Next CBA - potentially shortened draft

[Oilslick941611]

Just raise the draft age so you aren’t taking fliers are teenagers.

 

[KeydGV21]

It was part of the WHA era lawsuit. And it was a Canadian court that rendered the decision. And it's why the NHL moved the draft age down to 18.

Preventing 18 year olds from selling their services was found to be illegal.

https://casetext.com/case/linseman-v-commr-of-internal-revenue

"In Linseman v. World Hockey Association, 439 F.Supp. 1315 (D. Conn. 1977), the “20-year old rule” was held invalid under the Sherman Antitrust Act. As a result, petitioner played hockey for the Bulls during the 1977–1978 season. "

It's likely it gets challenged again at some point. Especially with how weakened anti-trust laws are in the States.

Sounds like you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about and just throwing stuff at the wall to fit your idea of what should be illegal…

Other posters have established though that precedence has been set via the NHL and NBA that age minimums are legal via a CBA…

 

[thewookie1]

Agents always looking to screw up the league. I see zero reason to change the format. Shorter drafts only lessen the abilities for trades as teams will just keep vets instead of giving them away at the deadline on the cheap.

Additionally it’s a benefit only to larger franchises that can coerce late bloomers to go to their team with under the table methods.

 

[Stephen]

I can see this being a bit of a monkey's paw for players

If the cut the draft down, I would imagine scouting would be scaled back, even if slightly, and those who may have gotten a chance in the 7th round may just never be looked at if the team is only looking for 4 round worth of picks.


Like, the logic is, "I wasn't good enough to be drafted in the first 4 rounds, but maybe they'll sign me as a free agent instead"?
What kind of "trickle down economics" kind of backwards logic is that?
(Especially when undrafted players can already sign as free agents in between drafts anyway)

Very curious to see how this will war game out and impact trade deadlines and the value of the remaining picks.

Assume 3rd and 4th round picks will gain value and make those marginal trade deadline deals less feasible and make rebuilding a completely different process.

Can see big market teams scoop up more desirable late bloomers and shut the have nots out of the bidding. Those lower budget organizations will have a hard time recruiting that late bloomer class.

 

[frightenedinmatenum2]

It’s not incorrect in the sense that it is what happens with a number of late round picks. But it’s not like it’s almost every pick. We see some guys get their ELC contracts terminated.

But it would also force teams to be more cognizant of their draft management. There would be less assets to trade, which makes trades harder, and the nature of a shorter draft would force teams to make harder decisions and not do things like make it someone’s turn to make a pick.

But it would also change the scope of what players get drafted. If you have transfer agreements that states how long you have the rights of a draft pick, which would seem to make more beneficial to use the picks on European and American college players and hurt the major junior teams, which they have more access too.

In this hypothetical scenario, teams would be forced to sign late round prospects instead of drafting them and holding on to their rights. Odds are, those types of players would become currency in trades.

As in, instead of moving a 5th round pick in a trade - a team would exchange a prospect who would have been a 5th round pick if they still existed.

A better system would be to keep the 7 rounds, but make it so that if you get drafted into the NHL, you're guaranteed 277k (92,500*3) if you go unsigned and enter free agency. Is that not what this is about? Agents want to create a situation where these late round guys get paid because they all aren't getting their ELCs and missing a possible window to sign somewhere else?

 

[Leaf Fans]

It was part of the WHA era lawsuit. And it was a Canadian court that rendered the decision. And it's why the NHL moved the draft age down to 18.

Preventing 18 year olds from selling their services was found to be illegal.

Yup, the original rat took it to court (tax court) in 1977.

Here's my question, and I've not been able to find anything about it.

Can a CHL player indicate they don't want to enter the draft and sign a contact instead at 18?

They would gave to challenge in court as has been pointed out the NHL and NHLPA have an agreement. The player could play elsewhere that is not the NHL and can still be drafted by an NHL team who would then control his NHL rights.

