mydnyte
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2004
- 14,981
- 1,692
1. What was the last day that NHL teams had to sign thier unsigned draft picks from the last draft? (after which they players would be eligible to go back into the next draft or become UFA's)
Midnight June 1, 2005 as per the old CBA ...mydnyte said:1. What was the last day that NHL teams had to sign thier unsigned draft picks from the last draft? (after which they players would be eligible to go back into the next draft or become UFA's)
VIA THE OLD CBA
8.6. Reserve List-Exclusive Rights.
A.
A player selected shall be registered on the Reserve List of the selecting Club as an "unsigned draft choice."
i) Subject to the provisions of subsection (ii) of this Section and of subsections (b), (c) and (d) hereof, such registration by the selecting Club shall establish for such Club the exclusive right of negotiation for the services of each player selected and registered as against all other professional clubs up to and including June 1 of the calendar year next following the date of his selection.
ii) If such player continues to play hockey as an overage player for a Major Junior Club, in the season following his selection, such registration by the selecting Club shall establish for such Club the exclusive right of negotiation for the services of each such player selected and registered as against all other professional clubs up to and including the next June 1 following the date of his selection.
B.
i.) A player selected who is a bona fide college student at the time of such selection or who becomes a bona fide college student prior to June 1 of the calendar year next following the date of his selection may be retained on the Reserve List of the claiming Club as an "unsigned draft choice" so long as he remains a bona fide college student and thereafter for 180 days plus the period between the end of said 180 days and the next June 1; provided always that such a player may at any time by notice in writing delivered to the claiming Club, with copy to the Central Registry, declare his desire to be tendered a Player Contract with that Club.
ii) Upon receipt of such notice, the claiming Club may tender to the player a Player Contract for a term corresponding to his age as required under Section 9.1(b) commencing at the start of the next regular playing season.
iii) If the claiming Club fails to tender to the claimed player a contract within thirty days of filing of the notice by the claimed player in the Central Registry, the player shall be eligible for selection in the next Entry Draft if he is otherwise eligible in accordance with Section 8.4(a).
iv) For purposes of application of this section, a player playing for his Olympic or National Team shall be deemed to be at college.
C.
A player who, having been selected by a Club and having been placed on its Reserve List as an "unsigned draft choice," enters into an agreement with any person or organization, other than a Club of the League or a member club of an affiliated professional league, which agreement includes the obligation by the player to provide his services as a hockey player, may be retained on the Reserve List of the claiming club as a "defected" player for so long as said agreement to provide his services as a hockey player or any renewal or extension thereof remains in effect. Such player shall be subject to the provisions of Section 10.2(b).
D.
If, on or before June 1 of the calendar year next succeeding the draft, the claiming Club makes a Bona Fide Offer (as defined below) to its claimed player of a contract, the Club shall retain the exclusive right of negotiation for the services of such player up to and including the second June 1 following the date of his selection.
A "Bona Fide Offer" is one which is for a period corresponding to the player's age as required under Section 9.1(b) commencing at the start of the next League Year, offers at least the NHL Minimum Compensation for each year covered by such offer and remains open to the player for at least thirty days after receipt of the offer by the player. A Bona Fide Offer may be conditioned upon acceptance by the player within thirty days and carries no right to salary arbitration.
E.
Except as otherwise provided in this Section, a claimed player unsigned on June 2 next succeeding his draft shall be removed from the Reserve List of the Club that claimed him.
Weary said:The NHL must abide by the terms of the previous CBA. The only way the NHL teams will retain rights to those players without signing them before June 1 is if the new CBA retroactively allows them to. If the new CBA doesn't allow that or if it doesn't address the issue at all, those players will re-enter the draft or become free agents depending on the situation.
Bonafide offers I think are for the first year if I am reading the old CBA correctly .. It makes it sound that once you are drafted by a team that team has to make a Bonafide offer to the player in the 1st year before June 1 of the following in order to retain exclusive negotiating rights to the player ...and then must have the player signed to an approved player contract by the second June 1 after his draft year or else on June 2 his rights are removed from that team that drafted him and he either re-enters the next draft or becomes a UFA depending on his birthdate and when he turned 20 in that calendar year ..Mayor of MacAppolis said:In addition to Messengers post, if they were going to be on the openinght night roster, did they receive Bonafide offers?
