Unsigned picks due to re-enter draft?

[John Flyers Fan]

You hope. But there is a good chance they will end up suing and getting free agency.

If by good chance you mean less than 2%, then i agree with you.

 

[Dr Love]

Theres a very good chance they will be re-entered into the draft or declared a free agent. Imo, theres a greater chance of either one of those options happening then the teams retaining the rights. The players rights will outweight the teams in any courtroom fight imo. Carter sign? If he hasnt, hes going back in draft or being made a free agent I would think.

Anyone have a list of who hasnt signed ?

"Clubs will retain the rights to all players as to who had rights at the time of the lockout," Daly said. "As it relates to NHL clubs, their rights to players are totally as defined by the collective bargaining process. No club is in danger of losing rights to a player due to the passage of time. The same is true with players eligible for the draft this year."

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/sports/11207761.htm

 

[mercury]

If, in this hypothetical world, teams lost their unsigned draft picks, I believe that guys like Carter and Richards would be free agents. I don't believe they'd go back into the draft.

 

[Vatican Roulette]

There is NOT a good chance this will happen. Almost every source indicates that some type of exception will be made for these players. And I am sure most U.S. courts would agree that the lack of a CBA is an extraordinary circumstance.

how is it extraordinary?

Phaneuf, Stewart, and a few others were signed?

Why didn't any of the other teams lock up their players if they wanted them?

i bet thats what the courts will say, and the lawyers will argue.

 

[Vic Rattlehead*]

LMFAO! Knowing Liquid from another board, this has to be the most obviously edited post ever. He sounds gayer than a catholic boy scout. Awesome job by the moderators.
Anyone want to guess what it originally said instead of the smileys?

That post didn't make you sound much better....

 

[KILLger]

That post didn't make you sound much better....

Nor does this one about you.

Or mine...

 

[NYR469]

IMG doesn't have any of the top unsigned prospects, their lawsuit is more about getting ready to try and do the same thing with their big RFA clients (Thornton, etc.) on July, 1.

IMG doesn't represent top unsigned prospect (they do have crosby though) but that doesn't really matter because a lawsuit like this would make everyone in the same situation a free agent (or re-enter the draft) not just IMG players. so eventhough img doesn't represent carter, they could get carter free agent status.

 

[NYR469]

If, in this hypothetical world, teams lost their unsigned draft picks, I believe that guys like Carter and Richards would be free agents. I don't believe they'd go back into the draft.

under the old cba, if carter and richards weren't signed they would have re-entered the draft.

 

[NYR469]

how is it extraordinary?

Phaneuf, Stewart, and a few others were signed?

Why didn't any of the other teams lock up their players if they wanted them?

i bet thats what the courts will say, and the lawyers will argue.

that is the best arguement IMG has imo. the lockout didn't sneak up on anyone and everyone knew that a lawsuit like this was possible if the season was lost. other teams were smart enough to lock up their players. why didn't the flyers just sign carter and richards last summer?? it wouldn't have cost them anything...did they do it because they were planning on signing them this summer under the lower rookie cap?

 

[Vatican Roulette]

that is the best arguement IMG has imo. the lockout didn't sneak up on anyone and everyone knew that a lawsuit like this was possible if the season was lost. other teams were smart enough to lock up their players. why didn't the flyers just sign carter and richards last summer?? it wouldn't have cost them anything...did they do it because they were planning on signing them this summer under the lower rookie cap?

yes, that was the gamble that these teams took, hoping that it would pay off. IMO, the teams are hoping for sympathy from the league and fanbase to get their rookies signed for a lower salary. I can't say i blame them either with the way NHL is right now.

It only remains to be seen if the NHL will be sympathtic and let them have a grace period, or be hardline against it. Yet another one for those two idiots to mess with.

 

[swflyers8*]

why didn't the flyers just sign carter and richards last summer?? it wouldn't have cost them anything...did they do it because they were planning on signing them this summer under the lower rookie cap?

