Prospect Info: #40OA - Hurricanes select RHD Scott Morrow

[Cardiac Jerks]

from what I recall reading Jack's father was FAR more the issue in that situation, felt that going to Carolina would limit endorsement opportunities and the like. May have been right but also pretty telling with how everything played out in that situation that he needed to cut ties far sooner than he was able to.

Reads like he was concerned with how much money he’d be able to steal from his son already Crazy to think about it in hindsight.

 

[Lempo]

I ain't got much anything so I just spitball this: Morrow is 20 now with a November birthday. ELC signing age is determined by player's age on September 15th on the calendar year he signs his ELC.

If he signs this spring 2023 at 20, his ELC would be 3 years and he would get to burn the first year.
If he signs in the next spring 2024 at 21 (after third year in college), his ELC would be 3 years and he would get to burn the first year.
If he signs in the spring 2025 at 22 (after four years in college), his ELC would be 2 years and he would get to burn the first year.
If he goes college UFA and signs in 2025 after August 15th at 23, his ELC would be 2 years.

 

[Svechhammer]

Yeah I'm definitely in favor of closing the loophole that allows players to just ghost on the team which drafted them.

 

[AhosDatsyukian]

I’m not worried until DW says we’re 99% signing him.

 

[Lempo]

Yeah I'm definitely in favor of closing the loophole that allows players to just ghost on the team which drafted them.

It very much is not a loophole.

A regular NA player can not sign and after two years re-enter the draft and again not sign and become a draft-related UFA on June 2 of the fourth year after being drafted the first time.

An Euro player can not sign and become a draft-related UFA on June 2 of the fourth year after being drafted.

An NCAA player actually stays longer under the drafting team control than either and can't become a draft-related UFA until August 16 of the fourth year after being drafted. In some cases the drafting team control lasts even longer.

The NCAA players totally not need to be punished for opting to do something sensible with their life and going to college instead of going all in with the elusive dream of some day becoming a top-1000 ice kendo player in the world.

 

[Svechhammer]

It very much is not a loophole.

A regular NA player can not sign and after two years re-enter the draft and again not sign and become a draft-related UFA on June 2 of the fourth year after being drafted the first time.

An Euro player can not sign and become a draft-related UFA on June 2 of the fourth year after being drafted.

An NCAA player actually stays longer under the drafting team control than either and can't become a draft-related UFA until August 16 of the fourth year after being drafted. In some cases the drafting team control lasts even longer.

The NCAA players totally not need to be punished for opting to do something sensible with their life and going to college instead of going all in with the elusive dream of some day becoming a top-1000 ice kendo player in the world.

That's fine and all, but my proposal is that any player who is drafted by an NHL team should be bound to that team upon entry to the league, or to whichever team that player's rights are traded to. None of this shit like with Fox where he bounced to 2 teams before ending up in his preferred destination, and that happening for pennies because everyone knew he was just going to sign there in a couple months anyway. If a player doesn't want to play for the team that drafted him, by all means, hold out, but no clock starts in regards to their rights running out until that first contract is signed and they start participating with the team.

 

[WreckingCrew]

That's fine and all, but my proposal is that any player who is drafted by an NHL team should be bound to that team upon entry to the league, or to whichever team that player's rights are traded to. None of this shit like with Fox where he bounced to 2 teams before ending up in his preferred destination, and that happening for pennies because everyone knew he was just going to sign there in a couple months anyway. If a player doesn't want to play for the team that drafted him, by all means, hold out, but no clock starts in regards to their rights running out until that first contract is signed and they start participating with the team.

I know it sucks when it happens, but should we really be punishing a player...who had no choice in whether or not they were drafted nor whom they were drafted by? I do think it'd be great if there was some sort of draft compensation for teams this happens to, but I struggle to hold it against the players. Maybe some sort of arbitration to determine what draft pick should be awarded (either from the team like an offer-sheet or just as an added awarded pick). Could you imagine if you had no choice in your employer, but instead got drafted? No choice in what company, where it's located, etc...you just have to go or forgo a paycheck for years or go overseas for less overall money. I think most players do have some sense of loyalty to the team that drafted them, but I could hardly blame a guy who might not care to play in front of 5,000 people, or in a shitty city, or overcrowded/heavily watched city, or a non-traditional market, or poorly run organization, or one with a history of hazing/abuse.

TLDR: It sucks, should be some compensation, don't punish player.

 

[Svechhammer]

I know it sucks when it happens, but should we really be punishing a player...who had no choice in whether or not they were drafted nor whom they were drafted by? I do think it'd be great if there was some sort of draft compensation for teams this happens to, but I struggle to hold it against the players. Maybe some sort of arbitration to determine what draft pick should be awarded (either from the team like an offer-sheet or just as an added awarded pick). Could you imagine if you had no choice in your employer, but instead got drafted? No choice in what company, where it's located, etc...you just have to go or forgo a paycheck for years or go overseas for less overall money. I think most players do have some sense of loyalty to the team that drafted them, but I could hardly blame a guy who might not care to play in front of 5,000 people, or in a shitty city, or overcrowded/heavily watched city, or a non-traditional market, or poorly run organization, or one with a history of hazing/abuse.

TLDR: It sucks, should be some compensation, don't punish player.