Here is a question: Is an old CBA considered current until replaced by a new CBA, even if it is expired? I know from my work experience that our CBA has expired and it has been in effect past its expiry until replaced by a new one.
The Messenger said:Any Special Clause will be challenged in court. .
This is exactly the case the player's agent will present to the courts .. OLD CBA to NEW CBA and the difference in earning potential between the two.
Enter into evidence a few choice quotes by Bobby Clarke that say " Both Carter and Richards would have been on the opening day roster had there been a Season" and have the Flyers explain the reasoning for not giving them contracts then, when training camp was about to open in a few days..
Then show that all other draft classes before this had a players rights retained for 2 years , and if unsigned the player COULD CHOOSE to re-enter the next entry draft and/or become an UFA based on his current age and birthday, if they did not sign.
Then the agent will remind the NHL that the right to sign a NHL contract is the PLAYERS right as it is optional and can not be obtained by any form or strong arm tactics in a free country.
At the same time will point out that these players rights were obtained at the entry draft June 22, 2003 and the Lockout began September 15th, 2004 .. Giving the Flyers organization a full 15 months exclusive negotiating time to sign these precious players that are so valuable now to them that the Lockout is really a SILLY excuse to use as the reason you need MORE TIME ..
Then the agent will enter Dion Phaneuf's contract and all the other 2003 that got signed to OLD CBA deals moments before the lockout by poor/small market teams which couldn't afford to overpay, but felt they didn't want to risk losing their key draft picks by a prolonged work stoppage..
Which will then point out the obvious that the intention of the Flyers organization was nothing more then to screw Carter and Richards out of earning what the others are now receiving, because the NEW CBA was almost certainly going to contain lower earning thresholds both in base and signing and performance bonuses ..
Then the agents and lawyers with take out their yellow highlighters and colour in the NEW CBA clause that both restricts these players rights for movement and their ability to earn money based on the CBA in which their rights were first obtained, which is written specifically for them in the best interest of the owners and not the players . Combined with the fact that Carter is not a member of the NHLPA yet and that he had neither a say nor a vote on the issue of his rights, or have his best interests in mind.
Then in closing arguements the agent will state the intent of the Flyers organization is clear in that it wanted to screw over these draft picks financially to benefit the organization's own gain. Now they require both MORE TIME and SPECIAL CLAUSES in a new CBA in order to fulfill that goal.
At which time the Judge will stand up and say I have heard enough ..and follow that up with his best Martin Luther King quote :
" Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, you're free at last! "
The Messenger said:Any Special Clause will be challenged in court. .
This is exactly the case the player's agent will present to the courts .. OLD CBA to NEW CBA and the difference in earning potential between the two.
Enter into evidence a few choice quotes by Bobby Clarke that say " Both Carter and Richards would have been on the opening day roster had there been a Season" and have the Flyers explain the reasoning for not giving them contracts then, when training camp was about to open in a few days..
Then show that all other draft classes before this had a players rights retained for 2 years , and if unsigned the player COULD CHOOSE to re-enter the next entry draft and/or become an UFA based on his current age and birthday, if they did not sign.
Then the agent will remind the NHL that the right to sign a NHL contract is the PLAYERS right as it is optional and can not be obtained by any form or strong arm tactics in a free country.
At the same time will point out that these players rights were obtained at the entry draft June 22, 2003 and the Lockout began September 15th, 2004 .. Giving the Flyers organization a full 15 months exclusive negotiating time to sign these precious players that are so valuable now to them that the Lockout is really a SILLY excuse to use as the reason you need MORE TIME ..
Then the agent will enter Dion Phaneuf's contract and all the other 2003 that got signed to OLD CBA deals moments before the lockout by poor/small market teams which couldn't afford to overpay, but felt they didn't want to risk losing their key draft picks by a prolonged work stoppage..
Which will then point out the obvious that the intention of the Flyers organization was nothing more then to screw Carter and Richards out of earning what the others are now receiving, because the NEW CBA was almost certainly going to contain lower earning thresholds both in base and signing and performance bonuses ..
Then the agents and lawyers with take out their yellow highlighters and colour in the NEW CBA clause that both restricts these players rights for movement and their ability to earn money based on the CBA in which their rights were first obtained, which is written specifically for them in the best interest of the owners and not the players . Combined with the fact that Carter is not a member of the NHLPA yet and that he had neither a say nor a vote on the issue of his rights, or have his best interests in mind.
