Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Pat Lafontaine: There is consensus to move to a 19 year old draft


Toews

Recommended Posts

Personally I am not a fan. I think its a move towards parity as an extra year to evaluate means less chance of some hidden gems falling through to a team that has done its homework. Its a move that favors teams that are poor at drafting and IMO under Benning I feel quite confident that the Canucks can punch above their weight every year. I know historically the Canucks haven't been all that great at drafting but the uncertainty of the draft is one of its most alluring charms and this diminishes that. This also affects young superstars like McDavid, Matthews, Eichel and Laine by delaying their rookie seasons by one more year.

 

The logistics of it all is also something that is worth discussing. What happens the year after they make these changes? Personally I would increase the cutoff incrementally over 3-4 years to avoid an imbalance. For example the current cutoff is Sept 1st, delay that by four months and make it Jan 1st for the first year. Then the second year May 1st and finally Sept 1st for the third year. 

 

Another thing to consider is whether the union/agents are in favor of such a change. There will be an impact on the CHL-NHL transfer agreement as Wheeler mentions in that Twitter thread. Maybe the CHL can agree that a drafted player can go to the AHL instead of the current rule that forces certain players to stay in junior while others can play directly in the AHL.

 

What are your thoughts? Is this a worthwhile change? Most likely this won't affect the Canucks rebuild as any change will come after the next CBA so I really don't think it affects this team in the short term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a good thing. It'll prevent  gms from putting guys not ready right into the show and potentially ruining them or they get injured because they are physically not ready.(k Lowe).

regardless of how it impacts the Canucks it's what's best for these young players who are still developing physically and mentally .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's fine the way it is. Not to mention the league would have to basically skip a draft, which could anger some rebuilding GMs. Ina hockey world where the league is getting younger and younger, this seems like a "country club" move so the older players can keep their jobs.

 

Imagine if McDavid was forced to play another year of junior at 18. Or Matthews not putting up 40 at 18. Sorry Pat, it's a young man's game now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Baer. said:

I think it's fine the way it is. Not to mention the league would have to basically skip a draft, which could anger some rebuilding GMs. Ina hockey world where the league is getting younger and younger, this seems like a "country club" move so the older players can keep their jobs.

 

Imagine if McDavid was forced to play another year of junior at 18. Or Matthews not putting up 40 at 18. Sorry Pat, it's a young man's game now.

I don't think they would skip a draft but it would lead to a very, very underwhelming draft the first year the switch is made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PunjabiCanucks said:

I'm not sure completely around the AHL rules, but once a player is drafted they should get the chance to play in the AHL (if they want). Allows them to gel with the corporation and get used to environment in NA.

Players out of CHL cannot play in AHL until 20 years old (exception for imports). Players in College usually graduate before leaving. However Europeans can play whenever so long as they are not signed to a team already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Toews said:

Personally I am not a fan. I think its a move towards parity as an extra year to evaluate means less chance of some hidden gems falling through to a team that has done its homework. Its a move that favors teams that are poor at drafting and IMO under Benning I feel quite confident that the Canucks can punch above their weight every year. I know historically the Canucks haven't been all that great at drafting but the uncertainty of the draft is one of its most alluring charms and this diminishes that. This also affects young superstars like McDavid, Matthews, Eichel and Laine by delaying their rookie seasons by one more year.

 

The logistics of it all is also something that is worth discussing. What happens the year after they make these changes? Personally I would increase the cutoff incrementally over 3-4 years to avoid an imbalance. For example the current cutoff is Sept 1st, delay that by four months and make it Jan 1st for the first year. Then the second year May 1st and finally Sept 1st for the third year. 

 

Another thing to consider is whether the union/agents are in favor of such a change. There will be an impact on the CHL-NHL transfer agreement as Wheeler mentions in that Twitter thread. Maybe the CHL can agree that a drafted player can go to the AHL instead of the current rule that forces certain players to stay in junior while others can play directly in the AHL.

 

What are your thoughts? Is this a worthwhile change? Most likely this won't affect the Canucks rebuild as any change will come after the next CBA so I really don't think it affects this team in the short term.

Toews - when I agree with you, it is usually completely.   Great post.   I also think that the current difference in rules between CHL drafted and international players re. AHL/ECHL is hypocritical as once drafted, I think it should be up to the player/agent and the team that drafted him to start a development plan that isn't different based upon where you played your draft year.   Same with the college route and the free-agent loophole, not a fan.   

