LW Jimmy Vesey (2012, 66th, NSH; 2016 UFA, NYR)

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Looks like it's only a matter of time before he's a UFA. This rule should be looked at anyone can become a UFA at 21/22 and forego the draft. What the point of drafting and helping develop these kids when they can just screw you over and sign wherever they want. Poile should just go ahead and trade his rights to Boston for a 2nd round pick at the draft.
 
Last edited:
Not the Justin Schultz loop hole in his case. Just doing what Hayes did - becoming a UFA after graduating college.

I'd be worried for sure as a Preds fan (what exactly can he prove in College at this point?) and I'm now very worried he'll sign with his hometown Bruins in summer 2016.
 
Eligible to become a UFA? Yup.

Eligible for "the loophole"? There's no damn loophole!
Loophole is defined as
"an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules."
Vesey will become and UFA at 21 and gets to pick his team while other players have to sign with the team that drafted them or re-enter the draft. He's bypassing signing with the Predators to become a UFA. What he's going to do is the very definition of a "loophole".
 
Loophole is defined as
"an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules."
Vesey will become and UFA at 21 and gets to pick his team while other players have to sign with the team that drafted them or re-enter the draft. He's bypassing signing with the Predators to become a UFA. What he's going to do is the very definition of a "loophole".

No, it is not. In fact, it's the exact opposite of a loophole. There is nothing ambiguous or inadequate in the CBA. The clause in question explicitly defines this situation to be one that grants a player UFA eligibility.


A loophole would be if the CBA did NOT explicitly address this type of situation and the player's rights were lost because of a technicality resulting from the inadequacy of the clause's wording.

This is not that type of situation.

If you don't like the clause, that is your prerogative. But it's not a loophole in any way, under any definition of the term.
 
No, it is not. In fact, it's the exact opposite of a loophole. There is nothing ambiguous or inadequate in the CBA. The clause in question explicitly defines this situation to be one that grants a player UFA eligibility.


A loophole would be if the CBA did NOT explicitly address this type of situation and the player's rights were lost because of a technicality resulting from the inadequacy of the clause's wording.

This is not that type of situation.

It's inadequate in that McDavid is drafted and has to either sign or play Jr's for 2 years and re-enter the draft. Where as Eichel can get drafted and not sign play for 3 more years and become a UFA.
 
It's inadequate in that McDavid is drafted and has to either sign or play Jr's for 2 years and re-enter the draft. Where as Eichel can get drafted and not sign play for 3 more years and become a UFA.

If McDavid wishes, he may re-enter the draft, and then become a UFA in four years.


"Inadequate" does not mean "what I think is not fair".

"Inadequate", in the context of a loophole, refers to unclear wording within the legislation that may be exploited to reach an unintended result.


The result here is EXACTLY as the clause was meant to be interpreted. There is no loophole.
 
Last edited:
The loophole they are talking about is you can become a UFA without completing your college tenure IF you played your post-draft year in the USHL or BCHL basically.

Wheeler and Schultz used it.

And, again, that is NOT a loophole. It's explicitly defined by the CBA that a player who enters college after one season of junior play may become a UFA in the fourth summer following his draft.

This is the clause that dictates what happens to guys like Mike Reilly (the one you're referring to):

CBA said:
If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19, who had received a Bona Fide Offer in
accordance with Section 8.6(a)(ii) above, becomes a bona fide college
student prior to the second June 1 following his selection in the Entry
Draft and does not remain a bona fide college student through the
graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain exclusive
rights for the negotiation of his services until the later of: (a) the fourth
June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, or (b) thirty (30) days
after NHL Central Registry receives notice that the Player is no longer a
bona fide college student

This is the clause that dictates what happens to Vesey:

CBA said:
If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19 is a bona fide college student at the time
of his selection in the Entry Draft, or becomes a bona fide college student
prior to the first June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, and
remains a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college
class, his drafting Club shall retain the exclusive right of negotiation for
his services through and including the August 15 following the graduation
of his college class. The Club need not make a Bona Fide Offer to such
Player to retain such rights.