Maybe Clarke wants to sign them to longer deals? Couldn't really blame him after seeing their play this year!
He said he didn't have a CBA to work with so he was going to wait. Both prospects said that is fine and whenever this is resolved, they will get a deal done. I believe Carter's agent is Rick Curran who is Recchi's agent and others...they all have done deals with Clarke and this one shouldn't be any different. They will get more than the minimum when you factor that a guy like JR and even Primeau may retire in the near future. That works for me. I mean you all assume that these guys want to go back into the draft, what if they don't want to? Sure, some might and some might not.

 

[Hasbro]

Has anyone made a list of the potentialy eligible players.

 

[X-SHARKIE]

My whole point is why would a guy like Carter want to sign for less than what Getzlaf or stewart or Dion signed for. under the CBA the NHL wants to lower the entry level salary. Why would Carter or Richards etc. want to sign for lets say $ 800,000, while guys like Getzlaf and Stewart make more money. Why does a team like Calgary get punished for paying Dion more than what the Flyers will pay Richards or Carter. If I'm one of Carter Richards or Fehr I would try to make sure I get the most money I can get. Even if I have to go to the courts and win my UFA rights. So I think it will all depend on whats the maximum Entry level Salary.

Not signing with your current rights holder does't solve anything for these prospects, since they will still ultimately sign a deal under the new CBA, whether it's with the Flyers or a new team like Toronto ect.

 

[Chimaera]

A few teams didn't sign the players largely because of potential CBA implications. There is going to be change in how much these players can make and will make.

At least with the Caps, I believe that was the goal in waiting on Fehr. Additionally, getting to see another season of juniors before having to sign him was probably a similar goal.


I don't think the NHL owners will want to let these players on the open market. All teams have some significant players to lose, if they allow them to go to free agency. And the problem is, free agency is still going to be regulated on the first few years. Additionally, letting these players loose is going to hurt a lot of teams more than it will help. Some teams who badly need the prospects will lose them, while on the other hand, some teams are going to lock up significant money to sign the players when most are not even proven.

 

[mydnyte]

when you enter into a contract under a CBA (being drafted), regardless of whether the CBA expires or not, all the clauses that were valid at the time of signing (or being drafted) are still valid until they expire (unless you are bought out)

therefore, all the players did need to be signed by June 1st. (year depending on draft year)

the players should be correct to assume they should be treated as UFA's depending on draft/age requirements ...and if they go to court, the ruling should be such.

...also the NHLPA has nothing at all to do with them as unsigned drafted players are not members until they sign a contract.

 

[DARKSIDE]

When this subject comes up, which it has numerous times, the names that are always mentioned are Carter and Richards with good reason. However, are there any other top prospects in the same situation as these two, because I haven't heard of any other names but the Philly kids?

 

[operasen]

Those that did sign still get the 24% roll back. So far anyway.

 

[BuppY]

When this subject comes up, which it has numerous times, the names that are always mentioned are Carter and Richards with good reason. However, are there any other top prospects in the same situation has these two, because I haven't heard of any other names but the Philly kid?

Eric Fehr.

 

[no Gino]

When this subject comes up, which it has numerous times, the names that are always mentioned are Carter and Richards with good reason. However, are there any other top prospects in the same situation has these two, because I haven't heard of any other names but the Philly kid?

I thought O'Sullivan fell into this category as well.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

I see the obvious names of Carter, Richards, & Fehr a bit here. But what about maybe some of the mid to late round picks that in the last 2 yrs have played much better than where they were originally drafted and it would probably benefit them to re-enter the draft, regardless of whether the team retains the rights to sign them. Guys like the above mentioned O'Sullivan. Or regardless of if he's leeching off Crosby or not but Dany Roussin would obviously be picked higher than the 7th round that he was originally (I would say 3rd or possibly late 2nd). I'm sure there are other examples like these 2.

