Refusing to play for the team that drafted them | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

Refusing to play for the team that drafted them

NHL Dude 120

Registered User
Jun 18, 2011
3,974
714
Ottawa
Let's use 2023 for example if Michkov or Connor Bedard decided not to play for the team that drafted them would that change your opinion of them? Let's say in April 2023 Bedard and Michkov said no to playing for certain teams would you be ok with that

I get the hypocrisy in that I'm a sens fan curious about another "Lindros" situation but a player would want to do what is natural for their career though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FractionTwo
We've seen it in other sports, it just depends on whether a player wants to avoid a certain team/ownership.

The mid-80s NFL Drafts came up recently in discussion with my buddies. John Elway and his dad had no trust in the Baltimore Colts' ownership. He took some heat for refusing to sign with them. But a year later, the Colts moved to Indianapolis and over time people understood the Elways' position. The 1985 Draft was interesting in that Bernie Kosar manipulated things so he could play for his de facto hometown team; Minnesota actually traded up to draft Kosar only to find out he was going to wait until the supplemental draft.

It'd be a little harder to see nowadays. Most high end prospects will want to get their ELC clocks going and can become UFA as early as when they're 25 years old.

Back in the Lindros days, unrestricted free agency didn't exist yet. A player could sign a Group III offer sheet at age 30/31 and that process was a bit messy. Similarly a player could have signed a Group I offer sheet (Brendan Shanahan/Petr Nedved) a few years into their career, but similarly the compensation process was ugly. So it was a bit of a different time where an 18 year old prospect could be stuck on a team without a ton of leverage.

Plus back then there wasn't a rookie salary cap. Nowadays, ELCs are pretty rigid so there's not a ton of negotiating.
 
I never understood why it's such a big deal if a player exercises his right to free agency. I'm not sure I ever will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LGB
If they don't want to play for a team they should have the right to do that, right? As long as they let the team know so that they won't waste a pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CupsOverCash
Only reason I don't like players doing it is because it goes against the spirit of the draft. If enough players do it in time, why even have a draft? Just let all the big market teams sign the best players and turn the NHL into the English Premier League/La Liga where over half the league has basically no reason to root for their team other than the occasional upset.
 
Only reason I don't like players doing it is because it goes against the spirit of the draft. If enough players do it in time, why even have a draft?

To give teams a head start on negotiating with their drafted players.

Just let all the big market teams sign the best players and turn the NHL into the English Premier League/La Liga where over half the league has basically no reason to root for their team other than the occasional upset.

The limits to ELC's make that point moot.

Why not bring back the reserve clause and outlaw free agency while we're at it?
 
They should take a page out of Trouba. Do your 3 year ELC. Do a bridge deal of either 2-3 years. If 2 year deal, go to arbitration. By the end of year 6, at age 24, if you truly want out, that team will have no choice but to trade you.
 
It depends on how dysfunctional the team that drafted them was. I don't hold it against Lindros. You get one chance to make your career at an elite level and make generational wealth, and exercising whatever control you have within your collectively bargained rights is fine.
 
We've seen it in other sports, it just depends on whether a player wants to avoid a certain team/ownership.

The mid-80s NFL Drafts came up recently in discussion with my buddies. John Elway and his dad had no trust in the Baltimore Colts' ownership. He took some heat for refusing to sign with them. But a year later, the Colts moved to Indianapolis and over time people understood the Elways' position. The 1985 Draft was interesting in that Bernie Kosar manipulated things so he could play for his de facto hometown team; Minnesota actually traded up to draft Kosar only to find out he was going to wait until the supplemental draft.

It'd be a little harder to see nowadays. Most high end prospects will want to get their ELC clocks going and can become UFA as early as when they're 25 years old.

Back in the Lindros days, unrestricted free agency didn't exist yet. A player could sign a Group III offer sheet at age 30/31 and that process was a bit messy. Similarly a player could have signed a Group I offer sheet (Brendan Shanahan/Petr Nedved) a few years into their career, but similarly the compensation process was ugly. So it was a bit of a different time where an 18 year old prospect could be stuck on a team without a ton of leverage.

Plus back then there wasn't a rookie salary cap. Nowadays, ELCs are pretty rigid so there's not a ton of negotiating.
Couple other hockey examples. Leafs couldn't come to terms with Craig Simpson under Ballard and went with Clark. Bryan Berard wouldn't sign with Ottawa (although, he showed up to camp and the root of the issue was the Senators sent him back to junior, likely for service time issues, and he won the Calder the next year).
 
I don't love it but th way some teams embarrass themselves lately I mean I couldn't blame someone for ghosting on certain teams.
 
It depends on how dysfunctional the team that drafted them was. I don't hold it against Lindros. You get one chance to make your career at an elite level and make generational wealth, and exercising whatever control you have within your collectively bargained rights is fine.

Not to mention that if you're buried on the depth chart, there's nothing wrong with opting for a team that will give you more and higher quality playing time.
 
Not to mention that if you're buried on the depth chart, there's nothing wrong with opting for a team that will give you more and higher quality playing time.
Hockey is a different animal vs other leagues.

MLB/NFL/NBA draft, if you don't sign, you can go back into the draft the following year.

Not the same with the NHL who hold your rights for 2 years in the CHL or 3/4 years for NCAA players.
 
We've seen it in other sports, it just depends on whether a player wants to avoid a certain team/ownership.

The mid-80s NFL Drafts came up recently in discussion with my buddies. John Elway and his dad had no trust in the Baltimore Colts' ownership. He took some heat for refusing to sign with them. But a year later, the Colts moved to Indianapolis and over time people understood the Elways' position. The 1985 Draft was interesting in that Bernie Kosar manipulated things so he could play for his de facto hometown team; Minnesota actually traded up to draft Kosar only to find out he was going to wait until the supplemental draft.

It'd be a little harder to see nowadays. Most high end prospects will want to get their ELC clocks going and can become UFA as early as when they're 25 years old.

Back in the Lindros days, unrestricted free agency didn't exist yet. A player could sign a Group III offer sheet at age 30/31 and that process was a bit messy. Similarly a player could have signed a Group I offer sheet (Brendan Shanahan/Petr Nedved) a few years into their career, but similarly the compensation process was ugly. So it was a bit of a different time where an 18 year old prospect could be stuck on a team without a ton of leverage.

Plus back then there wasn't a rookie salary cap. Nowadays, ELCs are pretty rigid so there's not a ton of negotiating.
Don't forget Bo Jackson and the Bucs
 
I'm pretty sure he also has the right to free agency after aging out of the CHL or four years after the draft if he went the NCAA route.
True. that's another way to free agency, that's giving up alot of money for those players though as they then have to sign an ELC for I believe 2 years with those teams.
 
Michkov could refuse and just play in the KHL till he is traded, NCAA prospects can just play out their college career and be FA after so no harm done, but CHL prospects who don't want to go overseas are stuck because they don't have many options.

Don't teams have 2 years to sign CHL prospects and 4 years for NCAA and Euro prospects before they are FA ? If that info is right and I'm a spiteful team or the return is not good enough have fun waiting years to get into the NHL.

Edit: 2 years not 3
 
I’m all for the players. If a player thinks it would be beneficial financially, personally and professionally, who am I to judge that player?

It would suck if it were my team, but you gotta respect a player’s decision to not want to play in franchises that have terrible management and/or ownership.
 
If a college player was willing to sign after the draft or his D+1 year but the team wanted to wait to see if he was worth it then it's hard to blame the player for playing the same card a year later
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad