AHL minimum age limit

VanW27

Registered User
Jun 9, 2003
4,725
1,467
Canada
Just common sense that someone playing in a higher level (if theyre ready) than wasting a year because theyve done it all at that level and nothing new to learn then thats a year wasted..... but the question is...if im 19 and want to earn money playing pro hockey...isnt it my right?

No
 

RUSqueelin*

Registered User
Nov 2, 2005
1,061
0
Just common sense that someone playing in a higher level (if theyre ready) than wasting a year because theyve done it all at that level and nothing new to learn then thats a year wasted.

This is very true, if you have done it all at the CHL level, aka Crosby, then you are good enough to play in the NHL. Guys who you have mentioned like Staal haven't come close to "doing it all" at the CHL level. Apparently you are underestimating the CHL. You still haven't provided any examples of players playing in the AHL at 18 or 19 that have benefited their careers.

.... but the question is...if im 19 and want to earn money playing pro hockey...isnt it my right?

You can, if you are good enough you can play in the NHL and get paid. Heck, you can even sign a pro contact and get your signing bonus. All professional leagues have rules as to where you can play, how you can change teams in that league etc. Playes don't have rules to which they can do what ever they want. When they signed their CHL contact they knew the rules. If they felt another league or way was a better way to get that NHL contract or play "professionally" then they could have taken that route.
 

HOCKEY_GURU

Registered User
Jun 27, 2002
661
0
Visit site
This is very true, if you have done it all at the CHL level, aka Crosby, then you are good enough to play in the NHL. Guys who you have mentioned like Staal haven't come close to "doing it all" at the CHL level. Apparently you are underestimating the CHL. You still haven't provided any examples of players playing in the AHL at 18 or 19 that have benefited their careers.



You can, if you are good enough you can play in the NHL and get paid. Heck, you can even sign a pro contact and get your signing bonus. All professional leagues have rules as to where you can play, how you can change teams in that league etc. Playes don't have rules to which they can do what ever they want. When they signed their CHL contact they knew the rules. If they felt another league or way was a better way to get that NHL contract or play "professionally" then they could have taken that route.

Not under estimating the CHL.. but we all agree the AHL is a higher level than the CHL but inferior to the NHL.... for many players...as many have mentioned here the AHL is a perfect level for them... theyve overgrown CHL and cant warrant enough playing time in the NHL....and thats where I think they should be..... as for a list I have no intention if sitting reasearching etc just to prove a point (taking time off work as it is to write this lol), ask many posters who they think played 1 year too many in the CHL and probably stagnated and im sure the list will be a long one... ultimately any list anyone makes will be conjecture.....some could argue playing 5 minutes in the NHL is more beneficial than playing 40 minutes in CHL and someone will argue the reverse... how can we prove it? How can i prove Patrick Stefan was inhibited in development playing early? or was it concussions? would samsonov have done better playing in the CHL? Bonk put up some decent numbers in the NHL..was he also inhibited? maybe so maybe not..see its all conjecture....so the point of a list would be? I can just say if Brule gets sent down to the CHL(and I dont know if its true - friend told me theyre considering it) its my opinion he lost 1 year of development and yes MY OPINION - cant prove it..and I hope he doesnet...as well as others in the future who may be in a similar situation
 

RUSqueelin*

Registered User
Nov 2, 2005
1,061
0
Not under estimating the CHL.. but we all agree the AHL is a higher level than the CHL but inferior to the NHL.... for many players...as many have mentioned here the AHL is a perfect level for them... theyve overgrown CHL and cant warrant enough playing time in the NHL....and thats where I think they should be..... as for a list I have no intention if sitting reasearching etc just to prove a point (taking time off work as it is to write this lol), ask many posters who they think played 1 year too many in the CHL and probably stagnated and im sure the list will be a long one... ultimately any list anyone makes will be conjecture.....some could argue playing 5 minutes in the NHL is more beneficial than playing 40 minutes in CHL and someone will argue the reverse... how can we prove it? How can i prove Patrick Stefan was inhibited in development playing early? or was it concussions? would samsonov have done better playing in the CHL? Bonk put up some decent numbers in the NHL..was he also inhibited? maybe so maybe not..see its all conjecture....so the point of a list would be? I can just say if Brule gets sent down to the CHL(and I dont know if its true - friend told me theyre considering it) its my opinion he lost 1 year of development and yes MY OPINION - cant prove it..and I hope he doesnet...as well as others in the future who may be in a similar situation

Yes I realize there isn't a black and white answer. I am of the opinion that a player should play with his peers until he proves he can dominate that level - then he is ready to move up. So the current CHL/NHL agreement recognizes this although nothing is perfect.
 

wingmanpei

Registered User
Jul 1, 2006
700
0
PEI, Canada
The reason for the agreement is to protect the CHL so it can keep their players in junior instead of in the minors. It is not only designed to keep NHL teams from sending CHL eligible players to the minor pros, but is also designed to keep the minor pro teams from raiding CHL teams.

