Prospect Info: Ryan Johnson, D, 2019 #31 overall: Signed, Rochester (AHL), Recalled 12/5/24

[joshjull]

How about you go do some more research before posting stuff like this? Go research the Kings roster. Ask people on their board their future at LHD vs RHD.

The Kings are losing two NHL lefties to free agency (Maatta/Edler). They're a playoff team and they’re not going to replace either of them with a college free agent like Johnson. They're likely going to get two NHLers for those spots and have Anderson (currently a RFA) to fill out the left side. They also have the option to slide one of the many RHD to the left side if they wanted to. They're not going to just hand Johnson a NHL roster spot. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’
t be interested in him but you said he would get a roster spot.

Do some research about players playing on their off-hand for extended periods of time. Do some research on why NHL coaches tend to not do that. Show me the list of players in the past 20 years that have done it for the majority of their career (spoiler: the list is very small).

-Some dmen are equally effective on both sides
-Some can be effective on both but its a drop off on their off hand (How much varies)
-Some have such a drop off on their offside that its not worth playing them there.
-Some actually prefer or are more effective on their offhand side (the smallest group)

Dmen in the first group can have longer careers due to their versatility. Goligoski is one example. I don‘t know which category Johnson falls in yet.

Coaches worry about their own end when a dman plays his offside. On their offside they will frequently be put on their backhand trying to make passes up the wall or on breakouts. That ups the chances of a turnover. But on the flip side a dman on their offhand can have advantages in the offensive zone and on the rush.

How a coach views a dman on their offhand would be influenced by various factors; system, the dmen he has available, coaching philosophy, how aggressive or conservative they are, etc.

Granato doesn’t care about handedness and he’s the only NHL coach relevant to this discussion.

But what do I know, I haven’t done any research……….

Before you call something “wildly speculative” it would help if you actually knew what you were talking about.

I called it is wildly speculative because it is. You‘re asserting Johnson would have to play his offhand for almost two years and that he would have an issue with it. Thats an opinion you’re stating as a fact.

-You have no idea if he would play the left or right side.
-You also have no idea if it would be issue if he did play his offhand.

Both are possible but neither are facts.

 

[Fly Boy]

So with the NIL, shouldn't this be moot or is it still just a dick swinging contest

NIL are mostly sponsor and booster money. The actual universities aren't paying the players and giving them a contract. The fact remains signing a professional contract will forfeit all eligibility and it always will.

 

[RefsIdeas]

The Kings are losing two NHL lefties to free agency (Maatta/Edler). They're a playoff team and they’re not going to replace either of them with a college free agent like Johnson. They're likely going to get two NHLers for those spots and have Anderson (currently a RFA) to fill out the left side. They also have the option to slide one of the many RHD to the left side if they wanted to. They're not going to just hand Johnson a NHL roster spot. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’
t be interested in him but you said he would get a roster spot.


-Some dmen are equally effective on both sides
-Some can be effective on both but its a drop off on their off hand (How much varies)
-Some have such a drop off on their offside that its not worth playing them there.
-Some actually prefer or are more effective on their offhand side (the smallest group)

Dmen in the first group can have longer careers due to their versatility. Goligoski is one example. I don‘t know which category Johnson falls in yet.

Coaches worry about their own end when a dman plays his offside. On their offside they will frequently be put on their backhand trying to make passes up the wall or on breakouts. That ups the chances of a turnover. But on the flip side a dman on their offhand can have advantages in the offensive zone and on the rush.

How a coach views a dman on their offhand would be influenced by various factors; system, the dmen he has available, coaching philosophy, how aggressive or conservative they are, etc.

Granato doesn’t care about handedness and he’s the only NHL coach relevant to this discussion.

But what do I know, I haven’t done any research……….


I called it is wildly speculative because it is. You‘re asserting Johnson would have to play his offhand for almost two years and that he would have an issue with it. Thats an opinion you’re stating as a fact.

-You have no idea if he would play the left or right side.
-You also have no idea if it would be issue if he did play his offhand.

Both are possible but neither are facts.

That’s a lot of words just to give one (sort of) example of a player that played on his off-hand for an extensive period of time. There are others, but not too many. How nice of you to say the Kings have LHD prospects then talk about the ones they’re losing to free agency, and again assume that they wouldn’t offer Johnson a spot. Then trying to say a RHD would move to the left (to quote you- that’s not a thing).

It’s amazing how you can be so confidently incorrect about your statements, and at the same time tell others that their statements aren’t factual or are speculative.

 

[SundherDome]

Im sure things would change if the NCAA got a cut of the pro contract.

Does the CHL or any other league? The South Park episode is still one of the best at exposing greedy tactics. I think it would actually be healthier for the NCAA to allow a contract to be signed and let the players still play

That’s a lot of words just to give one (sort of) example of a player that played on his off-hand for an extensive period of time. There are others, but not too many. How nice of you to say the Kings have LHD prospects then talk about the ones they’re losing to free agency, and again assume that they wouldn’t offer Johnson a spot. Then trying to say a RHD would move to the left (to quote you- that’s not a thing).

It’s amazing how you can be so confidently incorrect about your statements, and at the same time tell others that their statements aren’t factual or are speculative.

It's amazing that you are getting an unbiased opinion and still choose to die on your hill

 

[jmelm]

From what Adams has said and then various collegiate players like Johnson and Portillo too have indicated is that they are in regular and constructive communication.

That's fine, but in fairness that's a pretty bland & generic comment, and I wouldn't expect him to say anything less than that. But it doesn't give us any greater insight, even compared to the bit we've heard Adams say about Levi. It would be great if we heard him say something like "he's planning to sign here after the school season ends and hopefully we can get him into the lineup for a few games" or something like that. That would just give me a lot more confidence.

You can not maintain your NCAA eligibility if you sign a professional contract.

This of course makes sense, but it also raises the question: To use Johnson as an example, why can't he sign a contrac to be effective from June 1, 2023?

That way, the contract won't even gone into effect before the end of the college season and there's no money exchanging hands. It provides the team some assurance that the player will sign there, and gives the player some financial security because should they get injured in the year prior to them signing, they still get their ELC salary & signing bonus, etc.

It's a win-win for the players & teams. Why would the NCAA get in the way of this? I can't htink of a good reason.

 

[joshjull]

It’s kind of crazy there is still no official word on his decision yet. He must be really struggling with it.

 

[joshjull]

I have mentioned before as a quesiton I've started to ponder: are some of these college kids thinking that an extra year (or two) in college may allow them to bypass the AHL altogether? If so, this may explain why so many may be returning instead of turning pro now.

I know the AHL is a major step up in quality from the NCAA, and also in terms of a pro schedule. Having said that, it's still the case that a college player playing that extra year or two means they're one year older, more experienced, more games under their belt and more physically developed in a way that may allow them to bypass the AHL.

This only works for the top prospects because the lower tier guys will still need seasoning, but the 1st & 2nd round type of prospects can probably fairly safely take this path and step in as a 3rd pairing D or bottom 6 F and work their way up from there.

Just a theory, I have no idea if I'm right, but it could explain a lot of these decisions by a lot of players on various teams who are clearly ready to turn pro yet are returning to school.

You may be on to something. I also wonder if they just want to extend their college experience after missing a lot of it due to the pandemic. Plus they delay potentially playing in the AHL for a year.

 

[Husko]

That's fine, but in fairness that's a pretty bland & generic comment, and I wouldn't expect him to say anything less than that. But it doesn't give us any greater insight, even compared to the bit we've heard Adams say about Levi. It would be great if we heard him say something like "he's planning to sign here after the school season ends and hopefully we can get him into the lineup for a few games" or something like that. That would just give me a lot more confidence.




This of course makes sense, but it also raises the question: To use Johnson as an example, why can't he sign a contrac to be effective from June 1, 2023?

That way, the contract won't even gone into effect before the end of the college season and there's no money exchanging hands. It provides the team some assurance that the player will sign there, and gives the player some financial security because should they get injured in the year prior to them signing, they still get their ELC salary & signing bonus, etc.

It's a win-win for the players & teams. Why would the NCAA get in the way of this? I can't htink of a good reason.

It actually doesn't make sense and is the genesis of the entire "losing college draft picks to FA" problem.

What you propose is exactly how it should work.

