NHL considering cancelling 2005 draft?

[not quite yoda]

It would be kind of stupid to cancel the draft after holding the combines, not to mention the Crosby factor.

And there you have it. They plan to have a draft or they wouldn't of spent $ on it.

 

[Winger98]

the logic is simply this...teams don't trade players based on who the best 18 year old is, they drafted based on who they project will be the best nhl are 25 years old (ie in their prime).

well the closer the player gets to being nhl ready the easier it becomes to determine what he'll be like down the road. so its easier to determine the future of a 19 year old then an 18 year old because you have seen more and he is closer to the finished product.

there is no particular benefit to the player, that isn't the issue...but the benefit for the team is less risk involved in each pick

It might lower the risk of a pick, but would it be enough to matter? It's understandable why leagues like the NBA and NFL have an age limit. They don't have a development league other than college sports and an age limit forces kids to come up through that system.

But the NHL and MLB have development systems, so they don't have to rush a player into the pros just because they drafted him. An infrastructure is in place (whether here or overseas) to continue to develop a draft pick at the right pace.

What it comes down to are the skills of your scouts/GM, and I don't think that would change much by raising the age a year to 19. Players will still be developed the same way they are developed now and players will, in general, be brought into the league when they are ready. And I'm willing to bet that a team that badly drafts 18 year olds will continue to badly draft 19 yr olds.

I have to think that if they raise the draft age, it's to just difuse this ridiculous Crosby mania, something that's only been fed by endless speculation that's been used to fill the void of no hockey left by the CBA mess.

 

[xander]

yes, this is what i've been saying all along. no season means no draft, plain and simple. This way no one can complain that they're team got cheated, and it would be foolish to upset 29 other teams all for the sake of getting crosby into the league a year sooner.

 

[BobMckenzie]

My understanding is there will be a 2005 entry draft. For sure. Also, as to reports of a board of governors meeting scheduled for this week, I don't believe so. Nothing is scheduled. Nothing is expected.

 

[blitzkriegs]

or by 8 teams throwing the last 15 games of their seasons to get the best chance at him??

Right. Because ATL canned it the last 15-20 games the season ending in which they WON the lottery over NYI to draft #1 overall.

 

[Kritter471]

My understanding is there will be a 2005 entry draft. For sure. Also, as to reports of a board of governors meeting scheduled for this week, I don't believe so. Nothing is scheduled. Nothing is expected.

Buzzkill.

 

[Lowetide]

My understanding is there will be a 2005 entry draft.

McGuire gearing up? I understand the Islanders are planning on taking the wrong guy again so it looks like another monster cocktail!

 

[hockeytown9321]

Ann Arbor? Isn't that near Detroit? As I said, look who is against this. Sort of belies the argument that the big markets will be gutted with the new CBA and so they need an equal shot at a top pick doesn't it? I do not see the fans of the sad sack teams from 2003-4 complaining about this idea do you?

I live in Shelby Township, Michigan. Its about 30 miles north of the Detroit River(still dangerously close to Canada though). I'm all in favor of a 1 in 30 chance in the lottery. Not because I care if my team gets Crosby or not. I have enough faith in them that they'll do just fine regardless of where they draft. No, I want the lottery that way so when Detroit,or Toronto or Colorado gets that pick, your head will explode and I don't have to listen to your constant complaining anymore.

 

[me2]

I'd like to see more lottery balls added to the NHLs drafts in the future. Instead of drawing out just 1 ball they should draw out 4 teams. Every lottery team has the same chance to move up 4 spots, ie no preferential weighting for finishing last other than being in the best position at the start of the draw. That would really shake up the draft and make tanking a riskier proposition.

 

[NYR469]

there will be a draft, it is just a question of how and when...

skipping the draft and moving up the draft age might be the right thing to do but there is no way the league can handle the pr disaster of announcing that crosby won't be drafted...the first major announcement after the cba is signed will be the draft lottery and who gets crosby. that is the first move to try to get fans excited about the return of hockey and the league isn't going to let that pass.