Then in closing arguements the agent will state the intent of the Flyers organization is clear in that it wanted to screw over these draft picks financially to benefit the organization's own gain. Now they require both MORE TIME and SPECIAL CLAUSES in a new CBA in order to fulfill that goal.
At which time the Judge will stand up and say I have heard enough ..and follow that up with his best Martin Luther King quote :
" Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, you're free at last! "
The Messenger said:Bonafide offers I think are for the first year if I am reading the old CBA correctly .. It makes it sound that once you are drafted by a team that team has to make a Bonafide offer to the player in the 1st year before June 1 of the following in order to retain exclusive negotiating rights to the player ...and then must have the player signed to an approved player contract by the second June 1 after his draft year or else on June 2 his rights are removed from that team that drafted him and he either re-enters the next draft or becomes a UFA depending on his birthdate and when he turned 20 in that calendar year ..
In the last Baseball strike/dispute the NLRB actually order the Owners back to the bargaining table, threw out the IMPASSE CBA and required the Owners to honour the terms of the old CBA until an new CBA could be worked out ..
Not much different then I stated, but I think the key issue was the Cap itself, and saying there would be none, yet the IMPASSE CBA had it. and PA used the fact that the other issues like Salary Arb and UFA were not discussed yet thoroughly, therefore no IMPASSE exists yet and "Bad Faith" bargaining on behalf of MLB owners....but the point being including special clauses to 2003 drafted players ..kdb209 said:What actually happened in the case of MLB was that they actually did not declare an impasse (well they actually did but later rescinded it). They then made unilateral changes to free agency and salary arbitration - mandatory subjects that could only be changed through collective bargaining. The MLB PA files an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB and a court injunction blocked those (and any future) changes to the CBA until a new one was negotiated.
The Messenger said:This all depends on timing as well ..
In the scenario I gave above the NEW CBA is in place and comparisons from OLD to NEW used to determine damages for example ..
However if Carter and his agent went to court in June after the 2 years have passed and the agents only goal is to get his client declared an UFA and not force the court to honour the old CBA terms in which he was drafted ..
The judge certainly can't say based on current timing if no new CBA is yet in place and the lockout is expected to go into next year that Carter can't earn a living now .. and bind Carter to a CBA that has not yet been negotiated ..
Carter will claim has fulfilled his 2 year obligation to Flyers at that time and remains without a contract in place ..
The Carter camp could also argue that even if the courts or the CBA included a clause that gave the Flyers an extension on exclusive rights to sign him, that no matter what money they offered he would not accept the deal .. It is his option after all remember, and being in court and challenging his own former team should be a pretty good indication that Carter is not happy with the current arrangement.
If all other entry drafted players going back 30 years + were only bound to the drafting team for only 2 years ..Why should Carter's rights magically be treated any differently?? .. June 2 comes and goes each year, and the NHL should have attempted to get a new CBA in place before June came around if this was such a big issue to them.
Also the Autoworkers quote that was used by the NHL in previous CBA meetings to describe all players clearly makes the statement that players are easy interchangeable in the minds of the NHL and its Owners .. So why all of a sudden is Carter's situation so different as an unsigned, unproven junior hockey player if the NHL perceives all proven players as interchangeable parts and easily replaceable. Not a very good NHL bargaining team if it makes that case to NHLers and sees the need to fight the freedom of a few 20 year olds in court.
A player's agents job is to get his client the most money he can in a player contract ..ATLANTARANGER said:I think everyone needs to remember who locked who out! The NHL elected this course of action. You have a whole class of people, drafted unsigned and draft eligible undrafted who have been damaged by the leagues actions. I don't think it is as clear cut an issue as Daly thinks it is. All you need is one agent and player to sue. Booby Clarke obviously gambled and it is not the 1st time he has made a huge error in judgement. With a restrictive CBA about to come into effect, whenever that is, where the NHLPA and the NHL are certain to reduce significantly the entry level salaries, it would be in those players from 2003 who are not signed to go to court and argue that they are being denied the right to sell their services. All the league has to do is say that it is OK to sign these players before june 1, 2005.