 

[RefsIdeas]

It's amazing that you are getting an unbiased opinion and still choose to die on your hill

I found this comment interesting. Fandom is weird. There's been studies done that when somebody is a fan of their team, it essentially becomes a part of them. When somebody says something that could be percieved as a slight against a team, in their mind it's the same thing as a personal insult. When I'm laying out reasons I think Ryan Johnson might not sign, other peoples brains closely interpret that as I'm saying something personal against them. To an outsider, their opinion might be unbiased, but there's almost certainly biases behind the argument, even if its subconcious. As a second point, opinions are fine - but it doesn't mean that they are grounded in reality.

For example:

- The LHD playing on the right side is rare. That's a fact, not an opinion. Him saying Granato "doesn't care about handedness" is an opinion, not a fact (while Granato might not care about playing on your offhand for certain games, or even individual players, it does not equate to a blanket statement that Granato doesn't care at all).
- Him implying that the LA Kings could "slide one of their RHD to the left side" is an opinion, and most certainly not a fact. There's many reasons behind this, but growing up a righty would pretty much never play on the left side. Lefties out-number righties by a good amount in hockey, and a right shot defenseman is a valuable commidity, and one you certainly wouldn't waste playing on their off-hand. Lefties may slide to their right throughout their career here and there and have some level of comfort with it. A righty will almost never have experience playing on the left, and I tried to find a recent example of a right shot playing left for more than a handful of games and I couldn't find one. It just doesn't happen.
- Him saying that the LA Kings have "more than a few LHD prospects" is technically a fact, but in the sense that Sabres could say we have "more than a few" center prospects. While technically true, they certainly aren't anybody notable.

Then there's other facets of his argument that simply fall into straw-man arguments, or using assumptions as facts, such as:

- I'm asserting Johnson would have to play on his offhand for two years (straw-man, I never said and/or implied that).
- The LA Kings wouldn't offer Johnson a spot in their roster because they are going to get "two NHLers for those spots"
- I have no idea if it would be an issue if he did play on his offhand (it's an issue for any defenseman playing on their offhand, not just Johnson. The amount of players that play on their offhand without issue is miniscule (maybe 2 since 2000?).


So while people like yourself, or JoshJull may not agree with me, it doesn't mean that my opinion is wrong or not rooted in facts. I have some opinions that I will readily admit may be wrong (i.e I believe the Pegulas have been cheap to a fault last year and will be this year) - but I may be wrong about that, in fact I hope I am. I have opinions about prospects and NHL players that may be wrong on. I won't argue a point about Isak Rosens potential to this length. It's impossible to know, even if I have my doubts.

What is not really up for debate is the amount of defenseman that play on their offhand for an extended period of time. I implore yourself (or anybody else reading this) to begin to do some research on this topic. Mike Babcock had a semi-viral clip about why handedness matters when it came to Olympic selection. While sure, that's just one coach saying that - you can look up quotes by various NHL coaches/GMs and they'll give insightful answers about why it matters. There's been analytical studies about how a players performance drops off on their off-hand. If it was as much of a non-issue that some believe, you'd see it more often around the league. Saying "oh just put this lefty on the right side" is not as easy as it sounds (p.s - this applies to other sports too, like when people think an NFL guard can just switch between LG/RG or even LT/RT). It is a fact that very few defenseman play on their off-hand for the majority of their career. In recent history TJ Brodie and Trevor Daley are good examples of players that are able to do it. With the speed of todays game, going into your defensive zone on your backhand and having to make a quick decision with the puck is very, very difficult to do. Yes, defenseman are at an adventagous position in the offensive zone on their offhand. I understand Dahlin played the right side at Frolunda and said he's comfortable there. You'll find examples of a team being forced to play defenseman on their offhand for a season here or there (The Sabres ECF teams had to do this quite a bit) - but an NHL coaches preference 99% of the time is to keep them at the proper side.

There are plenty of hills I wouldn't be willing to die on. But to call this a non-issue or "wildly speculative" is not at all grounded in reality or based in fact. It's simply your minds trying to discredit an opinion that it doesn't agree with because I said Ryan Johnson might not sign. Here's the thing - he still might! I have no idea if he will or not. He could even join the Sabres and play on the right side here and there - for individual games or portions of a season it's not that uncommon. My point here is simply calling out the poorly held belief that defenseman handedness doesn't matter or wouldn't factor into an equation in a players mind when it comes to their future on the team.