 

[majormajor]

7 rounds is clearly too much, in my opinion. Almost every pick is thrown away. It just ties up a player who doesn't get signed.

But you still have a decent number of finds in the 6th round, and even more in the 5th. Some teams have done really well on late round picks. If you end the draft after the 4th round, then rich teams (if they have good scouting) can just buy up the best of the leftover players.

A 5 or 6 round draft would make sense to me.

 

[Silky Johnson]

It is illegal. The Linseman case made it clear.

You're correct that a CBA can allow for extralegal items if it's negotiated. You see it all the time in healthcare.

You are correct. CBA's can be used to overrule certain aspects of labour law. Overtime in the film industry was a good example. It's assumed that if a group all agrees to surrender their rights in exchange for something it can be OK.

Goal posts were never moved, the legal system is just complicated.

 

[alko]

Should bump the draft age to 19 as well. It sucks for the generational talents like Bedard/McDavid to miss out on an NHL season but those players are rare.

One more year of evaluation and development should in theory make the draft process better.

Matthews would still make the cut off if draft age was 19 (late birthday meant he turned 19 in his draft year).

With some exceptional status like in CHL.

7 rounds is clearly too much, in my opinion. Almost every pick is thrown away. It just ties up a player who doesn't get signed.

But then it is so fun to speak about players, they make it - Joe Pavelski. Peter Bondra (8th round), Pavol Demitra (9th round)...

 

[Breakfast of Champs]

With some exceptional status like in CHL.



But then it is so fun to speak about players, they make it - Joe Pavelski. Peter Bondra (8th round), Pavol Demitra (9th round)...

The league would never grant exceptional status if the age was changed. Why would teams who aren't in the lottery allow anoher team an exception to the rule to draft a generational type player.? IF they changed the rule, it would be a hard 19 like its a hard 18 now.

But it will never ever be changed so this is all talk about nothing. It will remain 18 years as of September 15 like it has been for decades

 

[DieSendungmitderMaus]

Don't get why fans would want to increase the draft age. All it does is force the greatest players to spend one more year playing kindergarten hockey rather that at the level they belong. Sure you'd have more information on drafted players but so would everyone else so there's no edge to be had unless you're conceding that your team's scouting department can't compete. If that's the case, blame ownership.

 

[GKJ]

In this hypothetical scenario, teams would be forced to sign late round prospects instead of drafting them and holding on to their rights. Odds are, those types of players would become currency in trades.

As in, instead of moving a 5th round pick in a trade - a team would exchange a prospect who would have been a 5th round pick if they still existed.

A better system would be to keep the 7 rounds, but make it so that if you get drafted into the NHL, you're guaranteed 277k (92,500*3) if you go unsigned and enter free agency. Is that not what this is about? Agents want to create a situation where these late round guys get paid because they all aren't getting their ELCs and missing a possible window to sign somewhere else?

It may work out that way in some cases, but teams would rather have the draft pick to make themselves. And they would take up contract slots. There aren’t many cases of signed prospects having that kind of value.

 

[4thline]

To my thinking there's two different discussions.

Discussion A is just a pragmatic assessment of how many players are worth drafting per year balanced against a rising number of teams. 32x 6 is 192, only 18 less than the 210 long held standard. Which is most right? 192, 210, or 224? If we get to a 34 team league a 6 round draft sees 204 players selected. Long story short is that in an expanding league we should be looking at the total number of appropriate picks, not be fixated on the status quo for # of rounds.

Discussion B is far more interesting. In my opinion if you're looking at dropping to 4 rounds you might as well take a blender to the entire entry draft/ talent pipeline. There's nothing saying that a universal (as opposed to opt -in) draft as young as possible with multi-year reserve lists/signing rights is "right" or best, its just the way it's been.

