Simple Question about unsigned draft picks

[Weary]

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.

Some teams drafted well -- others didn't. How many would take a redo on the 2003 draft? What it really does is sow dissension amongst the owners. Some would rather do it again, some wouldn't.

 

[Chili]

Redo the 2003 draft?

Are you aware that a number of players from that draft have already signed?

I would like to see the quote of even one owner suggesting to redo a past draft.

 

[Weary]

Redo the 2003 draft?

Are you aware that a number of players from that draft have already signed?

I would like to see the quote of even one owner suggesting to redo a past draft.

Some have signed, but not many. It wouldn't be a literal redo. It would still be the 2005 draft with the unsigned 2003 draftees included.

 

[SENSible1*]

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.

But the players had the choice of getting those contracts paid off anytime they wanted last season by simply agreeing on a CBA.

The contracts ticked off because of their inability to put forward or agree to anything palatable to the NHL.

Putting rights on hold is not the same thing as putting contracts on hold.

 

[Mess]

But the players had the choice of getting those contracts paid off anytime they wanted last season by simply agreeing on a CBA.

The contracts ticked off because of their inability to put forward or agree to anything palatable to the NHL.

Putting rights on hold is not the same thing as putting contracts on hold.

This argument is a Mirror as it works both ways Identically ..

But the OWNERS had the choice of getting those contracts paid off anytime they wanted last season by simply agreeing on a CBA.

The contracts ticked off because of their inability to put forward or agree to anything palatable to the NHLPA.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Some teams drafted well -- others didn't. How many would take a redo on the 2003 draft? What it really does is sow dissension amongst the owners. Some would rather do it again, some wouldn't.

I think that both sides should concentrate on getting the big deal done without one side worrying about inconveniencing a few owners. Even if the union hates Jacobs, he already has Bergeron signed.

 

[kdb209]

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).

Ahh Messenger, still holding out for that "hypothetical" court case.

As long as a lockout is ongoing it will be impossible to determine any damages - there will be none.

If there is no new CBA, it is theoretically possible that a court could rule Carter a UFA - but VERY unlikely. Besides if Carter wants to uphold one part of the CBA (draftee rights) it will be hard not to also uphold another - arbitration as the dispute mechanism to resolve CBA issues.

But in any case, any granting of free agency will be completely illusory. As soon as a new CBA is negotiated, Carter will be bound by it's terms, whether he likes it or not. Negotiated CBA terms are pretty bullet proof (largely immune to anti trust or other labour law challenges). If the new CBA says the Flyers still own his rights for some window, then they do.

A court cannot pick and choose between the two CBAs - if a new CBA says it supercedes the old, it does, and any current and future players are bound by it's terms.

Just being disadvantaged by a new CBA is no grounds to sue (OK, you can always sue, but they are no grounds to win). Did you see any lawsuits by 1994 draftees - drafted under a CBA that did not contain an ELS. Those that signed before the strike and new 1995 CBA were not subject to ELS, those that signed afterwards were.

Yes this mythical court challenge is always possible, and if a court ever says otherwise, I'll still owe you that case of beer.

 

[Mess]

Ahh Messenger, still holding out for that "hypothetical" court case..

Well I can't just give up now very well just because you say so, Now can I ????

Lets see when the player agents as the article suggest file, and at least present their opening arguments before we throw the baby out with the bath water ...

"hypothetical" court case or "hypothetical" special CBA clause .. 6 of one or half dozen of the other .. odds about even presently ..

PM me over that CBA Special clause in question here when you get a chance.

I'll have our lawyer look over it, after all the wording is very important, to determine if the clause itself or the precise wording of it, has opened itself up to interpretation and scrutiny as per labour laws and human rights issues.

"If it does not fit you must acquit" .. has been tried and tested and proven successful in a court of law before ..

So I wouldn't want to be basing my whole argument on something that doesn't exist afterall..

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

But the players had the choice of getting those contracts paid off anytime they wanted last season by simply agreeing on a CBA.

The contracts ticked off because of their inability to put forward or agree to anything palatable to the NHL.

Putting rights on hold is not the same thing as putting contracts on hold.

The Players were LOCKED OUT.

You're simply playing politics, Thunderstruck.

I personally don't care, one way or the other.

There is one quesiton: Does time in the lockout count???

It has many implications, for existing contracts, for unsigned prospects, for future free agency decisions (which involve length of time in the league)

 

[Mess]

The Players were LOCKED OUT.

You're simply playing politics, Thunderstruck.

I personally don't care, one way or the other.

There is one quesiton: Does time in the lockout count???

It has many implications, for existing contracts, for unsigned prospects, for future free agency decisions (which involve length of time in the league)

Well I think your position is the one that makes the most logical sense ..

Its all or nothing ..

All contracts (UFA & RFA ) and even Rights based on dates refer to in the OLD CBA .. are ticking or are frozen ..

Most believe that time is passing since the CBA does not list the specific year but refers to things in the from of consecutive years on a Calendar .. July 1st comes each year lockout or not .

They will need special conditions in a New CBA to clarify the status , however that means it needs mutual agreement from both sides in a CBA ..

What the future holds may yet be challenged in courts as we are in Unchartered territory as no previous cases in other sports can be referenced as a full year lockout has never occurred before that lets contracts and rights fall into the great abyss ..

Only time will tell what the eventual outcome will be and both the CBA and the courts may have a say as will Bettman and Goodenow.

All decisions in Life have consequences some good and some bad and perhaps for the Owners by the Lockout they get to save the cost of all guaranteed contracts from this past season, 24% rollback on existing contracts, A Hard Cap with Linkage and Revenue Sharing, all GUARANTEEING PROFITABILITY, but the cost may well turn out to be their young known as RFA and Unsigned draft picks to get all the previous ..

If you ask me that is tremendous gains on behalf of the Owners group in this CBA and the scales of justice in this case are heavily tipped in their direction.

Lets not forget Owners refer to ALL PLAYERS as autoworkers and interchangeable and all it takes is money to replace and fill a roster spot, if you happen to lose a player due to the lockout.