The Messenger said:Not much different then I stated, but I think the key issue was the Cap itself, and saying there would be none, yet the IMPASSE CBA had it. and PA used the fact that the other issues like Salary Arb and UFA were not discussed yet thoroughly, therefore no IMPASSE exists yet and "Bad Faith" bargaining on behalf of MLB owners....but the point being including special clauses to 2003 drafted players ..Originally Posted by kdb209
What actually happened in the case of MLB was that they actually did not declare an impasse (well they actually did but later rescinded it). They then made unilateral changes to free agency and salary arbitration - mandatory subjects that could only be changed through collective bargaining. The MLB PA files an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB and a court injunction blocked those (and any future) changes to the CBA until a new one was negotiated.
Originally Posted by kdb209
MLB had not declared an impasse (actually they had in December '94 but rescinded the declaration in February '95) and still unilaterally made changes in Free Agency and Arbitration. The NLRB ruled that these changes touched upon mandatory subjects of collective bargaining and could not be changed without a declaration of impasse and in doing so MLB had comitted an unfair labor practice.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/uscircs/2nd/956048.html
Quote:
The players struck on August 12, and the 1994 baseball season never resumed. On December 22, 1994, the PRC declared an impasse in negotiations and stated that it intended unilaterally to impose a salary cap and to implement other changes in the terms and conditions of employment, including the elimination of salary arbitration. See Silverman , 880 F.2d at 252. The Players Association responded with a unilateral ban on players signing individual contracts with the Clubs.
Thereafter, cross-charges of unfair labor practices were filed with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") by the Players Association and the Clubs. The Players Association alleged that the Clubs had engaged in unfair labor practices by unilaterally implementing the salary cap and other terms because the parties were not at an impasse.
On February 3, 1995, counsel for the PRC notified the NLRB General Counsel that the PRC would revoke the implementation of unilateral changes and restore the status quo ante. The General Counsel indicated that the Players Association charges would be dismissed as a result. Counsel for the PRC informed the General Counsel, however, that the PRC did not believe itself obligated to maintain provisions of the Basic Agreement that involved non-mandatory subjects of bargaining. He mentioned salary arbitration in that regard and also suggested that the Clubs might decide to bargain exclusively through the PRC. The NLRB General Counsel declined to offer an advisory opinion on these matters.
Three days later, by memorandum dated February 6, counsel for the PRC notified the Clubs that, until a new collective bargaining agreement was ratified or until further notice, individual clubs had no authority to negotiate contracts with individual players because the PRC was now the Clubs' exclusive bargaining representative. This amounted to an agreement among the Clubs not to hire free agents and thus was a departure from the anti-collusion provision, Article XX(F) of the Basic Agreement. It also amounted to an elimination of salary arbitration, because salary arbitration is a method of arriving at a wage for an individual player contract with a club.
The Players Association thereupon filed a new unfair labor practice charge, and the General Counsel issued a complaint alleging, inter alia , that the Clubs and the PRC had violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the NLRA by unilaterally eliminating, before an impasse had been reached, competitive bidding for the services of free agents, the anti-collusion provision, and salary arbitration for certain reserved players. The NLRB found that these matters were related to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and were therefore mandatory subjects for collective bargaining. It then authorized its General Counsel to seek an injunction under NLRA §10(j). On March 27, the NLRB Regional Director filed a petition seeking a temporary injunction restraining the alleged unfair labor practices.
...
The Players Association thereupon filed a new unfair labor practice charge, and the General Counsel issued a complaint alleging, inter alia , that the Clubs and the PRC had violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the NLRA by unilaterally eliminating, before an impasse had been reached, competitive bidding for the services of free agents, the anti-collusion provision, and salary arbitration for certain reserved players. The NLRB found that these matters were related to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and were therefore mandatory subjects for collective bargaining. It then authorized its General Counsel to seek an injunction under NLRA §10(j). On March 27, the NLRB Regional Director filed a petition seeking a temporary injunction restraining the alleged unfair labor practices.
The district court agreed that the NLRB had reasonable cause to conclude that free agency and salary arbitration were mandatory subjects of bargaining and that the Clubs' unilateral actions constituted an unfair labor practice. The district court also concluded that injunctive relief was warranted. This appeal followed. We denied a stay on April 4.
"SPECIAL CLAUSES" for 2003 draftees are completely different from the unilateral changes made by MLB - if there were a new negotiated CBA - because they would not be unilateral, they would have been agreed to by the NHLPA, the legal bargaining unit recognized (even if retroactively) by the draftees. If the PA negotiates it, the draftees have to live with it - end of story.