My proposal:

• 4 round draft
• CHL agreement scrapped
• Draft age moved to 18 as of Jan 1 rather than Sept 15
• Teams have one U19 draft slot per year, can be used in any round (majority of draft is after U20, some U21 late bloomers)
• Undrafted Players become UFA after U21 season
• Ditch the U20 slide rule for players in the AHL
• Teams hold drafted player rights until after U22 season
• Some sort of signing incentive for Drafted vs. undrafted ELC's

Basic premise- shift the NHL approach to drafting to be more like the other NA pro leagues where prospects are more mature, known commodities that are expected to "go pro" (whether NHL or AHL) immediately after being drafted. Reduce the resources required and complexities of managing bloated pipelines of reserve list players, players under contract in other leagues etc. Make the draft much more marketable to mainstream fans rather than just draft junkies- the picks will stand a much much greater chance of factoring into their teams' plans on day 1. Gets more CHL 19 year old's developing in the AHL rather than being held back.

Why the CHL does it- keep the best of the best one extra year, keep more better OA's from the guys that would have been late round picks in the old system

Why the players do it- the ones that get drafted after U19 get to the AHL faster, burn an ELC year, more undrafted players means more depth guys get to choose their own fate, ELC's become pretty much automatic with being drafted rather than being left in limbo.

 

[Frenchy]

It will just help the big market's teams that's all. The big markets get Richer And The small markets get Poorer. It's a way get over the draft and have the full autonony at a very young age.
Players Agents have been dreaming about this for years to have 18 y old players on full UFA.

If that happend you might as well reduce the size of the league or you will end up with a huge gap between the rich and the poor. I'm guessing they are frustrated to see a Canadian team in the final and they are trying to find a way that it wont happend again .

 

[TGWL]

Just raise the draft age so you aren’t taking fliers are teenagers.

I think the issue here is then you start getting into contract issues as rights to these players aren't controlled by a team yet. So now you're stuck in a scenario where some of these players may have contracts elsewhere.

 

[4thline]

I think the issue here is then you start getting into contract issues as rights to these players aren't controlled by a team yet. So now you're stuck in a scenario where some of these players may have contracts elsewhere.

Don't see it.
The best European's are already under pro contracts, there's a system in place to manage it
CHLer's play out their CHL eligibility
NCAA'er already work the "maybe I'll just play out my degree" angle

 

[TGWL]

Don't get why fans would want to increase the draft age. All it does is force the greatest players to spend one more year playing kindergarten hockey rather that at the level they belong. Sure you'd have more information on drafted players but so would everyone else so there's no edge to be had unless you're conceding that your team's scouting department can't compete. If that's the case, blame ownership.

You can certainly blame ownership/scouting, but a lot of players at 17 aren't physically developed, so while the scouts may see some skill, they certainly see some flaws. I certainly think scouting would be easier at a higher age, but then you also run into a bunch of other issues, and of course fans will start complaining about those undrafted players who take off and just sign with whoever they want, especially when the top/big market teams keep getting them,

 

[TGWL]

Don't see it.
The best European's are already under pro contracts, there's a system in place to manage it
CHLer's play out their CHL eligibility
NCAA'er already work the "maybe I'll just play out my degree" angle

But some of them already have the fall back option of getting their ELC signed, whether after 4 years, or before. If you can offer these players a contract now to make some good money, how many continue to spend the 4 years playing NCAA and then wait to see if they're drafted? I mean, are we talking about raising the draft age until after college, or by a year/2.

 

[Golden_Jet]

To my thinking there's two different discussions.

Discussion A is just a pragmatic assessment of how many players are worth drafting per year balanced against a rising number of teams. 32x 6 is 192, only 18 less than the 210 long held standard. Which is most right? 192, 210, or 224? If we get to a 34 team league a 6 round draft sees 204 players selected. Long story short is that in an expanding league we should be looking at the total number of appropriate picks, not be fixated on the status quo for # of rounds.

Discussion B is far more interesting. In my opinion if you're looking at dropping to 4 rounds you might as well take a blender to the entire entry draft/ talent pipeline. There's nothing saying that a universal (as opposed to opt -in) draft as young as possible with multi-year reserve lists/signing rights is "right" or best, its just the way it's been.

