Simple Question about unsigned draft picks

Status
Not open for further replies.

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
kdb209 said:
The current state of a player's draft rights are irrelevant. As long as the lockout continues and no NHL team is able to sign a player, a draftees rights are pretty moot.
People keep saying this, but I don't believe it's true. What exactly prevents NHL teams from signing players?
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Weary said:
People keep saying this, but I don't believe it's true. What exactly prevents NHL teams from signing players?

The league has come out and said this, and any contracts must be approved by the league office, so GB pretty much has a veto over any new signings even if a rougue owner wanted to try anyway.

And even if an owner tried to sign a player (and challenged the league in court - very unlikely - I don't think we have any Al Davis types here) to which he did not have draft rights, that contract could very easily be invalidated by the next CBA, because all player contracts agree to be bound by the terms of the current and all subsequent CBAs, with the CBA terms taking precedence over any stated contract terms.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
kdb209 said:
As for the draftees not being PA members and having no vote and say - that issue has pretty much been held up in the several other court cases where draftees have challenged the draft in other sports (most recently Maurice Clarett).
See I always see this as the exact opposite then it is intend to be used in an argument..

In this case and individual (Clarett) wanted special rules created for him to circumvent a valid CBA in place.. A request made Player to League for his best interests

In the 2003 draft class the CBA is being circumvented to create special rules for them with currently an expired CBA is in place.... A request made by league against player(s).. best interests.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
The Messenger said:
Originally Posted by kdb209
As for the draftees not being PA members and having no vote and say - that issue has pretty much been held up in the several other court cases where draftees have challenged the draft in other sports (most recently Maurice Clarett).
See I always see this as the exact opposite then it is intend to be used in an argument..

In this case and individual (Clarett) wanted special rules created for him to circumvent a valid CBA in place.. A request made Player to League for his best interests

In the 2003 draft class the CBA is being circumvented to create special rules for them with currently an expired CBA is in place.... A request made by league against player(s).. best interests.

But the basic premise holds. Players (potential draftees) who are not members of the union and have no voice when a CBA is agreed to are none-the-less bound by its terms. The PA is considered the bargaining agent for current and future players.

So if a new CBA is in negotiated and defines terms for unsigned draft picks - those picks will be bound by those terms, no matter what the terms of the expired CBA stated.

If there is no new CBA in place, all this is a moot point, since the draftee is currently unable to sign with any team.

It is not really an issue of what's in who's best interest - it's an issue of the primacy of negotiated CBA terms - whatever the new CBA says, goes.
 
Last edited:

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
And even if an owner tried to sign a player (and challenged the league in court - very unlikely - I don't think we have any Al Davis types here) to which he did not have draft rights, that contract could very easily be invalidated by the next CBA, because all player contracts agree to be bound by the terms of the current and all subsequent CBAs, with the CBA terms taking precedence over any stated contract terms.
I was actually thinking about a team signing a player whose rights they own. I keep hearing that teams can't offer those players contacts. But I don't know why not.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Weary said:
I was actually thinking about a team signing a player whose rights they own. I keep hearing that teams can't offer those players contacts. But I don't know why not.

Currently it seems to be a blanket policy for the league, even with respect to one's own playres and draft picks.

If the league is expecting a more favorable ELS system, why would they want to sign a player under the terms of the current expired CBA.

And until a new CBA is reached and a timetable for new play set, there is no need to sign players or draft picks, so why rush untill the new economic environment is more clear.

In terms of not signing ones own players, the blanket prohibition could be looked at as a pressure point by the league to get a deal done, as well as a defense against unfair labor practice charges - teams willing to resign their own players but not other teams RFAs and UFAs, a potentially illegal discriminatory practice.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
kdb209 said:
But the basic premise holds. Players (potential draftees) who are not members of the union and have no voice when a CBA is agreed to are none-the-less bound by its terms. The PA is considered the bargaining agent for current and future players.

So if a new CBA is in negotiated and defines terms for unsigned draft picks - those picks will be bound by those terms, no matter what the terms of the expired CBA stated.