A loophole looks like neither of these clauses. These are both explicit and clearly intended to be interpreted in the way that they are.


EDIT: And for the record, Schultz and Wheeler signed under the old CBA. As I understand, the rules (or at least the wording of the clause) regarding this situation have changed (slightly) since the old CBA. Perhaps it was once a loophole, I don't remember the old CBA. But it is not a loophole now, and it bugs me to no end when people refer to it as such.
 
Last edited:
Bummer. Can't say I blame him for wanting to get a degree from Harvard though.

Why are so many people assuming he'll go the UFA route? I'm sure if Nashville gives him a fair offer he'll sign.
 
Bummer. Can't say I blame him for wanting to get a degree from Harvard though.

Why are so many people assuming he'll go the UFA route? I'm sure if Nashville gives him a fair offer he'll sign.
Predators have to give him an entry level deal where as an UFA he would be able to sign for more and choose his team.
 
Not true. He'll be limited by ELC restriction regardless of whom he signs with.
but he still gets to choose his team. And his drafting team gets nothing. Still a way around the draft and player development system. Predators have invested a draft pick and years of development on him and get to watch him use that to benefit another team.
 
Last edited:
but he still gets to choose his team. And his drafting team gets nothing. Still a way around the draft and player development system.


How is it a way around the draft? Do you think players should have their rights held by the drafting team indefinitely? How many years is "enough" before a player gets to become a UFA? If the player is obligated to sign with the drafting team, should the drafting team be obligated to sign every player they draft?


The goal of the CBA is to address these questions equitably. That's the purpose of clauses such as the one we're discussing. It gives the team a lengthy window to sign the player, but allows the player an opportunity to leave after enough time if he doesn't feel his needs are best suited with the drafting team.


Every single drafted player has the right to choose their team by waiting until their rights expire.
 
Charelli and Julien may be put the door if the Bruins don't make the playoffs... (McKenzie tweeted that people around the league don't understand the heat he gets, neither do I) right now the Preds are closer to a Stanley cup then the Bruins, I'm not sure why he wouldn't want to play in Nashville.
 
How is it a way around the draft? Do you think players should have their rights held by the drafting team indefinitely? How many years is "enough" before a player gets to become a UFA? If the player is obligated to sign with the drafting team, should the drafting team be obligated to sign every player they draft?


The goal of the CBA is to address these questions equitably. That's the purpose of clauses such as the one we're discussing. It gives the team a lengthy window to sign the player, but allows the player an opportunity to leave after enough time if he doesn't feel his needs are best suited with the drafting team.


Every single drafted player has the right to choose their team by waiting until their rights expire.
They should at least be under the same rule as a RFA. When Boston signs him next summer they should compensate the Predators with a pick in the round higher than he was picked. IE he was a 3rd rounder then Boston should send a 2nd.
 
They should at least be under the same rule as a RFA. When Boston signs him next summer they should compensate the Predators with a pick in the round higher than he was picked. IE he was a 3rd rounder then Boston should send a 2nd.

That's totally a fine position to take, and I agree that teams deserve some sort of compensation.

All I contend with is the characterization of this clause as a "loophole". ;)
 
That's totally a fine position to take, and I agree that teams deserve some sort of compensation.

All I contend with is the characterization of this clause as a "loophole". ;)

Good defense of the CBA and situation hockeyfreak7. As you've clearly stated there is no loophole.

Also, I wouldn't be that worried if I was a Preds fan. The vast majority of NCAA seniors who were drafted and are offered contracts by an NHL team actually sign those offers.

Nashville is a strong up and coming team that is well managed and in an attractive part of the country to live. They have a record of developing and playing young players who are ready. It is an ideal situation for Vesey.

The risk in this situation is more in Vesey's court, as a serious injury could cost him a contract offer and the large signing bonus. The only way I can see Vesey not signing with Nashville is if they don't offer him a maximum, or close to maximum, ELC contract. Given that he is likely to be a twice nominated Hobey Baker Award nominee (and perhaps even a winner?), I would think that he will be asking for the max.

All in all, despite the fact I think he should have gone pro, you can't really argue with returning to school as he is still very young and being more physically mature in a year will only benefit his transition. Pretty good situation considering that he was a 3rd round pick who wasn't drafted in his first year of eligibility.
 
What if he just loves Harvard and wants to finish his degree and then worry about pro hockey? What if that's all it is?
He has an "advisor" helping him. I'm pretty sure the agent I mean advisor knows he can become a free agent after his senior year.
 
No, it is not. In fact, it's the exact opposite of a loophole. There is nothing ambiguous or inadequate in the CBA. The clause in question explicitly defines this situation to be one that grants a player UFA eligibility.


A loophole would be if the CBA did NOT explicitly address this type of situation and the player's rights were lost because of a technicality resulting from the inadequacy of the clause's wording.

This is not that type of situation.

If you don't like the clause, that is your prerogative. But it's not a loophole in any way, under any definition of the term.
Not sure why you keep posting this. Many loopholes deal with workarounds to explicitly stated rules or laws. Often dealing with a technicality or a flaw in said explicit rule to get around it.

In this case, it is not a reach to assume that the rule was defined based on the fact that; a) college eligibility usually lasts 4 years. b)Most prospects will not go the route of playing in leagues such as the BCHL if they intend on going to college c)Risks such as injury make it not so wise for players not to sign and wait out their 4 years of eligibility.

We are talking about a very small subset of potential prospects that will ever have the chance of making the NHL, and as such said scenario was probably an afterthought.

i.e This is pretty much the very definition of a loophole.
 
Not sure why you keep posting this. Many loopholes deal with workarounds to explicitly stated rules or laws. Often dealing with a technicality or a flaw in said explicit rule to get around it.

In this case, it is not a reach to assume that the rule was defined based on the fact that; a) college eligibility usually lasts 4 years. b)Most prospects will not go the route of playing in leagues such as the BCHL if they intend on going to college c)Risks such as injury make it not so wise for players not to sign and wait out their 4 years of eligibility.

We are talking about a very small subset of potential prospects that will ever have the chance of making the NHL, and as such said scenario was probably an afterthought.

i.e This is pretty much the very definition of a loophole.

An afterthought? :laugh:


CBA said:
(c) College Players.

(i) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19 is a bona fide college student at the time
of his selection in the Entry Draft, or becomes a bona fide college student
prior to the first June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, and
remains a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college
class, his drafting Club shall retain the exclusive right of negotiation for
his services through and including the August 15 following the graduation
of his college class. The Club need not make a Bona Fide Offer to such
Player to retain such rights.

(ii) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19 is a bona fide college student at the time
of his selection in the Entry Draft, or becomes a bona fide college student
prior to the first June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, and does
not remain a bona fide college student through the graduation of his
college class, his drafting Club shall retain exclusive rights for the
negotiation of his services until the later of: (a) the fourth June 1 following
his selection in the Entry Draft, or (b) thirty (30) days after NHL Central
Registry receives notice that the Player is no longer a bona fide college
student; provided that if the Player ceases to be a bona fide college student
on or after January 1 of an academic year and the Player: (1) is in his
fourth year of college and has commenced his fourth year of NCAA
eligibility, or (2) is in his fourth year of college and is scheduled to
graduate from college at the end of his fourth year, then in the
circumstances described in (1) or (2), the Club shall retain the exclusive
right of negotiation for such Player's services through and including the
August 15 following the date on which he ceases to be a bona fide college
student. The Club need not make a Bona Fide Offer to such Player to
retain such rights.

(iii) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19, who had received a Bona Fide Offer in
accordance with Section 8.6(a)(ii) above, becomes a bona fide college
student prior to the second June 1 following his selection in the Entry
Draft and remains a bona fide college student through the graduation of
his college class, his drafting Club shall retain the exclusive rights of
negotiation for his services through and including the August 15 following
the graduation of his college class.