Why wouldn't these players want to re-enter the draft even if the teams want to sign them? If I was Dany Roussin's agent, I would be suggesting that very thing instead of even worrying about whether to negotiate with the team.

 

[Liquidrage*]

when you enter into a contract under a CBA (being drafted), regardless of whether the CBA expires or not, all the clauses that were valid at the time of signing (or being drafted) are still valid until they expire (unless you are bought out)

No, it will be for a judge to decide if it's pushed that far. Based on history, these things are usually allowed to be part of the CBA. Which is what we expect, that this will be accounted for in the CBA.

therefore, all the players did need to be signed by June 1st. (year depending on draft year)

Therefore, I take it you're a judge and have already ruled on this secretly?

the players should be correct to assume they should be treated as UFA's depending on draft/age requirements ...and if they go to court, the ruling should be such.

Ok, ok... But what makes *your* assumptions correct?

...also the NHLPA has nothing at all to do with them as unsigned drafted players are not members until they sign a contract.

That has no bearing on anything.

 

[Master Shake*]

I see the obvious names of Carter, Richards, & Fehr a bit here. But what about maybe some of the mid to late round picks that in the last 2 yrs have played much better than where they were originally drafted and it would probably benefit them to re-enter the draft, regardless of whether the team retains the rights to sign them. Guys like the above mentioned O'Sullivan. Or regardless of if he's leeching off Crosby or not but Dany Roussin would obviously be picked higher than the 7th round that he was originally (I would say 3rd or possibly late 2nd). I'm sure there are other examples like these 2.

Why wouldn't these players want to re-enter the draft even if the teams want to sign them? If I was Dany Roussin's agent, I would be suggesting that very thing instead of even worrying about whether to negotiate with the team.

Its going to be interesting to see how this turns out.

 

[Ola]

Teams' rights to those players will be protected somehow when the new CBA is signed. Easy enough to have a clause added to give teams another year to sign those players. Whether these guys are UFAs or not isn't something that the NHLPA will really care too much about, and it's something a few owners (Ed Snider) will care a lot about, so they'll be protected with their current organizations some way or other.

I'd be absolutely shocked if they were allowed to become UFAs.

I study law in Sweden, and our system is allot diffrent from the one in USA. But I have a really hard time seeing in any legaö system how a CBA could affect members not in it in a negative way. As of june 1st(or whatever date it is) these guys have the rights to become UFA/or reenter the draft. This is a situation where lawyers can challenge the system and I can't see how they can loose. They have a deal that says one thing, two other parts can't sign another deal later that affect that deal in a negative way.

 

[dunwoody_joe]

I study law in Sweden, and our system is allot diffrent from the one in USA. But I have a really hard time seeing in any legaö system how a CBA could affect members not in it in a negative way. As of june 1st(or whatever date it is) these guys have the rights to become UFA/or reenter the draft. This is a situation where lawyers can challenge the system and I can't see how they can loose. They have a deal that says one thing, two other parts can't sign another deal later that affect that deal in a negative way.

I have not studied law anywhere but I see the issue similarly. The unsigned guys are not, at this moment, under any CBA. It seems that they should have the right to move about freely.

Last year, several clubs scrambled to sign their top prospects to avoid this problem: ATL with Coburn, CLG with Phaneuf come to mind.

While it will likely be worked out in the new CBA, I do think that top prospects have an arguement that they should be UFAs or allowed back into the draft.

 

[NYR469]

i think these unsigned draft picks have much less of a case then RFAs that might try to claim they should be UFAs cause the deadline for qualifying offers passed. and the reason for that is the unsigned draft picks don't have contracts therefore the only place the june 1st deadline is specified is in the cba. if that cba is not in effect then neither are the rules of that cba...

but when it comes to RFAs, if there is mention of the QO in the actual contract and not just the cba, then that contract is still binding whether the cba is in effect or not. i don't know exactly how the contracts are worded though if they include expiration dates and deadlines within the actual contract or not.