 

Keep it at 18 but remove all the strange loopholes and non-level playing ground issues.  I too like the idea of rewarding scouting but also of rewarding franchises that actually develop their prospect versus stunting their development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

I don't think they would skip a draft but it would lead to a very, very underwhelming draft the first year the switch is made.

That's what I meant. All the 18 year olds would "skip" a draft and would have to wait until next year.

 

I'm assuming this would also make 21 year olds draft eligible as well. So there's that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd prefer that they allow some 18 year olds from the CHL to play in the AHL vs. move the entire age up. It will make tanking on purpose in the NHL more common as well since teams will have much better ideas of the quality of  the top players. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This benefits top prospects and NHL clubs, as well as non-top prospects.

Top prospects at 18 too good to play Junior will go to Europe. When they are eligible for the draft, they are being drafted out of Europe, not the CHL; they get to play a pro game and make some money, and teams who draft the top prospects are able to send them to the AHL if they deem that to be the best for their development.

The by product of top prospects moving to Europe is, 2nd tier prospects have an additional year to separate themselves, and have a chance to be drafted higher than if they were drafted at 18.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that a clause in a NHL contract can circumvent the charter of rights and freedoms.......very interesting!

So here is my thinking........right or very wrong!

 

1. A young player decides to play CHL (let's say he is the best 16 year old in the world).....let's just say this, plz

2. The above young player decides at 18 years of age (he's still the best in the world for his age), that he wants to play in the AHL

3. One of the CHL, AHL or NHL says no, you can not play in the AHL league because you are 18

4. The guys, but I play against these guys every summer, and I am better than them.......why can't I play?

5. The AHL says ........... "well you are 18 and from Canada"

 

Isn't that age discrimination and race discrimation ( race being nationality)

 

I have just always wondered this.....I don't have the answer.....just wondering.....any legal beagles out there, who can?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

I find it interesting that a clause in a NHL contract can circumvent the charter of rights and freedoms.......very interesting!

So here is my thinking........right or very wrong!

 

1. A young player decides to play CHL (let's say he is the best 16 year old in the world).....let's just say this, plz

2. The above young player decides at 18 years of age (he's still the best in the world for his age), that he wants to play in the AHL

3. One of the CHL, AHL or NHL says no, you can not play in the AHL league because you are 18

4. The guys, but I play against these guys every summer, and I am better than them.......why can't I play?

5. The AHL says ........... "well you are 18 and from Canada"

 

Isn't that age discrimination and race discrimation ( race being nationality)

 

I have just always wondered this.....I don't have the answer.....just wondering.....any legal beagles out there, who can?

It's not a case of "because you are 18 and from Canada you can't play in the AHL" though.

It's a case of "because you are 18 and made the personal choice to play in this specific Junior league that has an agreement (that you were fully aware of) that bars you from playing in the AHL you can't play in the AHL".

Canadian junior players are still more than welcome to play in other leagues than the CHL (such as Jr. A, USHL, NCAA) which allow them to move to the AHL at 18.

Most certainly not discriminatory in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know if the top players in this coming draft would be ineligible to be drafted, but if so, and we finally get first over all pick, it would be par for our course. what is best for the players should be the rule, but put it into effect for the following years draft. sorry, just being selfish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The kids could definitely benefit from a year less of pressure to make it.

 

The puberty freaks who are 200lbs at 17 have all the luck getting drafted. Pushing it all back a year gives kids time to mature, in all ways. This will make for better pros and possibly, people. 

 

The parity comment from the OP is definitely a trade off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PunjabiCanucks said:

I'm not sure completely around the AHL rules, but once a player is drafted they should get the chance to play in the AHL (if they want). Allows them to gel with the corporation and get used to environment in NA.

There has been talk that with a move like this they'd allow players to play in the AHL after the draft as it allows teams to keep star players like the McDavids of the world one extra year for their fans and revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smithers joe said:

i don't know if the top players in this coming draft would be ineligible to be drafted, but if so, and we finally get first over all pick, it would be par for our course. what is best for the players should be the rule, but put it into effect for the following years draft. sorry, just being selfish. 

Yeah, I'm generally in favour of it even with the increased certainty of picks, but of course it would just be the Canucks luck that it'd keep us from getting a top pick. I'd think there would be something in the transition year that top 18 year olds would be allowed to still participate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...