luckylager Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 The CBA rules for college players need to be changed. Entitled pukes shouldn't get to walk from the team that drafted them because they wanted to stay at school and be frat bros. Then they act all smart ass and go UFA because they don't want to play for the team that took a chance on them. It's super weak and reaks of spoiled entitled pukism. I blame their parents. Frat bros should remain property of the team that drafted them for a full year after their senior year. Meaning no organized hockey for a full year after graduating if they don't sign, also, they don't get to sign as a UFA, but remain a RFA after that year. Any other team trying to sign them will have to pay compensation to the frat bros "original" team. Now if the guy went undrafted, totally different story obviously, and maybe opens up an entirely different conversation of a ... "College Draft", where any player who decided on the college route isn't eligible for the traditional draft, and has to wait until they've graduated from their Sr. year to find out who will pick them. I'm all for players getting an education, but I'm not a fan of these kids turning their backs on the teams that originally took a chance on them. I blame their parents. Fellow CDCers, there's probably something I'm missing and please flame / provide insight into this rule which I've never been able to wrap my head around. But I'm really liking the idea of a College Draft... (Wasn't sure which forum to post this to, but mods, please move it if it belongs in Prospects or Armchair, or lock it upm if it's redundant, thanks. It was supposed to be a quick status that got out of hand.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Errrrrr....... This is a bad idea A A lot of players won't go the College route if this happens B A lot of college players don't play the full 4 year if they were drafted in the 1st or 2nd round and sometimes even the 3rd round Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 I agree with the rules needing to be revisited, but WOW at your assessment of "why", especially after the completely respectable comments by Stecher, the Canucks newest frat bro member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted April 18, 2016 Author Share Posted April 18, 2016 @Gstank29 and @Green Building. Both good insights. A buddy and I were talking about Demko and I almost lost my mind. I'm not even better yet. That was at lunch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Big picture, the teams that draft college players are fully aware of the rules. If they decide to use their pick on a college player, knowing that they may never play for them, that's their choice. Don't hold it against the player for exercising their rights under the current CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted April 18, 2016 Author Share Posted April 18, 2016 3 minutes ago, goalie13 said: Big picture, the teams that draft college players are fully aware of the rules. If they decide to use their pick on a college player, knowing that they may never play for them, that's their choice. Don't hold it against the player for exercising their rights under the current CBA. But it's the rule that sucks. And I blame their parents, said that twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blömqvist Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Maybe the only change just needs to be to switch UFA to RFA status, like how you pointed out.. That'll solve the problem maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted April 18, 2016 Author Share Posted April 18, 2016 Seriously, if Demko or Boeser opt out, CDC will be crapping bricks the size of Inca buttresses. The college draft won't look so bad.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 3 minutes ago, luckylager said: But it's the rule that sucks. And I blame their parents, said that twice. Are you saying, that in the exact same position, even if they weren't a good fit for you, you would just accept the offer of the team that drafted you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted April 18, 2016 Author Share Posted April 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, goalie13 said: Are you saying, that in the exact same position, even if they weren't a good fit for you, you would just accept the offer of the team that drafted you? Well, I was never a good enough hockey player... But in their shoes, I suppose I would exercise any rights I had under the CBA to better my own position, but that doesn't change the need for the CBA to be tweaked. Even to the extent that @Blömqvist just mentioned. That would be a step in the right direction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 6 minutes ago, luckylager said: Seriously, if Demko or Boeser opt out, CDC will be crapping bricks the size of Inca buttresses. The college draft won't look so bad.. So what else is new, that's the MO of CDC on a daily basis. GM's know the risk when they draft a college player, and you don't want to force a guy out of a good program. Mostly because you can't force anything, and also because you, as a GM, don't want to be a dick to the prospect. If the Canucks don't want to risk losing a college player for nothing, then they shouldn't draft one in the first place. I don't know what the exact numbers are, but I can't see the ratio of opt outs to UFA versus signing pro being a high number. Most probably stick. If there's to be an edit to the wording then the easiest one I can think of is to slide the window teams have to sign a drafted player from college to a year past their completion