Without the agreement, minor pro teams from the AHL, ECHL, UHL, etc would be free to sign undrafted 17,18,19 year olds from the CHL, which would be crippling to major junior. Imagine an 17,18,19 year old undrafted player who is playing for his major junior team and he gets a phone call from a team in the ECHL wanting to sign him to a contract. Most undrafted players would take a pay cheque from a pro team rather than play for almost nothing to play junior. These 18-19 year old players are needed to keep the CHL competitive enough so that NHL can send their prospects to junior because they are not quite ready to play at any pro level. There is no harn in keeping these players an extra year or 2 in junior because if they are good enough to play pro at 18 or 19, they should still be good enough to play pro at 20 years old.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
if you have the talent...and a team wants you? why not? maybe you can help support your family... we all have a right to work in any other proffession..why not a 19 year old hockey player?...whos an adult by legal standards.

Because those rights have been negotiated away by others on your behalf. When you sign an NHL (or AHL) contract you become a member of the NHLPA (or PHPA) and agree to abide by any terms of the CBAs and any other agreements between the leagues - including the CHL/AHL age limits.

Rules that are blatantly illegal under anti trust law (age limits, the draft, RFA status, etc) are perfectly legal if negotiated under a CBA. It doesn't matter if a player is not yet even a member of the NHLPA (or PHPA) since the PAs legally negotiate on behalf of all current and future members and any player must agree to those terms retroactively when he signs an SPC.

A player (assuming he had an out from his CHL contract) would be free to play in a league without affiliation agreements with the CHL. He could play overseas for example.
 

clefty

Retrovertigo
Dec 24, 2003
18,009
3
Visit site
Its a CHL restriction more than it is an age limit. A 18 or 19 year old CHL player can play in the AHL as long as his junior team is eliminated from their respective league, ie out of the playoffs.

Europeans and players coming out of the collegiate systems can play in the AHL as teenagers.
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
The reason for the agreement is to protect the CHL so it can keep their players in junior instead of in the minors. It is not only designed to keep NHL teams from sending CHL eligible players to the minor pros, but is also designed to keep the minor pro teams from raiding CHL teams.

Without the agreement, minor pro teams from the AHL, ECHL, UHL, etc would be free to sign undrafted 17,18,19 year olds from the CHL, which would be crippling to major junior. Imagine an 17,18,19 year old undrafted player who is playing for his major junior team and he gets a phone call from a team in the ECHL wanting to sign him to a contract. Most undrafted players would take a pay cheque from a pro team rather than play for almost nothing to play junior. These 18-19 year old players are needed to keep the CHL competitive enough so that NHL can send their prospects to junior because they are not quite ready to play at any pro level. There is no harn in keeping these players an extra year or 2 in junior because if they are good enough to play pro at 18 or 19, they should still be good enough to play pro at 20 years old.

I'm not talking about un-drafted players. I'm talking about NHL teams being allowed to send 18 and 19-year-old kids who have shown the capability of playing with pros the chance to play in the AHL. Otherwise, teams decide to keep the kids up rather than sending them back to the CHL because they need the depth. And the CHL loses out anyway.

If you wanna protect the CHL, then NHL teams should be allowed to recall players from the CHL during the course of the season. That way, CHLers get their stars back (at least temporarily) and NHL teams aren't forced into making impossible decisions (NHL or CHL) for certain special players.
 

Frankie

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
9,199
0
Visit site
The level of play in the CHL should not come before a player's development
the health of the chl as a whole should come far, far, far before the "development interests" of an individual player.

staal, latendresse, brule, etc. would not be hurt at all by playing another season of junior hockey.

this issue comes up every year and stems simply from impatience of some nhl fans.
 

aragorn

Do The Right Thing
Aug 8, 2004
28,465
8,994
It makes no sense that a player can play in the NHL, the best league in the world at 18 yrs of age but not the AHL which is an inferior league. I could understand it more if it was the NCAA as incentive to keep kids in school but why keep a kid in junior if he is too good for junior but not quite ready for the NHL. Especially when you are preventing the player who is of legal age from making a living & making money since he doesn't get paid for playing junior hockey. It makes no sense, this rule seems out of date & needs to be updated. If players outside the WHL can do it so should CHL players, it could be argued that their development is being held back if they are good enough to compete in the AHL.
 

Ami

Registered User
Guys, it's pretty simple!

The rule is in place for the benefit of the CHL. The CHL doesn't want to lose its best players any sooner than they have to. It's simply for the benefit of the CHL so that they dont lose their star attractions. If the age were lower, each team is likely looking at losing their two best players. Suddenly the top 100 or so best, most marketable players. That's not good for the league!
 

Sanderson

Registered User
Sep 10, 2002
5,675
235
Hamburg, Germany
Yup, pretty simple concept actually. And you really don't want to change that, unless you want to pull the plug out of junior hockey. There is nothing more harmful to a sport than to weaken youth and junior, it would be taking away the own basis.