How is SPECIAL CLAUSES for 2003 draftees any different really then unilateral changes in other areas in the MLB example as Free Agency and Salary Arbitration .. Still all changes made to a CBA for the benefit of owners not the players that could be challenged in court depending on the wording and restrictions. ??
Answer this then ... Signing a players contracts is optional correct ??
Then what happens if the NEW CBA has a clause that says the Flyers have a 30 day extension on exclusive rights to negotiate due to the lockout to come to a contract agreement with Carter, at which time he becomes a ?????.( WHAT??)
What happens to Carter's rights then if Carter does not sign any Flyers offered contract in the extension period ??
The Messenger said:This all depends on timing as well ..
In the scenario I gave above the NEW CBA is in place and comparisons from OLD to NEW used to determine damages for example ..
However if Carter and his agent went to court in June after the 2 years have passed and the agents only goal is to get his client declared an UFA and not force the court to honour the old CBA terms in which he was drafted ..
The judge certainly can't say based on current timing if no new CBA is yet in place and the lockout is expected to go into next year that Carter can't earn a living now .. and bind Carter to a CBA that has not yet been negotiated ..
Carter will claim has fulfilled his 2 year obligation to Flyers at that time and remains without a contract in place ..
Of course no one is arguing that Carter couldn't pull a Lindros if he pleased.The Carter camp could also argue that even if the courts or the CBA included a clause that gave the Flyers an extension on exclusive rights to sign him, that no matter what money they offered he would not accept the deal .. It is his option after all remember, and being in court and challenging his own former team should be a pretty good indication that Carter is not happy with the current arrangement.
If all other entry darfted players before 1995 were not subject to an ELS, why should later draftees be treated any differently? Because that's what the CBA says - pretty simple actually.If all other entry drafted players going back 30 years + were only bound to the drafting team for only 2 years ..Why should Carter's rights magically be treated any differently?? .. June 2 comes and goes each year, and the NHL should have attempted to get a new CBA in place before June came around if this was such a big issue to them.
ATLANTARANGER said:I think everyone needs to remember who locked who out! The NHL elected this course of action. You have a whole class of people, drafted unsigned and draft eligible undrafted who have been damaged by the leagues actions. I don't think it is as clear cut an issue as Daly thinks it is. All you need is one agent and player to sue. Booby Clarke obviously gambled and it is not the 1st time he has made a huge error in judgement. With a restrictive CBA about to come into effect, whenever that is, where the NHLPA and the NHL are certain to reduce significantly the entry level salaries, it would be in those players from 2003 who are not signed to go to court and argue that they are being denied the right to sell their services. All the league has to do is say that it is OK to sign these players before june 1, 2005.
This it the issue that we are discussing now that often gets overlooked .. My point there has to be a clearly defined OUT for the player should he not sign a deal ..kdb209 said:Signing a contract is optional. Nothing forces Carter to sign with the Flyers. He is free to sign with an AHL team, Europe, etc. He is just unable to sign with any other NHL team.
But if he wants to play for the Flyers (or any other NHL team) he must sign the Standard Players Contract and agree to all of the CBA terms - that is NOT optional.
Both Carter and the Flyers have to live with the language of the new CBA. If the CBA grants a 30 day extension it will also have to clarify what happens after that 30 days - does he become a UFA or go back into the draft. This case would have to explicitly be dealt with in the transition terms or it would fall back to the general draftee rights tems defined in the new CBA. And any ambiguity there that could be challenged would not be challenged in the courts, but through the dispute mechanisms agreed to in the CBA - an arbiter.
The Messenger said:A player's agents job is to get his client the most money he can in a player contract ..
I agree with you here that the biggest issue is not UFA as much as it is money lost by difference in CBA levels of earnings.
Carter's agent if they went to court would fight harder to make the Flyers sign Carter under the terms of the old CBA he was drafted under and to a contract close to what Phaneuf got as one of the best Junior Hockey players in Canada as a comparison.
The only reason the Flyers did not sign him clearly boiled down to saving money, knowing the intent of the new CBA ahead would benefit them and not the player.