(iv) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19, who had received a Bona Fide Offer in
accordance with Section 8.6(a)(ii) above, becomes a bona fide college
student prior to the second June 1 following his selection in the Entry
Draft and does not remain a bona fide college student through the
graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain exclusive
rights for the negotiation of his services until the later of: (a) the fourth
June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, or (b) thirty (30) days
after NHL Central Registry receives notice that the Player is no longer a
bona fide college student; provided that if the Player ceases to be a bona
fide college student on or after January 1 of an academic year and the
Player: (1) is in his fourth year of college and has commenced his fourth
year of NCAA eligibility, or (2) is in his fourth year of college and is
scheduled to graduate from college at the end of his fourth year, then in
the circumstances described in (1) or (2), the Club shall retain the
exclusive right of negotiation for such Player's services through and
including the August 15 following the date on which he ceases to be a
bona fide college student.

(v) If a Player drafted at age 20 or older is a bona fide college student at the
time of his selection or becomes a bona fide college student while his
drafting Club retains exclusive rights, then his drafting Club shall retain
those rights until the later of: (a) the second June 1 following the date of
his selection, or (b) thirty (30) days after NHL Central Registry receives
notice that the Player is no longer a bona fide college student; provided
that if the Player: (1) is in his fourth year of college and has commenced
his fourth year of NCAA eligibility and the Player ceases to be a bona fide
college student on or after January 1 of an academic year, or (2) is in his
fourth year of college, is scheduled to graduate from college at the end of
his fourth year and the Player ceases to be a bona fide college student on
or after January 1 of an academic year, or (3) remains a bona fide college
student through the graduation of his college class, then in the
circumstances described in (1) or (2) or (3), the Club shall retain the
exclusive right of negotiation for such Player's services through and
including August 15 of that calendar year.

For purposes of the above provisions, the term "graduation of his college
class" shall mean the class with which the Player is scheduled to graduate
during his final semester of attendance (as opposed to his matriculating
class (the class with which he is expected to graduate as of the date of his
original enrollment)). For purposes of clarity, a Player's graduating class
may change during his tenure in college.

Furthermore, a Player shall be deemed to be scheduled to graduate from
college if, at the conclusion of his fourth year of college he would have
been within five percent (5%) of the minimum number of credits required
to graduate, provided, such determination shall be made assuming that in
such fourth year of college Player earned at least the number of credits
equal to the average number of credits for which he had been enrolled
during his first three years of college. It shall be the Player's responsibility
to promptly provide evidence (i.e., official school transcripts and
requirements) that he was or was not scheduled to graduate. Absent
evidence to the contrary, NHL Central Registry shall treat a Player as if he
was scheduled to graduate or remained a bona fide college student through
the graduation of his college class. Furthermore, a Player who is removed
from his Club's Reserve List as a result of the operation of the above
provisions shall be a draft-related Unrestricted Free Agent effective upon
such removal.

Any Club that retains the exclusive rights to a Player who is a bona fide
college student may request, at any time, that such Player promptly
provide a current official school transcript and the school's graduation
requirements.

As a general matter, the above provisions were not intended to cut off, and
shall not have the effect of cutting off, a Club's exclusive negotiating
rights during the period that a Player remains in college.

(i) Dictates players who enter college immediately following their draft and remain there for four years.

(ii) Dictates players who enter college immediately following their draft and leave early.

(iii) Dictates players who wait a year before entering college and remain there for four years.

(iv) Dictates players who wait a year before entering college and leave early

(v) Dictates collegiate players drafted after turning 20.


It even explicitly defines what it means to leave college early (not that it matters to Vesey).

This section of the CBA is airtight and works EXACTLY as it was intended to work, ergo no loophole. Yes, college is expected to be four years. Yes, players often enter college after playing an extra year of juniors. But the CBA has clear and exact language referring to the procedures in place for exactly those situations, and that language is not being exploited in a way that is contrary to the intention of the CBA.

Under absolutely no definition of the term is this a loophole. Please, read the CBA. Or a dictionary for the term "loophole". There is no "workaround to explicitly stated rules". Nothing is being "worked around".
 

Ad

Ad