 

[xander]

I'd like to see more lottery balls added to the NHLs drafts in the future. Instead of drawing out just 1 ball they should draw out 4 teams. Every lottery team has the same chance to move up 4 spots, ie no preferential weighting for finishing last other than being in the best position at the start of the draw. That would really shake up the draft and make tanking a riskier proposition.

I think you are overstating the problem. It is vary rare that a team actually 'tanks' a season to get a highdraftpick, infact it's never been prooven that a team has. 99% of the time the teams that finish at the bottom of the standings are just really bad teams that need high draft picks.

 

[Street Hawk]

Right to the NHL...

I really can't believe the big fuss over canceling the 2005 draft. Yes, Crosby is, from all reports and the little I've seen of him, going to be a very very good NHL player. Will he be in the same class as Lemieux and Gretzky? maybe, if all works out well, meaning he goes to a team that plays an up tempo style an the league makes changes to the game to encourage all teams to play more offensive minded. But, I think we should expect Crosby to have the impact of a Sakic, Forsberg, Lafontaine, Yzerman in their primes and if he can approach Gretzky and Lemieux type impact, great...

As for PR, yes, it would hurt the NHL, but still, it's not going to kill the NHL to not have Crosby. Aside from Crosby, who else from the 2005 draft would play in the NHL next season? Brule? Doubtful, given that he still needs work on his game and given his size, 5'10 180lbs, he should be given time to grow. Pouliet (spelling), tall and lanky, needs to add muscle. Jack Johnson? D men take longer to develop and he'll probably go to college next season. Anze Kopitar? Is he ready?

I support raising the draft age. Going back 15 years, how many guys go straight to the NHL after getting drafted? And how have they faired?

1990 - Nolan, Nedved, Primeau, Ricci, Jagr
All had long NHL careers, all still playing. Nolan prior to back problems was all star calibre, Jagr before groin troubles was the leading scorer in the NHL.

1991 - Lindros (he would have played), Falloon
Lindros encountered injuries, which limited his impact. Falloon, very solid rookie year, but fell quickly.

1992 - Hamrlik
This was a very weak draft, but Hamrlik has had a very good NHL career. Never a Norris trophy guy, but a solid NHL dman. Probably he a #2 on most teams.

1993 - Daigle, Pronger, Gratton, Niedermayer, Arnott
Pronger is the best of the bunch, by a great distance. Daigle, more that he didn't have the desire. Niedermayer had injuries, Arnott, never as consistent as GMs would like. Gratton, never turned into the offensive Power forward he was pegged to be.

1994 - Bonk, Freisen
Bonk never was the offensive player he showing while in the IHL. Freisen, solid 2nd liner. Not quite sure if Brett Lindros played after being drafted.

1995 - Don't think anyone played right away.
Playing at 19/20 didn't hurt Iggy now did it?

1996 - This was a very weak draft and I don't believe anyone played right away.

1997 - Thorton, Marleau, Samsonov
All 3 have had good careers so far. Thorton showing the promise of a #1 pick. Marleau is coming on and Samsonov had some injuries lately.

1998 - Lecavalier
Rough couple of early years, but coming into a #1 pick. Gagne, Gomez, Tanguay, Richards, Stuart, not hurt by waiting a year to come to the NHL.

1999 - Stefan, Connolly
Stefan, still hasn't established himself yet as a reliable #2 line player yet. Connolly, solid early, but injuries have slowed him.

2000 - Gaborik, Schultz?
Gabby, legitimate 1st line NHLer. Schultz, wouldn't have hurt him to return to junior. Heatley could have played, but opted for another year at college. Dipietro played some right away, but spent most of the year in the minors.

2001 - Kovalchuk, Blackburn
Kovalchuk, star already in the league. Blackburn, injuries look to end his career almost before it begins.

2002 - Nash, Bouwmeester, Bouchard
Nash is a star after last season. Bouwmeester developing well. Strong showing at the World Cup. Bouchard, again, junior might not have been a bad idea.

