What happens to the drafted players...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
kdb209 said:
Correct. Yes the draftee in not a member of the union when he is drafted, but in order to play in the NHL he must sign a contract that says he retroactively agrees to all of the terms of the CBA. He doesn't agree to the standard player contract terms, he doesn't play in the NHL.
No one is disputing this as to when he signs a NHL contract he abides by the new CBA rules .. The issue here is who owns his NHL rights and for how long ?? That is what I am questioning here .. IN the old CBA is player option to sign and if he didn't other options were available to him including re-enter in a future NHL draft or UFA ..

For this to not happen in the future one is going to have to believe that the both parties are going to have to agree to new rules in a new cba .. This has never been mentioned in any CBA proposal to date and would require mutual agreement from both sides which I can never see happerning ..
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
The Messenger said:
How can the NHL guarantee the NHLPA will agree to this ??
They can't.

It could certainly be challenged, although the probable conclusion is that rights will be retroactively retained by the original drafting team as per a CBA agreement.

A trigger-point, on the other hand, could indeed be the particular player's date of birth vis-a-vis the date of a new CBA and a resultant draft.

The conumdrum is displayed in the variant signing strategies as shown by different NHL teams (who no doubt acted on the advice of their respective legal counsels).

Hope that muddies it up a bit. :yo:
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Bicycle Repairman said:
They can't.

It could certainly be challenged, although the probable conclusion is that rights will be retroactively retained by the original drafting team as per a CBA agreement.

A trigger-point, on the other hand, could indeed be the particular player's date of birth vis-a-vis the date of a new CBA and a resultant draft.

The conumdrum is displayed in the variant signing strategies as shown by different NHL teams (who no doubt acted on the advice of their respective legal counsels).

Hope that muddies it up a bit. :yo:
Well it actually helps make my point ..

The player agent will wait till a new cba is in place and then look at a client and say he was drafted under one cba and if signed under another now much lower entry level contract .. He could very likely challenge that in court and fight it .. If the player is too old ie . 20+ and too old to return to the CHL other then a overage then the NHL holding his rights are prohibiting him from earning a living ..

but the point is that THE NHL can't guarantee anything unless they have a signed document with the NHLPA signature on it that says its so ..
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
The Messenger said:
No one is disputing this as to when he signs a NHL contract he abides by the new CBA rules .. The issue here is who owns his NHL rights and for how long ?? That is what I am questioning here .. IN the old CBA is player option to sign and if he didn't other options were available to him including re-enter in a future NHL draft or UFA ..

For this to not happen in the future one is going to have to believe that the both parties are going to have to agree to new rules in a new cba .. This has never been mentioned in any CBA proposal to date and would require mutual agreement from both sides which I can never see happerning ..

Why would the NHLPA object?

Bob: Good job, CBAs done.
Gary: Hang on, we still have to put in a clause to cope with players that missed the re-entry draft.
Bob: that's your problem
Gary: How about we send them back to their original teams until the next draft then they can decide whether to sign or reenter?
Bob: Why should I agree to that?
Gary: I can't sign until we deal with it. These kids will get rookie max where ever they are...

So Bob's answer is

A) Bob: OK, its not harming anyone. Lets get the deal done.
B) Bob: Get stuffed. The union would rather sit out another year.
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
me2 said:
Why would the NHLPA object?

Bob: Good job, CBAs done.
Gary: Hang on, we still have to put in a clause to cope with players that missed the re-entry draft.
Bob: that's your problem
Gary: How about we send them back to their original teams until the next draft then they can decide whether to sign or reenter?
Bob: Why should I agree to that?
Gary: I can't sign until we deal with it. These kids will get rookie max where ever they are...

So Bob's answer is

A) Bob: OK, its not harming anyone. Lets get the deal done.
B) Bob: Get stuffed. The union would rather sit out another year.

Someone's going to be the Fly in the Ointment. You really think this whole thing ends up nice 'n' neat?
 

Atlas

Registered User
Sep 7, 2004
3,355
1
me2 said:
Why would the NHLPA object?

So Bob's answer is

A) Bob: OK, its not harming anyone. Lets get the deal done.
B) Bob: Get stuffed. The union would rather sit out another year.



HAHAHA! :lol Yep, this has actually been the sticking point all along.


Look, this is a minor thing. The NHL and the NHLPA will make a binding agreement that will see to it that the team that drafted these guys have a chance to sign them. They players won't have to sign because they didn't have to sign originally. But it will be done in such a way as to be in their best interests to sign with the team that drafted them. Like always, some will and some won't.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
JohnGalt said:
Look, this is a minor thing. The NHL and the NHLPA will make a binding agreement that will see to it that the team that drafted these guys have a chance to sign them. They players won't have to sign because they didn't have to sign originally. But it will be done in such a way as to be in their best interests to sign with the team that drafted them. Like always, some will and some won't.

Yup, that's what I expect as well. Some extension, a month or whatever, where their original team has exclusive negotiation rights.
 

Steve L*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2003
11,548
0
Southampton, England
Visit site
The Messenger said:
If that CBA is not valid then the player is already a UFA by your logic ..

You can't have it both ways ..
So you still think the old CBA is in effect?
The NHL is in limbo, no player is an UFA, no player us under contract until a new deal is signed. Only then will we know what will happen and since Bettman told teams not to sign their prospects, everything points to them being able to sign them in the new CBA. You sound like a leaf fan hoping for the chance to steal other teams prospects.

The Messenger said:
You are saying that a new CBA that is not yet even anywhere close to being in place is what keeps them their former teams property .. ??