 

[SundherDome]

I found this comment interesting. Fandom is weird. There's been studies done that when somebody is a fan of their team, it essentially becomes a part of them. When somebody says something that could be percieved as a slight against a team, in their mind it's the same thing as a personal insult. When I'm laying out reasons I think Ryan Johnson might not sign, other peoples brains closely interpret that as I'm saying something personal against them. To an outsider, their opinion might be unbiased, but there's almost certainly biases behind the argument, even if its subconcious. As a second point, opinions are fine - but it doesn't mean that they are grounded in reality.

For example:

- The LHD playing on the right side is rare. That's a fact, not an opinion. Him saying Granato "doesn't care about handedness" is an opinion, not a fact (while Granato might not care about playing on your offhand for certain games, or even individual players, it does not equate to a blanket statement that Granato doesn't care at all).
- Him implying that the LA Kings could "slide one of their RHD to the left side" is an opinion, and most certainly not a fact. There's many reasons behind this, but growing up a righty would pretty much never play on the left side. Lefties out-number righties by a good amount in hockey, and a right shot defenseman is a valuable commidity, and one you certainly wouldn't waste playing on their off-hand. Lefties may slide to their right throughout their career here and there and have some level of comfort with it. A righty will almost never have experience playing on the left, and I tried to find a recent example of a right shot playing left for more than a handful of games and I couldn't find one. It just doesn't happen.
- Him saying that the LA Kings have "more than a few LHD prospects" is technically a fact, but in the sense that Sabres could say we have "more than a few" center prospects. While technically true, they certainly aren't anybody notable.

Then there's other facets of his argument that simply fall into straw-man arguments, or using assumptions as facts, such as:

- I'm asserting Johnson would have to play on his offhand for two years (straw-man, I never said and/or implied that).
- The LA Kings wouldn't offer Johnson a spot in their roster because they are going to get "two NHLers for those spots"
- I have no idea if it would be an issue if he did play on his offhand (it's an issue for any defenseman playing on their offhand, not just Johnson. The amount of players that play on their offhand without issue is miniscule (maybe 2 since 2000?).


So while people like yourself, or JoshJull may not agree with me, it doesn't mean that my opinion is wrong or not rooted in facts. I have some opinions that I will readily admit may be wrong (i.e I believe the Pegulas have been cheap to a fault last year and will be this year) - but I may be wrong about that, in fact I hope I am. I have opinions about prospects and NHL players that may be wrong on. I won't argue a point about Isak Rosens potential to this length. It's impossible to know, even if I have my doubts.

What is not really up for debate is the amount of defenseman that play on their offhand for an extended period of time. I implore yourself (or anybody else reading this) to begin to do some research on this topic. Mike Babcock had a semi-viral clip about why handedness matters when it came to Olympic selection. While sure, that's just one coach saying that - you can look up quotes by various NHL coaches/GMs and they'll give insightful answers about why it matters. There's been analytical studies about how a players performance drops off on their off-hand. If it was as much of a non-issue that some believe, you'd see it more often around the league. Saying "oh just put this lefty on the right side" is not as easy as it sounds (p.s - this applies to other sports too, like when people think an NFL guard can just switch between LG/RG or even LT/RT). It is a fact that very few defenseman play on their off-hand for the majority of their career. In recent history TJ Brodie and Trevor Daley are good examples of players that are able to do it. With the speed of todays game, going into your defensive zone on your backhand and having to make a quick decision with the puck is very, very difficult to do. Yes, defenseman are at an adventagous position in the offensive zone on their offhand. I understand Dahlin played the right side at Frolunda and said he's comfortable there. You'll find examples of a team being forced to play defenseman on their offhand for a season here or there (The Sabres ECF teams had to do this quite a bit) - but an NHL coaches preference 99% of the time is to keep them at the proper side.

There are plenty of hills I wouldn't be willing to die on. But to call this a non-issue or "wildly speculative" is not at all grounded in reality or based in fact. It's simply your minds trying to discredit an opinion that it doesn't agree with because I said Ryan Johnson might not sign. Here's the thing - he still might! I have no idea if he will or not. He could even join the Sabres and play on the right side here and there - for individual games or portions of a season it's not that uncommon. My point here is simply calling out the poorly held belief that defenseman handedness doesn't matter or wouldn't factor into an equation in a players mind when it comes to their future on the team.