If there is no new CBA in place, all this is a moot point, since the draftee is currently unable to sign with any team.

It is not really an issue of what's in who's best interest - it's an issue of the primacy of negotiated CBA terms - whatever the new CBA says, goes.

Another issue here is that this is unchartered territory for everyone as this unique situation has never occurred before that a whole year in any sport has never been cancelled and a expired CBA prohibits signings from occurring or offers made while a work stoppage is in effect .. At the same time legal timeframes and dates could be passed that are clearly defined in a CBA and may take precedence over a CBA not yet created based on timing of events and actions taken ..

We have no case law to refer to that can show how this has been handled or how a court has ruled prior since its never been heard by a judge before ..

Also the NHLPA in not obligated to agree to Special 2003 draft rules .. and I am fairly certain that if many of the other issues are being negotiated in the CBA and if RFA becoming UFA and the 2003 entry draft status remains unresolved then the NHL can not declare IMPASSE IMO, despite being in a stalemate over this .. Then what ?? Does a third party arbitrator have to rule on the issue if the two sides don't agree ..

There is also another option that never gets discussed here .. .If the owners get a rollback and Hard Cap and linkage and we are down to these 2003 draft picks .. The NHL itself might throw them under the bus to finalize the deal .. The NHLPA may be holding EXTRA year added for all players request, by using the RFA status and 2003 draftees as leverage .. Really either side could throw them away in the negotiations and the side that feels is getting the best deal which certainly will be the NHL and the owners in this case would not want to lose another year just to avoid a few teams drafted players..

Also if UFA drops and more former RFA hit the market as UFA now .. Then realistically speaking those proven NHLers that could be lost by the Owners would be bigger loss then a few draft picks in the big picture.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
kdb209 said:
Currently it seems to be a blanket policy for the league, even with respect to one's own playres and draft picks.

If the league is expecting a more favorable ELS system, why would they want to sign a player under the terms of the current expired CBA.

And until a new CBA is reached and a timetable for new play set, there is no need to sign players or draft picks, so why rush untill the new economic environment is more clear.

In terms of not signing ones own players, the blanket prohibition could be looked at as a pressure point by the league to get a deal done, as well as a defense against unfair labor practice charges - teams willing to resign their own players but not other teams RFAs and UFAs, a potentially illegal discriminatory practice.

You answered you own question in an earlier post .. A players contract is bound by the terms and conditions of a CBA ... Why would an agent (working for the NHLPA), go against his own employer to get the player to agree to a contract with a fill in the blanks CBA not yet in place ??.

Anything could still happen in the future to the CBA and until all the facts are in no one hitch their wagon to that .. It be like giving out a blank check to someone as saying fill in the amount later .. The talks to reach an IMPASSE and OWNERS CBA put in place that would effect these players ..

Also what is the purpose of signing a player, only to have his wages withheld because of the lockout .. The player is not better off financially signed or unsigned during a work stoppage .. Zero is still Zero .. and what would you offer a RFA or player if you don't know what the new cba will require .. and if you are going to do it via the old CBA guidelines then why do we have a lockout in the first place if Owners happy with the old one ..

And the biggest clincher is that management is not permitted to go around the bargaining committee and deal with the union employees directly in a work dispute .. Going around the NHLPA to the players to negotiate contracts that would encourage players to cross a future picket line, would violate laws on many levels, would it not ??
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
The Messenger said:
There is also another option that never gets discussed here .. .If the owners get a rollback and Hard Cap and linkage and we are down to these 2003 draft picks .. The NHL itself might throw them under the bus to finalize the deal .. The NHLPA may be holding EXTRA year added for all players request, by using the RFA status and 2003 draftees as leverage .. Really either side could throw them away in the negotiations and the side that feels is getting the best deal which certainly will be the NHL and the owners in this case would not want to lose another year just to avoid a few teams drafted players..

You are really grasping at straws now.
 

MacDaddy TLC*

Guest
kdb209 said:
As an aside, another point you brought up - "...for most of us, this is Canada." Does anyone know the demagraphics of these boards - how many posters from the US, Canada, Europe, etc. That would be kind of interesting.
They provided some info before and it was pretty tight between Canada and the United States. If this was Canadian Parliament, both would be minorities hoping for Asian, Australian, and European support to rule with a majority.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
I'm not sure about the legality of the issue.
But I will say what I believe is a fair solution.

If locked out years count as expired years on a contract, then these young players should become free agents.

If contracted players do not lose any years on their deals due to the lockout, then these players rights should remain with their team.

Pretty simpleminded, I know.

But it seems fair.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
I'm not sure about the legality of the issue.
But I will say what I believe is a fair solution.

If locked out years count as expired years on a contract, then these young players should become free agents.

If contracted players do not lose any years on their deals due to the lockout, then these players rights should remain with their team.

Pretty simpleminded, I know.

But it seems fair.

Not fair at all.

The teams have been prohibited from signing those drafted players since Sept 2004.

A fair solution IMO would be to force the teams to sign them under the entry level system they were drafted under (the old CBA). Teams would still recieve the benefit of holding their rights and the players wouldn't be disadvantaged by any tightening of the system.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
ATLANTARANGER said:
I think everyone needs to remember who locked who out! The NHL elected this course of action.

That's completely irrelevant. The old CBA expired, and the owners have a right under law to lock the players out with no consequence (in terms of labour law penalties).
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
Why is there the assumption that the players will be UFA's?

In the old CBA, the players weren't UFA's, they were just eligible to re-enter the draft.

You've argued your position well messenger, but this was the main flaw I noticed. I mean if they do have to live by the old CBA, Jeff Carter isn't a UFA, he's an unsigned draft pick who is allowed to re-enter the NHL entry draft.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
dawgbone said:
Why is there the assumption that the players will be UFA's?

In the old CBA, the players weren't UFA's, they were just eligible to re-enter the draft.

You've argued your position well messenger, but this was the main flaw I noticed. I mean if they do have to live by the old CBA, Jeff Carter isn't a UFA, he's an unsigned draft pick who is allowed to re-enter the NHL entry draft.
Thx ..

That is not entirely true in all cases though.... In this case you are correct, because based on old CBA rules and because Jeff Carter's birthday (Jan 1st) falls in the beginning of the year..... So he would have re-entered the draft this year if he was unsigned after June 1st, 2005, with no lockout.

The NHL uses Sept 15th (of the draft year) to determine draft eligibility and how old a player is and which draft he is a part of ... Had Carter's turned 21 (between) Sept 16th, 2005 and Dec 31st, 2005 of this year then he would be considered too old to re-enter the entry draft and ruled an UFA instead. In fact had Carter been born one day (maybe even hours) earlier on Dec 31st rather then Jan 1st he would have had no choice but to be ruled a UFA.

Two cases to see how this works, if you are interested are Nick Boynton and Kiel McLeod

Nick Boynton -failed to come to an agreement with Washington and re-entered the draft and was selected by Boston the 2nd time around .. Birthday Jan 14th

http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid%5B%5D=23713

Kiel McLeod - He was drafted by the Columbus Blue Jackets the first time around in the draft however because his birthday falls after Sept 15th of the draft year, he was ruled an UFA and signed with Phoenix as he was too old to re-enter.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=31155

BUT

The CATCH and reason for this article and all the rest is that the Entry Draft is cancelled (postponed) and so how can Carter or any other unsigned player re-enter a June draft that is not going to happen,?? Leaving only UFA status on the table, without a special set of rules defined in the New CBA and agreed upon by both NHL and NHLPA, and unchallenged in courts by the players and agents ..??.


The end ..
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
The Messenger said:
Thx ..

That is not entirely true in all cases though.... In this case you are correct, because based on old CBA rules and because Jeff Carter's birthday (Jan 1st) falls in the beginning of the year..... So he would have re-entered the draft this year if he was unsigned after June 1st, 2005, with no lockout.

The NHL uses Sept 15th (of the draft year) to determine draft eligibility and how old a player is and which draft he is a part of ... Had Carter's turned 21 (between) Sept 16th, 2005 and Dec 31st, 2005 of this year then he would be considered too old to re-enter the entry draft and ruled an UFA instead. In fact had Carter been born one day (maybe even hours) earlier on Dec 31st rather then Jan 1st he would have had no choice but to be ruled a UFA.

Two cases to see how this works, if you are interested are Nick Boynton and Kiel McLeod

Nick Boynton -failed to come to an agreement with Washington and re-entered the draft and was selected by Boston the 2nd time around .. Birthday Jan 14th

http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid%5B%5D=23713

Kiel McLeod - He was drafted by the Columbus Blue Jackets the first time around in the draft however because his birthday falls after Sept 15th of the draft year, he was ruled an UFA and signed with Phoenix as he was too old to re-enter.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=31155

BUT

The CATCH and reason for this article and all the rest is that the Entry Draft is cancelled (postponed) and so how can Carter or any other unsigned player re-enter a June draft that is not going to happen,?? Leaving only UFA status on the table, without a special set of rules defined in the New CBA and agreed upon by both NHL and NHLPA, and unchallenged in courts by the players and agents ..??.


The end ..

Interesting... in the CBA it states:

NHL CBA said:
(a) All players age 19 or older are eligible for claim in
the Entry Draft, except:

(i)a player on the Reserve List of a Club, other than
as a Try-Out;

(ii) a player who has been claimed in two prior Entry
Drafts;

(iii) a player who previously played in the League
and became a free agent pursuant to this Agreement;

(iv)a player age 21 or older who played hockey for at
least one season in North America when he was age 18, 19 or 20.

Mcleod wasn't 21 yet when the 2003 entry draft rolled around... and to be honest, I couldn't find any other loopholes either.

Not saying you are wrong... I just don't see it.
 

MacDaddy TLC*

Guest
Dawgbone: It all comes down to birthdates. The cutoff for draft eligibility, is September 17th of the draft year.
Players born before this date won't turn 21 until the next calendar year, so they get the re-entry option.
Players born after this date turn 19 shortly after being drafted and thus are one the verge of turning 21 (before the end of the calendar year) when their 2 years of exclusive rights expire. They get Unrestricted Free Agency rather than draft re-entry.

The NHL is talking about straightening this out by bumping draft eligibility back a few months to January rather than the September cut off date.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Thunderstruck said:
Not fair at all.

The teams have been prohibited from signing those drafted players since Sept 2004.

A fair solution IMO would be to force the teams to sign them under the entry level system they were drafted under (the old CBA). Teams would still recieve the benefit of holding their rights and the players wouldn't be disadvantaged by any tightening of the system.

Nope. A new CBA is a new CBA.
WHy not give all players the benefits so they aren't disadvantaged by any tightening of the system.

To me, this is a question of time.
Does locked out time count as real time in the NHL?

If it does for a guy like Yashin, to the owners benefit, than it should for an unsigned prospect, to the players' benefit.

And vice versa.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
Nope. A new CBA is a new CBA.
WHy not give all players the benefits so they aren't disadvantaged by any tightening of the system.

To me, this is a question of time.
Does locked out time count as real time in the NHL?

If it does for a guy like Yashin, to the owners benefit, than it should for an unsigned prospect, to the players' benefit.

And vice versa.
There is little benefit to the players because the rookie cap will be the rookie cap, no matter which team he signs with.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
mooseOAK said:
There is little benefit to the players because the rookie cap will be the rookie cap, no matter which team he signs with.

I don't know.
I mean, the rookie cap may or may not be changed.
And if I was a prospect owned by Nashville, I think I'd rather enjoy the ability to sign with another team.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Newsguyone said:
I don't know.
I mean, the rookie cap may or may not be changed.
And if I was a prospect owned by Nashville, I think I'd rather enjoy the ability to sign with another team.
Also to get to that point of Carter being declared a court would need to have ruled in his favour to grant him his freedom .

Who is to say that the court could not also rule that since Carter was drafted under an OLD CBA to avoid any further liability (anti-trust or other) cases on his part that he is eligible to be signed under the terms of the OLD CBA.

With higher entry level thesholds and bonus structures, particuarly if a new CBA in not even in place to know what the new levels will be, as courts will always base their rulings on fact (OLD CBA) and not fiction (New CBA -Work in progress).
 
Last edited:

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
dawgbone said:
Interesting... in the CBA it states:



Mcleod wasn't 21 yet when the 2003 entry draft rolled around... and to be honest, I couldn't find any other loopholes either.

Not saying you are wrong... I just don't see it.
This is the section from the CBA that applies ..

8.10. Age of Players.


As used in this Article, "age 18" means a player reaching his eighteenth birthday between January 1 next preceding the Entry Draft and September 15 next following the Entry Draft, both dates included; "age 19" means a player reaching his nineteenth birthday by no later than September 15 in the calendar year of the Entry Draft, "age 20" means a player reaching his twentieth birthday by no later than December 31 in the calendar year of the Entry Draft; and "age 21" means a player reaching his twenty-first birthday by December 31 in the calendar year of the Entry Draft.


http://www.nhlcbanews.com/cba/article8.html


Alexander Ovechkin born September 17th, missed being included in the previous entry draft because he missed the cut-off turning 18 years old by 2 days. So he had to wait until the following year to be draft eligible .. Being a Euro he does not fall into this exception category because he is exempt, however his birthday would have if he was born in North America or played in the CHL at that time of the entry draft ..

So these UFA loopholes can only occur for a limited amount of players that have birth dates between Sept 16th - Dec 31st , remain unsigned will turning 21 & are born in NA and/or are playing in Junior hockey (basically the CHL).

US College and European playing in Europe are exempt for other reasons within the CBA and obviously all players born Jan 1st - Sept 15th of the draft year automatically re-enter the draft.
 
Last edited:

mooseOAK*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
I don't know.
I mean, the rookie cap may or may not be changed.
And if I was a prospect owned by Nashville, I think I'd rather enjoy the ability to sign with another team.
As a fan of a team that is higher profile and could be a more attractive destination I still think that it would be a shame for Nashville to lose players because of something like that because I think they have gone about building their team the right way.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
mooseOAK said:
As a fan of a team that is higher profile and could be a more attractive destination I still think that it would be a shame for Nashville to lose players because of something like that because I think they have gone about building their team the right way.


I hear your concern.
But I think that teams like Nashville and Atlanta have a huge advantage right now.
They're young. They've got great prospects. They've got tiny payrolls.
If the NHL wins its cap, they can go out and sign two or three guys and put together some very good teams.
Older teams like Toronto and Detroit are pretty much stuck. They're on the decline. They've got money tied up in older, declining players. They'll have no cap room to improve.

But all that is beside the point.

The owners can't have it both ways.
If they want lockout time to count against the contracts of guys like Yashin and Cujo and Jagr, than they also have to let time count against their rights to unsigned prospects.

By the same token, the players can't have it both ways.
Time counts, or it doesn't.

You can't have your cake and eat it to.

I know this will end up being negotiated in the CBA or by lawyers in the court room, but I think my solution is fair.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
I hear your concern.
But I think that teams like Nashville and Atlanta have a huge advantage right now.
They're young. They've got great prospects. They've got tiny payrolls.
If the NHL wins its cap, they can go out and sign two or three guys and put together some very good teams.
Older teams like Toronto and Detroit are pretty much stuck. They're on the decline. They've got money tied up in older, declining players. They'll have no cap room to improve.

But all that is beside the point.

The owners can't have it both ways.
If they want lockout time to count against the contracts of guys like Yashin and Cujo and Jagr, than they also have to let time count against their rights to unsigned prospects.

By the same token, the players can't have it both ways.
Time counts, or it doesn't.

You can't have your cake and eat it to.

I know this will end up being negotiated in the CBA or by lawyers in the court room, but I think my solution is fair.
I don't see how teams losing the rights to unsigned prospects helps the cause of the NHLPA because, as I mentioned, the rookie cap governs how much money that can make. It will hurt certain teams who will lose top prospects but doesn't advance the union's cause in any way and they have more important issues to worry about.

Because of that it will be taken care of in the new CBA and I don't see any team losing players' rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->