Matt_T83 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 I believe the NHL could (and should) close the NCAA free agent loophole next CBA. For those who don't know, players drafted in the NHL can go to play College NCAA hockey for 4 years, and then become free agents to sign wherever they want. This is beneficial for them, as the level of NCAA hockey is quite high, so they don't actually slow their development that much. Because they are older coming into the NHL, their ELCs are shorter and they also reach UFA status faster, meaning they can cash in on big contracts much earlier (i.e. fewer years in the NHL to UFA). If a team offers a drafted player a max value ELC, and said player refuses to sign the deal, then the age expiry on their ELC (25) and RFA (27) status should be pushed back 1 year, for each year they do not sign a contract. This effect of pushing back age cutoffs should max out at 3 years. Players could still technically go to the NCAA and then sign with any NHL team, but they would still require 3 years of ELC contract, and would not reach UFA status until age 30. Essentially this closes all financial incentives for players to take the NCAA route, which I am sure would stop at least 95% of players from doing it. In this way, the current rules would still apply exactly as they are for undrafted players, any player not offered a max value ELC, and players who sign their first NHL contract within 1 year of being drafted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat James Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 What they should do is open it for all the other leagues. The system right now is crazy, basically the team that drafts you owns you until you're 27. Also, why would you want less players to take the NCAA route? Them getting an education is nothing but a good thing. Plus, no high end prospects have chosen not to sign and go UFA. This is a non issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_T83 Posted July 31, 2018 Author Share Posted July 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, The Game said: What they should do is open it for all the other leagues. The system right now is crazy, basically the team that drafts you owns you until you're 27. Also, why would you want less players to take the NCAA route? Them getting an education is nothing but a good thing. Plus, no high end prospects have chosen not to sign and go UFA. This is a non issue. Because teams need to have leverage over players for at least that long to give the NHL parity. And they don't 'own' the player. That player is free to wait out the eligibility period, as I said in my example, and then sign with whatever team they want. This system I am proposing simply eliminates the financial rewards of taking the NCAA route. Players are therefore free to choose between more freedom of who they play for, and earlier financial success. And this is an enormous issue. If you don't think it is, you're blind and naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where's Wellwood Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Is there a count of what percentage of drafted college players choose to take the loophole? And when did the loophole open? Wasn't it only instated as a part of the 2013 CBA or did it exist in the 2005 CBA? As far as I can remember, it's never been an issue for the Canucks (Gaudette, Boeser, Hutton, Kesler, Bieksa, Schneider, Demko all signed and I'm sure I'm missing a lot). It wasn't even in the spotlight until Vesey as far as I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skolozsy2 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 I understand your perspective and I also can see the reasoning behind your complaint....but I also think there is more financial incentive to go the college route because the college route takes longer, the player waits more years to be paid, and far more difficult. When a player goes the college route, not only does he have the same rigors of training, travel, practices, and games that a junior player has, but he also has to throw earning a degree from Yale on top of that. That's no fairytale of a situation. Plus he has to possibly commit to that for 4 years....without any contract or payment from his NHL team. When compared to a 19 year old at the University of Michigan, the 19 year old on the London Knights is living a dream. So, in my opinion, there should be extra incentives to take the college route and get an education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Just now, Where's Wellwood said: Is there a count of what percentage of drafted college players choose to take the loophole? And when did the loophole open? Wasn't it only instated as a part of the 2013 CBA or did it exist in the 2005 CBA? As far as I can remember, it's never been an issue for the Canucks (Gaudette, Boeser, Hutton, Kesler, Bieksa, Schneider, Demko all signed and I'm sure I'm missing a lot). It wasn't even in the spotlight until Vesey as far as I know. Blake Wheeler was drafted 5th overall in 2004 by Phoenix and went UFA. Justin Schultz. Kevin Hayes. After Jimmy Vesey there was Alex Kerfoot and Will Butcher (they swapped teams). Mike Reilly said it's his teammates on team USA at the Worlds that encouraged him to test free agency. Hyman did not want to sign with Florida and was going UFA but Toronto acquired his rights for McKegg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Matt_T83 said: I believe the NHL could (and should) close the NCAA free agent loophole next CBA. Its not a loophole. A loophole implies that the teams are using a rule beyond its intended effect. This was negotiated through a CBA. Quote For those who don't know, players drafted in the NHL can go to play College NCAA hockey for 4 years, and then become free agents to sign wherever they want. This is beneficial for them, as the level of NCAA hockey is quite high, so they don't actually slow their development that much. Because they are older coming into the NHL, their ELCs are shorter and they also reach UFA status faster, meaning they can cash in on big contracts much earlier (i.e. fewer years in the NHL to UFA). They are also unpaid and have to pay out of their own pocket for everything including any camps they attend. There is also the risk of injury, suffer something serious and your career is over before you make a dime. Quote If a team offers a drafted player a max value ELC, and said player refuses to sign the deal, then the age expiry on their ELC (25) and RFA (27) status should be pushed back 1 year, for each year they do not sign a contract. This effect of pushing back age cutoffs should max out at 3 years. Players could still technically go to the NCAA and then sign with any NHL team, but they would still require 3 years of ELC contract, and would not reach UFA status until age 30. There is a reason why if you fail to sign a player out of the CHL after two years, that player goes back into the draft. This is to give the player's leverage while negotiating their ELCs. The same goes for college players. Teams know that every year