This is just getting odder and odder, you're contradicting your argument against him. He is saying his opinion and some facts (like Granato saying handedness doesn't matter during an interview). You then insert your opinion as fact by saying they have LHD but they are not notable. I think the team drafting them would think they are notable, if not, why draft them?

There is clearly some bias as you are on a specific teams message board but I would say a good majority of us have an unbiased opinion about our team. Since we will never know the internal convos with the players it is moot.

 

[RefsIdeas]

This is just getting odder and odder, you're contradicting your argument against him. He is saying his opinion and some facts (like Granato saying handedness doesn't matter during an interview). You then insert your opinion as fact by saying they have LHD but they are not notable. I think the team drafting them would think they are notable, if not, why draft them?

There is clearly some bias as you are on a specific teams message board but I would say a good majority of us have an unbiased opinion about our team. Since we will never know the internal convos with the players it is moot.

They’re notable in the sense that Tyson Kozak is notable. This isn’t hard to understand.

IIRC Granato said something along the lines of "he doesn't get too caught up in that". I can't find the specific quote though. I'm sure he doesn't get too caught up, especially last year when we're trying to maximize Dahlin's potential. Doesn't mean that he's going to go out and throw Jokiharju on the left or Samuelsson on the right. It still matters in the majority of situations.

"I would say a good majority of us have an unbiased opinion about the team". It's actually comical you say that. I agree there's some good posters on here! But to say that a specific HFBoards team page is "unbiased" is funny.

 

[dotcommunism]

That's fine, but in fairness that's a pretty bland & generic comment, and I wouldn't expect him to say anything less than that. But it doesn't give us any greater insight, even compared to the bit we've heard Adams say about Levi. It would be great if we heard him say something like "he's planning to sign here after the school season ends and hopefully we can get him into the lineup for a few games" or something like that. That would just give me a lot more confidence.




This of course makes sense, but it also raises the question: To use Johnson as an example, why can't he sign a contrac to be effective from June 1, 2023?

That way, the contract won't even gone into effect before the end of the college season and there's no money exchanging hands. It provides the team some assurance that the player will sign there, and gives the player some financial security because should they get injured in the year prior to them signing, they still get their ELC salary & signing bonus, etc.

It's a win-win for the players & teams. Why would the NCAA get in the way of this? I can't htink of a good reason.

A) per the CBA, an NHL contract that goes into effect the following season (not including extensions) cannot be signed until March 1.

B) a player is a professional as soon as he signs a professional contract. The NCAA doesn't really have any interest in changing this. Unless or until the NCAA wants to change it (or the NCAA goes away entirely), don't expect this to be something that changes.

 

[jmelm]

A) per the CBA, an NHL contract that goes into effect the following season (not including extensions) cannot be signed until March 1.

B) a player is a professional as soon as he signs a professional contract. The NCAA doesn't really have any interest in changing this. Unless or until the NCAA wants to change it (or the NCAA goes away entirely), don't expect this to be something that changes.

I'm not expecting it to change, because it's so damn obvious that if they haven't done it already, they're not going to do it. That does not mean they shouldn't change it, however.

But there's power in numbers and if the NHL adjusted the CBA to allow for NCAA players to sign a contract that would go into effect at a predetermined later date (step 1), then college hockey players could collectively try to push the NCAA to accept this.

Are Ivy League business school students precluded from signing an employment agreement that goes into effect after their graduation? Legally or by college regulations?

If not, the same should apply to athletes. As long as they're not getting compensated while they are still in school, I don't see a conflict, at all. In fact, it could possibly even help NCAA recruitment relative tot he CHL, etc. And I'm sure the NHL teams would be happy to pay a fee (i.e. $50K or 100K per player) as part of a new structure & agreement like this, because it's better than them getting hosed by players leaving via UFA.

 

[Fly Boy]

I feel like there's a profound misunderstanding about the NCAA's rules and their business by a lot of people. And honestly the new changes eg. NIL have just confused the casual fan even more.

 

[Gras]

I'm not expecting it to change, because it's so damn obvious that if they haven't done it already, they're not going to do it. That does not mean they shouldn't change it, however.

But there's power in numbers and if the NHL adjusted the CBA to allow for NCAA players to sign a contract that would go into effect at a predetermined later date (step 1), then college hockey players could collectively try to push the NCAA to accept this.

Are Ivy League business school students precluded from signing an employment agreement that goes into effect after their graduation? Legally or by college regulations?