My proposal:

• 4 round draft
• CHL agreement scrapped
• Draft age moved to 18 as of Jan 1 rather than Sept 15
• Teams have one U19 draft slot per year, can be used in any round (majority of draft is after U20, some U21 late bloomers)
• Undrafted Players become UFA after U21 season
• Ditch the U20 slide rule for players in the AHL
• Teams hold drafted player rights until after U22 season
• Some sort of signing incentive for Drafted vs. undrafted ELC's

Basic premise- shift the NHL approach to drafting to be more like the other NA pro leagues where prospects are more mature, known commodities that are expected to "go pro" (whether NHL or AHL) immediately after being drafted. Reduce the resources required and complexities of managing bloated pipelines of reserve list players, players under contract in other leagues etc. Make the draft much more marketable to mainstream fans rather than just draft junkies- the picks will stand a much much greater chance of factoring into their teams' plans on day 1. Gets more CHL 19 year old's developing in the AHL rather than being held back.

Why the CHL does it- keep the best of the best one extra year, keep more better OA's from the guys that would have been late round picks in the old system

Why the players do it- the ones that get drafted after U19 get to the AHL faster, burn an ELC year, more undrafted players means more depth guys get to choose their own fate, ELC's become pretty much automatic with being drafted rather than being left in limbo.

Peaked at 286 players drafted in the early 90’s.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I don't see the need to change this system. There's nothing broken about it. Shortening the draft is simply a concession to the players that owners can use to get concessions from the players on other issues. And it's one the owners are willing to make because they know that controlling those late round picks isn't really all *that* important overall.

 

[Number8]

Correct. The teams who can spend a ton on development will draw all the top prospects remaining. If your club has had a bad record of development, and doesn't spend on it, why would a player sign with them? You can't have infinite expansion, and decreasing parity.

I agree and disagree.

To your last point I agree wholeheartedly. Infinite expansion is ugly - regardless of whether parity declines or improves. Either way you have a poor product.

What I disagree with just as strongly is the notion that spending money and emphasis on development is some sort of unfair advantage. If you are a team that doesn't pay attention to development of its' players (or just isn't any good at it) it SHOULD be a competitive disadvantage. Absolutely.

There's already enough issues that can be advantageous/disadvantageous that are outside of a team's control (taxation, location, weather, media, etc). If my team was located in an expensive location that was not as desirable as others, I'd be working on the intangible selling points to players and coaches alike like a demon.

 

[absolute garbage]

If the US was willing to enforce it's kwn antitrust laws it would have already been busted.

If the US cared about antitrust laws, the NHL would not exist. It's literally a cartel.

Don't get why fans would want to increase the draft age. All it does is force the greatest players to spend one more year playing kindergarten hockey rather that at the level they belong. Sure you'd have more information on drafted players but so would everyone else so there's no edge to be had unless you're conceding that your team's scouting department can't compete. If that's the case, blame ownership.

Actually I think the real loser would be the CHL, as what would happen is that the greatest players would choose a different path and end up playing that extra season (or 2 seasons) in Europe. My hot take is that would be a good thing overall.

 

[JKG33]

If the NHL draft age can legally be raised, then why not have it 18 for the first round only, and 19 in subsequent rounds? The elite talents get their NHL shot, and after that it's only guys thatre an extra year along

 

[Voight]

Seems weird to do this given the league is already at 32 teams and they want two more.

 

[4thline]

Actually I think the real loser would be the CHL, as what would happen is that the greatest players would choose a different path and end up playing that extra season (or 2 seasons) in Europe. My hot take is that would be a good thing overall.

Would they?
2007 -Kane (his only OHL year)
2008- Doughty
2009- Tavares, Kadri
2010- Hall
2011 - Landeskog
2012- Yakupov and Murray
2013- Jones, Monahan
2014-Reinhart, Draisaitl
2016- Tkachuk
2020-Lafreniere

All were faced with waiting til after their U19, many were top prospects from the time they were 14,15, still chose CHL- some coming from other countries.