  He didn’t win the Calder obviously but did give it a good run in his “rookie” NHL year as a 30+ year old.

Makarov winning in Calgary after playing for years as a "pro" in Russia is why they changed the rules.