If not, the same should apply to athletes. As long as they're not getting compensated while they are still in school, I don't see a conflict, at all. In fact, it could possibly even help NCAA recruitment relative tot he CHL, etc. And I'm sure the NHL teams would be happy to pay a fee (i.e. $50K or 100K per player) as part of a new structure & agreement like this, because it's better than them getting hosed by players leaving via UFA.

NCAA only cares about their own revenue, the leagues wont pay off the NCAA because its free player development, and I dont think the players would want the NCAA to generate even more revenue off of them without being compensated.

At most the deal i would offer is if a player signs a contract and stays in college, the contract slides until they leave, the pro team that signs them covers their tuition until they leave, player then gets a housing allowance and a stipend. The NCAA themselves can go pound sand.

 

[jmelm]

NCAA only cares about their own revenue, the leagues wont pay off the NCAA because its free player development, and I dont think the players would want the NCAA to generate even more revenue off of them without being compensated.

At most the deal i would offer is if a player signs a contract and stays in college, the contract slides until they leave, the pro team that signs them covers their tuition until they leave, player then gets a housing allowance and a stipend. The NCAA themselves can go pound sand.

Some of those ideas are also good. But I don't think the players would care at all if their NHL teams paid what's tantamount to the transfer fee they pay to the European leagues. Because the players WOULD get compensated in a sense with what I'm proposing, because they would get those guaranteed salary & signing bonus the ELC would provide, even if they ended up getting a career threatening injury.

So that kind of financial secuity would give them enough incentive to sign; give the teams assurance whether the players will sign with them or if they need to explore a trade or fill those holes if the players won't sign; and would give the college teams a fee for each guy signed.

So I see it as a win-win-win for all 3 parties. But as often happens in life, things that blatantly make a lot of sense often end up not happening so complicated and ineffectual bullshit happens instead. So it makes far too much sense to actually happen lol.

 

[Fly Boy]

Can I just say how ridiculous it is that this many years later people are still parroting the "f*** dem kids," line and attitude. Close the loophole, this player is our property, this isn't fair to my team, etc. These kids have rights.

 

[Gras]

Some of those ideas are also good. But I don't think the players would care at all if their NHL teams paid what's tantamount to the transfer fee they pay to the European leagues. Because the players WOULD get compensated in a sense with what I'm proposing, because they would get those guaranteed salary & signing bonus the ELC would provide, even if they ended up getting a career threatening injury.

So that kind of financial secuity would give them enough incentive to sign; give the teams assurance whether the players will sign with them or if they need to explore a trade or fill those holes if the players won't sign; and would give the college teams a fee for each guy signed.

So I see it as a win-win-win for all 3 parties. But as often happens in life, things that blatantly make a lot of sense often end up not happening so complicated and ineffectual bullshit happens instead. So it makes far too much sense to actually happen lol.

You would also have to get the other 3 pro leagues on board, with two of sports being the big cash cows of the NCAA, letting football and basketball players go pro at 18 would be a major talent drain for the NCAA and negatively impact their revenues.

If the NFL came out and said they were going to setup their own AHL type development league and start drafting players at 18, that would force the NCAA to the table to negotiate, the NHL and the College hockey programs don't have the clout or the financial incentives to get the NCAA to the table.

 

[sabremike]

Yes, it is being paid by a professional team. The NCAA likes to think of itself as an amateur organization so that's one of the games they play where only the NCAA gets to make buckets of money on their athletes (well, up to the recent licensing stuff changed).

There is no reason other than the obvious one of filthy rotten stinking corruption that the RICO statutes used to break up La Coza Nostra shouldn't be used to take down the gangsters running the NCAA crime syndicate.

 

[Matt Ress]

Can I just say how ridiculous it is that this many years later people are still parroting the "f*** dem kids," line and attitude. Close the loophole, this player is our property, this isn't fair to my team, etc. These kids have rights.

I guess you're referring to posters? IDK man it doesn't seem like anyone is asserting those things. If anything, people want to get the kids paid while they're doing what they choose.

Maybe you believe that all young athletes should be able to play for the team of their picking? Just trash the draft? And contracts too because they're binding? I hope I'm misunderstanding.

 

[jmelm]

I guess you're referring to posters? IDK man it doesn't seem like anyone is asserting those things. If anything, people want to get the kids paid while they're doing what they choose.