The court may rule almost like a Salary arbitration case and say either Carter and all other 2003 draft picks should be signed to the terms of the old CBA which will only effect a few anyway the top draft picks that expected the rookie max and top end rookie signing and performance bonuses (almost like turning the clock back to pre-lockout and giving the Flyers a Do Over) or if the Flyers decline then the court will set Carter free possibly so that while he will remain wronged Salary wise at least he will be able to play for the team of his choice under the new CBA and entry level contract system ..
kdb209 said:Yes players could go to court (this is America) but would be very unlikely to prevail. A player has no inate right to play in the NHL - they cannot force the NHL to sign a player. Right now, without a CBA, the league is not signing any players, and once a new CBA is in place, the players will be bound by it's terms.
Yes. This is a point we both agree on.The Messenger said:This it the issue that we are discussing now that often gets overlooked .. My point their has to be a clearly defined OUT for the player should he not sign a deal ..
But Daly's (and other's) quotes have generally been in the context of player, agent, and media claims that the draftees are suddenly all UFAs. Yes current teams retain draft rights (assuming the new CBA says so), but no one has claimed that those rights are maintained in perpetuity - that was never the question asked of Daly et al.Bill Daly and others always talk about the clauses that keep him a Flyer, but the opposite as to what would free him is overlooked even if the new CBA contains a Special Clause .. My opinion is that the window to sign him needs to be fairly small and non-restrictive to go unchallenged anyways .. Now you are getting in labour rights here and issues ..
As I said, the overage draft / UFA issue is an open issue. They could keep the 20 yo cutoff or negotiate a special case for this draft only, or (my prefered option) treat players by their age on June 1, 2005 - if they would have been overage/UFA under a normal draft treat them the same way, so no player earns a benefit by the delay in draft date, but noplayer is harmed either.Under the OLD CBA draft re-entry was a possibility the other being UFA as Players OUTS .. This was determined when your birthday fell in the calendar year in which you turned 20 .. If the lockout continues no draft occurs and if that drags on into 2006 then clauses as you pointed out of Draft re-entry based on player age would limit that option dramatically only leaving UFA as the main option IMO ..
Being that the league and PA had no open ended draft right restrictions (for NA players), it is reasonable to assume that a fair window would be negotiated - although I remain doubtful that it could be successfully disputed and thrown out if the league and PA agreed to it.Bottom line with all these 2003 players is that the final choice to sign or not remains within their control .. and any Special Clause made particularly for a certain draft class only would have to be considered Reasonable and Fair for both sides or it will be disputed and possibly thrown out anyways..
Even if a CBA is signed before June 1, there may still be issues dealt with in the CBA to extend the window somewhat - especially if the CBA is signed late enough that the draft would be delayed past it;s mid June date. In that case I would expect to see a day for day slip of the signing deadline w.r.t. the final '05 draft date.All this still remains a non-issue until June 2, 2005 rolls around anyways because a CBA signed before that time would not require a special clause in the first place as the drafting teams would have time to make contract offers before the deadline passed .. Whether the player signs it that is a different story that only him and his agent will determine.
I'm not ruling out the possibility of an agent taking the NHL to court either, but I still STRONGLY beleive that the likelyhood of them prevailing and winning any damages (that are upheld on inevitable appeal) are very, very, slim. Hell If they do, you've got a case of beer (on me).I am still not ruling out the possibility of a agent taking the NHL to court for damages of lost wages from one CBA to the next that dramatically effects the amount of money a player can earn .. and the only players that would be able to make that claim are the 2003 and 2004 class drafted under one set of rules and signed (Owners not players option) under another, and not being NHLPA members have no say or vote on the issue .. but since Johnny Cochrane is no longer with us they may not win , but they still might test the waters as it can do nothing but benefit them should they win..
mydnyte said:...for most of us, this is Canada.Originally Posted by kdb209
Yes players could go to court (this is America) but would be very unlikely to prevail. A player has no inate right to play in the NHL - they cannot force the NHL to sign a player. Right now, without a CBA, the league is not signing any players, and once a new CBA is in place, the players will be bound by it's terms.
and although no player has no inate right to play in the NHL, neither does the NHL have any right to keep a drafted (which is in theory illegal anyways because a player does not have the ability to not be drafted or enter the draft) player's rights indefinately while they work on an agreement that will determine the career of said player and leave them unable to seek employment or negotiate with any team they wish. (until they sign a NHL contract and join the NHLPA)