Why did small market teams Calgary sign Phaneuf and Anahiem sign Getzlaf and Perry .. Bettman must have given them the same speech .. and they can afford it less Phily can ..

I wanted to show you that your 2 drafts is not accurate it is based on a calender and years not drafts .. If there is no draft how can these players re-enter it .. ??

The info came directly form the Flyers, Im sure they have slightly more info on this than you do
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
This is a silly, silly debate.

The NHL and NHLPA will have a clause agreed to in the new CBA and nobody, including those two know exactly what it's going to be.

As far as I can tell, their options are as follows (for the following examples, we will say an agreement is reached on June 1, 2005 and the 2005 draft is held later that month)...

1. Teams have until June 15, 2005, to come to terms with their 2003 draft picks (basically extend the deadline 15 days). Any player not signed by this period will re-enter the draft as a 2005 eligible player OR become a free agent (depending on if the rules for retaining rights remain the same, based on age).

2. Any 2003 drafted player will major junior eligiblity remaining, will have his rights retained by his drafting club for one more year, if not signed by that time he will become an UFA.

3. Completely re-design all the drafting rules and have players drafted at 19 instead of 18 and their rights held for only one-year or something like that!


One thing a lot of people are missing here is one tiny fact... collusion. Agents might have a decent case for collusion vs. the NHL and its owners to get their 2003 and 2004 drafted players (more specifically, 2003) signed under the old CBA. The NHL and its teams got together and basically said, "try to refrain from signing your 2003 draft picks and we can sign them under the new ELS once the new CBA is agreed upon essentially agreeing as a whole to screw the entry-level players over instead of making team-by-team cost-saving decisions." Whether anybody takes it any further is the question, doubtful but always a possibility.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Schlep Rock said:
This is a silly, silly debate.

The NHL and NHLPA will have a clause agreed to in the new CBA and nobody, including those two know exactly what it's going to be.

As far as I can tell, their options are as follows (for the following examples, we will say an agreement is reached on June 1, 2005 and the 2005 draft is held later that month)...

1. Teams have until June 15, 2005, to come to terms with their 2003 draft picks (basically extend the deadline 15 days). Any player not signed by this period will re-enter the draft as a 2005 eligible player OR become a free agent (depending on if the rules for retaining rights remain the same, based on age).

The CBA negotiations deprived the teams of 10 months to negotiate exclusively with these players. I don't see 15 days as a reasonable substitution.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
Thunderstruck said:
The CBA negotiations deprived the teams of 10 months to negotiate exclusively with these players. I don't see 15 days as a reasonable substitution.

Well if you want to look at it this way then we can:

Teams had from July 1, 2003 (approximately) until September 15, 2004 to negotiate with these players (13 1/2 months).

If they can't get a contract done in 14 months, then god help us.

But that's not the wise way to look at it, the wise way would be: if they really want a player, they'll get it done in 15 days.
 

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
CaptainShark said:
that have not signed an NHL contract yet in case of the replacement-player-scenario... Do the teams that drafted those players contain the rights or are alle these players free agents by then? I would hate to lose all of our nice prospects... I would hate that scenario anyway, but if each team at least kept it´s prospects, that would keep my ties with the club alive... otherwise it will be hard...

people can say what they want (and as a flyer fan i'm VERY concerned about this issue), but the simple answer -- and the only one that matters -- is that NO ONE knows. there are rumors that there have been some deals behind closed doors concerning these guys, and all sorts of other stuff... but no one knows. no one.

they could very well become free agents.

they could very well be assigned to their respective teams for another year.

they could be put back into the draft.

they could be let loose as free agents, but only recieve offers from their teams as the owners have said we will not vulture players off of teams.

they could decide they don't really want to play hockey for a living after all.

no one knows.

the one thing that i think is pretty much a certainty, is that there is a fair chance that some of these situations will result in potential lawsuits from these players arguing that they should be governed under the previous CBA and so forth. simply put, it will be a mess. one of the main reasons bettman wants a deal in place prior to the draft is so that teams can lock these players up prior to this becoming an issue... but it is anyone's guess what is going to happen. as i said, no one knows.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
Jester said:
people can say what they want (and as a flyer fan i'm VERY concerned about this issue), but the simple answer -- and the only one that matters -- is that NO ONE knows. there are rumors that there have been some deals behind closed doors concerning these guys, and all sorts of other stuff... but no one knows. no one.

they could very well become free agents.

they could very well be assigned to their respective teams for another year.

they could be put back into the draft.

they could be let loose as free agents, but only recieve offers from their teams as the owners have said we will not vulture players off of teams.

they could decide they don't really want to play hockey for a living after all.

no one knows.

the one thing that i think is pretty much a certainty, is that there is a fair chance that some of these situations will result in potential lawsuits from these players arguing that they should be governed under the previous CBA and so forth. simply put, it will be a mess. one of the main reasons bettman wants a deal in place prior to the draft is so that teams can lock these players up prior to this becoming an issue... but it is anyone's guess what is going to happen. as i said, no one knows.

Bingo... nobody knows.

It's a joke to think NHL GM's aren't talking to players and their agents. Supposidly Colin Murphy's deal w/St. John's is based on a contract with Toronto that will be signed once the lockout is over.

The article on HF with Andy Murray from Bemijdi St. said he's been in close contact with Columbus all year.

Decisions have already been made "we're going to sign you or we're not" so when the time comes, depending on the new rules, etc. it could take hours to sign the deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->