not quite yoda
Registered User
mooseOAK said: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.
mooseOAK said:It would be kind of stupid to cancel the draft after holding the combines, not to mention the Crosby factor.
NYR469 said: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
nyrmessier011 said:or by 8 teams throwing the last 15 games of their seasons to get the best chance at him??
Buzzkill.BobMckenzie said: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.
BobMckenzie said:My understanding is there will be a 2005 entry draft.
Jaded-Fan said: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?
me2 said: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.
xander said: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.
xander said: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.
Newsguyone said: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.
HockeyCritter said: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 said: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 said: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?
The Messenger said: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 ..
Timmy said: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.
NYR469 said: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
Newsguyone said: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.
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.Newsguyone said:Less risk to the team hardly seems like a reason to discriminate based on age.