Maybe you believe that all young athletes should be able to play for the team of their picking? Just trash the draft? And contracts too because they're binding? I hope I'm misunderstanding.

No, I think you’re understanding it correctly and summed it up well.

Another idea I’ve had for a while is this one: Don’t want to rob kids of their “rights”? Don’t want to force them to play for the team that drafted them, even if said team offers them a competitive and fair contract? Ok….we’ll then how about this….

Instead of making the date in August that the kid can sign with another team and doesn’t need to miss a single game or even training camp, make them sit out until Jan. 1st.

There should be a date by which the team has to submit an offer (a fair contract/could be prescribed based on which round they were selected in), akin to a qualifying offer for an RFA. If the team doesnt submit it by that date (let’s say it’s June 1st or 15th), the player becomes a UFA and can sign with any team from July 1st just like all other UFAs.

However, if the team DOES submit the offer (aka to retain their rights), then it’s up to the kid and the team to arrive at an agreement or not.

If a kid SO badly doesn’t want to play and go to UFA, they cannot sign until January 1st (or Feb. 1st).

That way they aren’t being “forced” or they’re not “slaves” or whatever some may say. But they also face some penalty or loss — in this case missing training camp and the first few months of pay that will put them behind the 8 ball for that season, as well as impacting the team that signs them (we all know how RFAs who hold out and miss camp often have a fought start or season). That would also encourage an interested team to give up an asset for that player rather than just wait till August when they can sign them for nothing.

Established NHL players who’ve busted their ass and perhaps performed at a high level have to wait until either 27 years old or 7 years in the league in order to achieve UFA status. But a college kid who’s 22 or 23 could just choose not to sign and become a UFA without any consequences to that player or the team that signs them? I think that’s bullshit IMO.

 

[Chainshot]

That's fine, but in fairness that's a pretty bland & generic comment, and I wouldn't expect him to say anything less than that. But it doesn't give us any greater insight, even compared to the bit we've heard Adams say about Levi. It would be great if we heard him say something like "he's planning to sign here after the school season ends and hopefully we can get him into the lineup for a few games" or something like that. That would just give me a lot more confidence.




This of course makes sense, but it also raises the question: To use Johnson as an example, why can't he sign a contrac to be effective from June 1, 2023?

That way, the contract won't even gone into effect before the end of the college season and there's no money exchanging hands. It provides the team some assurance that the player will sign there, and gives the player some financial security because should they get injured in the year prior to them signing, they still get their ELC salary & signing bonus, etc.

It's a win-win for the players & teams. Why would the NCAA get in the way of this? I can't htink of a good reason.

At various times, different players and different skills guys have talked about being in to evaluate and assist with different players. And of course many want a simple answer but lets face it, that isn't in the offing. So minimize them being out to see, speak and advise their picks as bland, but it's something they've done as expressed by both sides.

Telling will be if he or Portillo are at dev camp in three weeks. If they aren't there, then it likely indicates they are leaning toward destination control. I'm still figuring they will be there.

It'll be almost nice to get back to discussing the player. Given their lack of high-end pipeline depth and the uncertain nature of NHL injury, I remain hopeful that he turns pro at the end of the Gophers' season with the opportunity to burn a year toward RFA by getting some NHL game action in Buffalo. There is still a great deal to like about the situation with them and his potential future.

 

[Kublakhan]

I forgot about this guy lol and I liked him..

 

[jmelm]

It'll be almost nice to get back to discussing the player. Given their lack of high-end pipeline depth and the uncertain nature of NHL injury, I remain hopeful that he turns pro at the end of the Gophers' season with the opportunity to burn a year toward RFA by getting some NHL game action in Buffalo. There is still a great deal to like about the situation with them and his potential future.

Agreed. We do all like the player and we want (and frankly need) that depth, which is why it's frustrating or concering to us that he hasn't signed or at least there was more evidence from him or the team that he will. I just wished we knew something more definitive.

It's also why I think it's paramount that we have more defensive depth, with or without Johnson being up in the air. If Nemec and Jiricek are the only 2 Dmen taken ahead of us (which will be a surprise if there isn't a 3rd IMO) and we have our pick of all the rest, I think it will be really hard to pass up on one of them at 9.

 

[HogtownSabresfan]

Is he going to be at the development camp?