2003 - Staal, Horton, Flurey
Flurey should have remained in junior. Staal and Horton's development probably benefitted from the lockout, with the chance to develop in the AHL. Both, had decent rookie years for guys right out of junior.

2004 - Ovechkin, Ladd
Ovechkin would have played this past year. Malkin would have stayed in Russia. Barker, as a dman should have stayed in junior. Ladd, given that the Canes played Staal, I'd say Ladd probably would have played in the NHL, but might have been best served in junior.

So, as I look back overall, the guys that I think didn't need to wait that extra year (I'm talking guys were delivered close to the promise, and were 1st liners by the time they finished year 3) were Jagr, Nolan, Lindros, Hamrlik, Pronger, Thornton, Marleau (32, 45, 40 points, I put him in only due to the decrease in scoring in the league, most pts in a year is 57 twice), Samsonov, Lecavalier, Gaborik, Nash, Bouwmeester.

I leave out Primeau only in that he never put up the offensive numbers people thought he would. The guy is the size of Bertuzzi, and given the skill he showed in junior, I think most would have expected him to put up some numbers like Bert did the past couple of years.

Too soon for the 2003/2004 class. So, it's pretty much 1 player per draft class. So, I do believe that cancelling the draft and moving to a 19 year old draft makes sense for the NHL.

 

[me2]

I think you are overstating the problem. It is vary rare that a team actually 'tanks' a season to get a highdraftpick, infact it's never been prooven that a team has. 99% of the time the teams that finish at the bottom of the standings are just really bad teams that need high draft picks.

Adding a few more balls though encourages lower and middle teams to compete harder as well. If you miss the playoffs then you might still get a decent pick.

 

[DARKSIDE]

I think you are overstating the problem. It is vary rare that a team actually 'tanks' a season to get a highdraftpick, infact it's never been prooven that a team has. 99% of the time the teams that finish at the bottom of the standings are just really bad teams that need high draft picks.

It was good to see Kirk Muller moving into Queen's University (Kingston, Ontario) as head coach and director of hockey operations. We remember Kirk as a kid New Jersey, selected after the Penguins managed to lose enough at the end of the season to get Mario Lemieux first in the draft. It was a disgraceful episode that was gleefully overlooked because of Mario’s arrival. Muller played hard and well before moving out of New Jersey to complete a 19-year NHL career. We wish our old pal well.

http://www.msgnetwork.com/content_n...ticle&sports=ice-hockey&team=other&league=nhl

 

[GKJ]

The NHL will not cancel the draft. The sport needs all the publicity it can get. Canceling the draft will just make it a mistake, and plus instead of ping pong balls, teams will just tank just to get a shot at Crosby. What a great way to improve the games. Bad move.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Because I believe that it's unfair to discrimate based on age.

18 appears to be the age (not decided by me) at which governments recognize people as adults.

How is this any different than the government “arbitrarily†deciding at what age you can receive a learner’s permit, a license, or a work permit? 16-year olds cannot work after certain hours or used some types of mechanical equipment - this is no different than saying you must be 19 to play in the NHL.

Football has age restrictions, no one comlains ----- the NBA raised the draft age ...

 

[Tawnos]

How is this any different than the government “arbitrarily” deciding at what age you can receive a learner’s permit, a license, or a work permit? 16-year olds cannot work after certain hours or used some types of mechanical equipment - this is no different than saying you must be 19 to play in the NHL.

Football has age restrictions, no one comlains ----- the NBA raised the draft age ...

First of all... Maurice Clarett complained. And I still don't think that the league had any right to stop him from signing anywhere or entering the draft.

Second of all, the government issues permits for many things... it's one of their functions (whether it be local, municipal, state or federal), so setting an age restriction for them is within their discretion. Giving someone a job is not the same as giving someone a permit, you shouldn't be able to legally refuse to let someone earn their living the best way they know how because of their age.

 

[ACC1224]

First of all... Maurice Clarett complained. And I still don't think that the league had any right to stop him from signing anywhere or entering the draft.