they don't come to an agreement with the player, that player is one year closer to free agency. Players then have some leverage which your solution wipes out. This would violate antitrust laws. Just because the team is offering a "max value ELC" does not mean they cannot bury a player in the AHL allowing him only to earn an AHL salary and no chance to collect on any bonuses. Quote Essentially this closes all financial incentives for players to take the NCAA route, which I am sure would stop at least 95% of players from doing it. In this way, the current rules would still apply exactly as they are for undrafted players, any player not offered a max value ELC, and players who sign their first NHL contract within 1 year of being drafted. There are no financial incentives to taking the NCAA route, you are losing money every year you are in college aside from the value of your education. There are a tiny minority of players recently who stayed until they graduated. Off the top of my head, Kerfoot, Butcher, Vesey, Hyman, Hayes, Schultz, not one of them is a star because the most elite prospects don't waste years in college when they could be making bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Maybe there is a way to make both sides happy. Every player wants to make the pro's as soon as possible. ie the earliest ELC contract they can sign which is better for them immediately and starts the clock for RFA UFA status. Because there is no set time to leave school (up to 4 years) the team is unsure as well about signing a player. Extend the rights of the player up to when they leave their school (for training and maturity) but in order to extend those rights--- upon signing -- the team reimburses the player for every school year/season in college. Maybe the signing bonus(in escrow) for each season could be the AHL minimum per year. This money could also be insured in case of accident or injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NHL'er Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 They should also close the Russian factor loophole. Maybe burn down the KHL or something so Tryamkin would have to play with us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ojibwa72 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 For my 2 cents I think the draft team should get a pick back from the signing team when their draft pick signs to another team. This would at least mean the drafting team does get something out of it rather than a wasted pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 It's not a loophole. If a CHL player wants to wait 4 years before signing, he can become UFA too. And teams need to make a decision on them much sooner, or they go back in the draft. 4 hours ago, mll said: Mike Reilly said it's his teammates on team USA at the Worlds that encouraged him to test free agency. That worked out really well for him, huh? I don't see it as much of an issue, but there is probably an easier fix than giving teams MORE control over a player's life. Perhaps if there is some sort of contractual bonus/provision created that is only available if a player signs with the team that drafted them? It will at least give the team an advantage (like the 8-year contract provision). Maybe limiting the rookie max contract for free agent signings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where's Wellwood Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 5 hours ago, mll said: Blake Wheeler was drafted 5th overall in 2004 by Phoenix and went UFA. Justin Schultz. Kevin Hayes. After Jimmy Vesey there was Alex Kerfoot and Will Butcher (they swapped teams). Mike Reilly said it's his teammates on team USA at the Worlds that encouraged him to test free agency. Hyman did not want to sign with Florida and was going UFA but Toronto acquired his rights for McKegg. And what percentage of players drafted from college, or drafted then committed to college is that? How prevalent is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 From a player's perspective, changing this would be horrible for the options kids have. A kid who has the ability scholastically to pursue education route should not be denied the one benefit they have IF they cannot come to terms with the professional organization that drafts them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Threads like these are one of the downsides of Hughes going back to school. Now we have at least a year of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rekker Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 42 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said: Threads like these are one of the downsides of Hughes going back to school. Now we have at least a year of this. The loophole should be closed. Its dumb. No worries here concerning Hughes signing. That kid just oozes character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepe Silvia Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 6 hours ago, NHL'er said: They should also close the Russian factor loophole. Maybe burn down the KHL or something so Tryamkin would have to play with us... Are you suggesting we invade Russia during winter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarcore Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 10 hours ago, Where's Wellwood said: Is there a count of what percentage of drafted college players choose to take the loophole? And when did the loophole open? Wasn't it only instated as a part of the 2013 CBA or did it exist in the 2005 CBA? As far as I can remember, it's never been an issue for the Canucks (Gaudette, Boeser, Hutton, Kesler, Bieksa, Schneider, Demko all signed and I'm sure I'm missing a lot). It wasn't even in the spotlight until Vesey as far as I know. RJ Umberger didn't but that was due to Burke lowballing him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 16 hours ago, Where's Wellwood said: Is there a count of what percentage of drafted college players choose to take the loophole? And when did the loophole open? Wasn't it only instated as a part of the 2013 CBA or did it exist in the 2005 CBA? As far as I can remember, it's never been an issue for the Canucks (Gaudette, Boeser, Hutton, Kesler, Bieksa, Schneider, Demko all signed and I'm sure I'm missing a lot). It wasn't even in the spotlight until Vesey as far as I know. Don't worry, it's enormous. The OP said so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB5 Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 I wouldn't be against leaving it open but compensation should be offered in some shape or form to the team who originally drafted the player when he signs elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 9 hours ago, GarthButcher5 said: I wouldn't be against leaving it open but compensation should be offered in some shape or form to the team who originally drafted the player when he signs elsewhere. They already do for 1st round picks - it's a 2nd round pick at the equivalent position. There's no compensation for picks outside of the 1st round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.