Teams will use every exploit they can. You wouldn't just see the odd 18 year old be signed, there would be much more than there are now. With that you lessen interest in junior, which means that the NHL would need to put more money into those leagues to keep them afloat.
 

Fiddie

Registered User
Jan 10, 2009
889
0
Edmonton
This comes up quite a bit. Others have summed it up well but I'll give my thoughts.

The reason 18/19 year olds aren't allowed in AHL(Aside from Non-NA prospects and those that have played 4 years in junior) is to keep competition stiff in the CHL. This benefits not only the CHL but also the NHL, as the CHL is arguably the NHL's top feeder league, higher level of competition in the CHL leads to better players coming out of junior at 20 (and on occasion even younger). This makes the talent in the NHL better and everyone's happy.

Having said if there were to be a change the only way i could see it being done is allowing every team say one CHL/AHL age limit exemption a year.
 

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,169
1,600
Isn't it for the best interest of the player and not the league for a player to develop? If they are stagnating against players their own age but get owned by players 10 years their junior, they need to be somewhere that they can grow and get challenged.
 

Street Hawk

Registered User
Feb 18, 2003
5,348
19
Visit site
Elc

It makes no sense that a player can play in the NHL, the best league in the world at 18 yrs of age but not the AHL which is an inferior league. I could understand it more if it was the NCAA as incentive to keep kids in school but why keep a kid in junior if he is too good for junior but not quite ready for the NHL. Especially when you are preventing the player who is of legal age from making a living & making money since he doesn't get paid for playing junior hockey. It makes no sense, this rule seems out of date & needs to be updated. If players outside the WHL can do it so should CHL players, it could be argued that their development is being held back if they are good enough to compete in the AHL.

Remember also that if a junior kid plays in the AHL like you are suggesting, that eats up 1 year of his ELC. Example, Kyle Turris, went to Wisconsin after his was drafted 3rd overall in 2007. In 2008-2009 he split time between the Coyotes and their AHL team. That was year 1 of his ELC. This year, he started the season in the AHL. This will be year 2 of his ELC.

So, with only about 30 odd NHL games under his belt, the Coyotes will have eaten up 2 years of Turris' ELC.

Now, granted Turris is a NCAA player, but you get the gist of it.

Not many NHL teams now want to eat up an ELC year unless the kid can perform in the NHL as a teenager. That could be a difference of 3 million in a cap hit at age 22 when he starts his 2nd NHL contract. Either year 3 of the ELC or 1st year of 2nd contract, which can be a big deal for a team.
 

Kamzik

Registered User
Dec 18, 2008
1,802
158
Tomas Tatar is currently 18 and in the AHL. He went from HKm Zvolen of the Slovak Extraliga to the AHL. Just thought I'd contribute that factoid.:)
 

The Pucks

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
4,753
84
Visit site
Gilbert Brule, for example, completely dominated juniors last year and has nothing to gain by playing there any longer, and playing on the 4th line for Columbus wouldn't be the greatest place for him either. But he's not allowed to play in the AHL, which might be the best place for him at this point, at least for a half season or something.

That's just one example. This issue seems to come up alot.

Thats your opinion, but if Brule was allowed to play out his last season and a half in the WHL would he be a better NHL player today? I say yes, but that is only an opinion.

But I guess in your opinion it is better to let CHL teams suffer while losing their best players to another league? All that would do is force CHL teams to sign players to personal services contracts to restrict the movement.
 

sk84fun_dc

Registered User
Nov 4, 2004
16,442
1
Remember also that if a junior kid plays in the AHL like you are suggesting, that eats up 1 year of his ELC. Example, Kyle Turris, went to Wisconsin after his was drafted 3rd overall in 2007. In 2008-2009 he split time between the Coyotes and their AHL team. That was year 1 of his ELC. This year, he started the season in the AHL. This will be year 2 of his ELC.

So, with only about 30 odd NHL games under his belt, the Coyotes will have eaten up 2 years of Turris' ELC.

Now, granted Turris is a NCAA player, but you get the gist of it.

Not many NHL teams now want to eat up an ELC year unless the kid can perform in the NHL as a teenager. That could be a difference of 3 million in a cap hit at age 22 when he starts his 2nd NHL contract. Either year 3 of the ELC or 1st year of 2nd contract, which can be a big deal for a team.

As a teen, if Turris had spent most of his time in the AHL in 08-09 it would not have eaten up a year of his ELC. The year of the contract counted because he played 63 games in the NHL in 08-09 as a 19yo.

If an 18 or 19yo player does not play in 10 NHL games in that season, the NHL standard player contract slides, i.e., a year is added on to the ELC. See Chris Bourque and Bergfors for examples of players that played in the AHL as a teenager and the contract slid due to not playing in 10 NHL games. As another example, this is a possibility with John Carlson's contract this season.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->