Second of all, the government issues permits for many things... it's one of their functions (whether it be local, municipal, state or federal), so setting an age restriction for them is within their discretion. Giving someone a job is not the same as giving someone a permit, you shouldn't be able to legally refuse to let someone earn their living the best way they know how because of their age.

Not sure in the US but here you have to be a over 18 to serve alcohol. So you feel anyone under 18 has the right to this job?

 

[Tawnos]

Not sure in the US but here you have to be a over 18 to serve alcohol. So you feel anyone under 18 has the right to this job?

Sorry, I should've made that a little clearer.

"you shouldn't be able to legally refuse to let an adult earn their living the best way they know how because of their age."

This is exactly why, in the US, while you can't drink until you're 21, you can serve alcohol at 18.

 

[littleD]

Fergy's request to have authorization to sign Crosby to play in the AHL gets commish's sign of approval and his Reebok deal could keep him in North America ..

North America, a.k.a Rimouski.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

You start talking lawsuits, and it better be set in stone and universal if you're basing a case on "the rights of an adult."


You will also have to overturn the precedent-setting case already established.

You will also have to convince a collectively-bargained-CBA-reading judge that the parties were wrong and that the CBA should be torn up because your 18 year old client (who will be 19 by the time the thing goes to trial) thinks he should play as soon as he's considered an adult.

I'm not talking about whether it's a winnable lawsuit.
I'm talking about whether something is in the spirit of the law.

Winning your case doesn't mean you won justice.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

the logic is simply this...teams don't trade players based on who the best 18 year old is, they drafted based on who they project will be the best nhl are 25 years old (ie in their prime).

well the closer the player gets to being nhl ready the easier it becomes to determine what he'll be like down the road. so its easier to determine the future of a 19 year old then an 18 year old because you have seen more and he is closer to the finished product.

there is no particular benefit to the player, that isn't the issue...but the benefit for the team is less risk involved in each pick

Less risk to the team hardly seems like a reason to discriminate based on age.

 

[Timmy]

I'm not talking about whether it's a winnable lawsuit.
I'm talking about whether something is in the spirit of the law.

Winning your case doesn't mean you won justice.

I arbitrate disputes, and oftentimes neither side is happy with our decisions.

Both would claim they didn't get what they wanted.

The more pissed off both sides are, the better job I did. If one side is positively gleeful, then it's time to review what happened, as neither side (outside of blatant fraud) are usually 100% responsible for the dispute.

In the case of an 18 year old being pissed because he has to wait a year to play in the NHL, tough toodles. The spirit of the law doesn't preclude a CBA setting age limits for their industry, and the government itself does it all the time.

I wished I could have started driving at the age of 15; thankfully I wasn't allowed to.

 

[Monty]

Here is a new twist on a possible resolution of the 2005 Draft.

(1) Have the 2005 Draft.

(2) Do the lottery to select the draft order.

(3) But phase in the switch to drafting only 19 years old by moving back the birth date of eligibility by six months for the 2005 Draft and by another six months for the 2006 Draft.

The result, I believe, is that Crosby is pushed back eligibility-wise to the 2006 Draft because his birthday is in August 1987.

As a result, the 2005 Draft is a very watered-down draft.

And all the bickering and arguing about the fairness of the lottery will end because there will be so much less at stake - no Crosby and half the 18-year old prospects that would have otherwise been available.

It will also water down the 2006 Draft - whose drafting order will be based on actual 2005-06 standings and the usual draft lottery - because while Crosby and some other 18 year olds ineligible for the 2005 Draft will be in it, all the 18 year olds in 2006 will not be. So for those worried that some teams will purposely tank to have a draft lottery chance at Crosby, those teams will be taking even more of a gamble, because while Crosby will be there, the 2 thru 5 picks may not be blue-chip, depending on which draft Brule, Johnson and Poillet are in based on their age.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Less risk to the team hardly seems like a reason to discriminate based on age.

If raising the draft age to 19 is included in a negotiated CBA then it isn’t discrimination and the draftees will have little to no legal legs to stand upon.