of school. Will that cause other problems? I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 17 minutes ago, Blömqvist said: Maybe the only change just needs to be to switch UFA to RFA status, like how you pointed out.. That'll solve the problem maybe? Basically this. If I had read your post before writing mine I would have quoted you instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blömqvist Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 7 minutes ago, luckylager said: Well, I was never a good enough hockey player... But in their shoes, I suppose I would exercise any rights I had under the CBA to better my own position, but that doesn't change the need for the CBA to be tweaked. Even to the extent that @Blömqvist just mentioned. That would be a step in the right direction 3 minutes ago, Green Building said: Basically this. If I had read your post before writing mine I would have quoted you instead. @luckylager Oh it was actually your idea! I just pointed it out. I think it's a great idea to go from UFA to RFA instead! Definitely a step in the right direction, that way players still have their rights (to some extent) and teams can have protection on their assets (to some extent). It won't be perfect but it's prolly 100x better then it is right now. Your original paragraph: "Frat bros should remain property of the team that drafted them for a full year after their senior year. Meaning no organized hockey for a full year after graduating if they don't sign, also, they don't get to sign as a UFA, but remain a RFA after that year. Any other team trying to sign them will have to pay compensation to the frat bros "original" team." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Personally, I think a better solution would be to treat them the same as any other draft pick, but effective when they leave college / university. That way, if they choose not to sign with the team that drafted them, they would simply go back into the draft after school. It gives the team a little more leverage, and even opens up the possibility of trading their rights rather than losing the asset for nothing. As for the other suggestion about making them an RFA... I'm no lawyer, but I don't know that you could legally classify them as an RFA if they have never signed a player's contract in the league before. I think that's why, if a player never signs with any team, they ultimately wind up as a UFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Something tells me OP didn't go to college. If a college player doesn't sign with the team that drafted him by the end of his NCAA tenure, he goes back into the draft. Simple solution, equivalent to the same scenario for CHL players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tajun Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 36 minutes ago, luckylager said: But it's the rule that sucks. And I blame their parents, said that twice. We should eliminate their parents. New rule: No speaking to your parents until you sign with the team that drafted you. If you don't sign, the team gets to take your parents as leverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 11 minutes ago, goalie13 said: Personally, I think a better solution would be to treat them the same as any other draft pick, but effective when they leave college / university. That way, if they choose not to sign with the team that drafted them, they would simply go back into the draft after school. It gives the team a little more leverage, and even opens up the possibility of trading their rights rather than losing the asset for nothing. As for the other suggestion about making them an RFA... I'm no lawyer, but I don't know that you could legally classify them as an RFA if they have never signed a player's contract in the league before. I think that's why, if a player never signs with any team, they ultimately wind up as a UFA. Why not just start the 2 year window allotted to signing current draft picks to the day the college player decides to leave college? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintPatrick33 Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 51 minutes ago, luckylager said: Seriously, if Demko or Boeser opt out, CDC will be crapping bricks the size of Inca buttresses. The college draft won't look so bad.. Yea that would be a killing blow for this franchise. I agree we should have a better rule in place, at least award some compensation.... I guess that is why Benning mentioned he would meet with Brock and his family, seems like college drafted kids have to be wooed into signing more so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 8 minutes ago, Green Building said: Why not just start the 2 year window allotted to signing current draft picks to the day the college player decides to leave college? I was thinking about that. The part I got stuck on was alternate places to play. If a CHL kid doesn't sign, he can keep playing for his CHL team. But if he has left college and opts not to sign, are his only alternatives Europe of some other minor pro league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 4 minutes ago, goalie13 said: I was thinking about that. The part I got stuck on was alternate places to play. If a CHL kid doesn't sign, he can keep playing for his CHL team. But if he has left college and opts not to sign, are his only alternatives Europe of some other minor pro league? Let's assume the answer is yes. What's the big deal? You choose to go to college and get educated, great move. Sign with the team that drafted you to open up those other options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.