As I said, I'm fine if a player wants to hold out and force his way into a trade. That's fine, and at least allows the team that has his contract rights to get fair compensation via a deal, because there isn't a looming deadline where the player can just opt out without ever partaking.

But at the end of the day this is a sports league and the best way for the league itself to remain solvent is to ensure all teams get equal opportunity to bring in the best players and close these loopholes where kids coming in can just force their way into big market teams, completely f***ing over everyone else. If you want to have control over where you go, either wait for your turn in UFA, or go work in another field.

Now, along with this, if we are going that forced direction, I would also be very much in favor of eliminating RFA statuses and just getting players straight to UFA sooner. You can't ask for concessions up front without giving something back.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

As I said, I'm fine if a player wants to hold out and force his way into a trade. That's fine, and at least allows the team that has his contract rights to get fair compensation via a deal, because there isn't a looming deadline where the player can just opt out without ever partaking.

But at the end of the day this is a sports league and the best way for the league itself to remain solvent is to ensure all teams get equal opportunity to bring in the best players and close these loopholes where kids coming in can just force their way into big market teams, completely f***ing over everyone else. If you want to have control over where you go, either wait for your turn in UFA, or go work in another field.

Now, along with this, if we are going that forced direction, I would also be very much in favor of eliminating RFA statuses and just getting players straight to UFA sooner. You can't ask for concessions up front without giving something back.

I'm sure there would be 1000 reasons it'd be too tough to do from a legal/bargaining perspective (@Lempo)... but could you do a compensatory pick process like exists in some other leagues? Or alternately, rather than inventing a draft pick out of thin air, could you create a compensation structure similar to RFAs? Meaning, teams have to actually be willing to give something up in order to get your college FA player, even if the player really wants to go there? Idk.

 

[Lempo]

I'm sure there would be 1000 reasons it'd be too tough to do from a legal/bargaining perspective (@Lempo)... but could you do a compensatory pick process like exists in some other leagues? Or alternately, rather than inventing a draft pick out of thin air, could you create a compensation structure similar to RFAs? Meaning, teams have to actually be willing to give something up in order to get your college FA player, even if the player really wants to go there? Idk.

I don't think there would be much issue if they wanted to go that way. Just set up the rules and go with it.

The compensatory picks for unsignable first rounders do already exist under the NHL CBA, it's no alien concept.

8.3 Compensatory Draft Selections.

(a) In addition to the seven (7) rounds of the Entry Draft, there shall be an additional number of Compensatory Draft Selections not to exceed the number of Clubs to be in the League in the following League Year.

(b) In the event a Club loses its draft rights to an Unsigned Draft Choice drafted in the first round of the Entry Draft (except as a result of failing to tender a required Bona Fide Offer (as defined below)), who (i) is again eligible for the Entry Draft, (ii) becomes an Unrestricted Free Agent, or (iii) dies, a Compensatory Draft Selection shall automatically be granted to that Club, which Compensatory Draft Selection shall be the same numerical choice in the second round in the Entry Draft immediately following the date the Club loses such rights. By way of example, if a Club cannot sign the third pick in the first round, it will receive the third pick in the second round as compensation.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

I don't think there would be much issue if they wanted to go that way. Just set up the rules and go with it.

The compensatory picks for unsignable first rounders do already exist under the NHL CBA, it's no alien concept.

Wow I didn’t know that.

Would Lou or someone ever put a hit out on a guy like Paradis or someone who’s a total bust in order to get a 2nd round draft pick?

 

[Lempo]

The existence of that article does suggest that NHL/NHLPA have actively pondered on it and have deemed that only the unsigned first rounders need to be compensated.

Probably they have felt that they rather have the after-market for unsignable 2-7 round picks where the rights may get traded to another team for a return than have the teams sit on their unsignables and get the compensatory picks for them instead.

It wouldn't be a good look for NHL if there was repeated mentions of selectees who would not sign with their drafting team in the NHL Entry Draft broadcast, whenever a team was on the clock for a compensatory pick

 

[DaveG]

The existence of that article does suggest that NHL/NHLPA have actively pondered on it and have deemed that only the unsigned first rounders need to be compensated.

Probably they have felt that they rather have the after-market for unsignable 2-7 round picks where the rights may get traded to another team for a return than have the teams sit on their unsignables and get the compensatory picks for them instead.

It wouldn't be a good look for NHL if there was repeated mentions of selectees who would not sign with their drafting team in the NHL Entry Draft broadcast, whenever a team was on the clock for a compensatory pick

I much prefer the baseball method of compensatory picks. Still not perfect, but I like the idea that if say the Coyotes draft Blake Wheeler at #5 and he decides he'd rather sign elsewhere, instead of being awarded the #37 draft pick in the draft after his rights expire, the Coyotes would be awarded the #6 pick in that draft presuming that the contract they offered him was within a certain percentage of the slot signing bonus/contract. IIRC baseball does that for the first 5 rounds of the draft but since their draft is hella long for hockey it should probably be something like the first 3 rounds.

As you mentioned it's not the best look for the NHL in that regard on the draft broadcast, but the flip side is that it doesn't happen nearly as often as in baseball due to the NHL ELC structure. A highly touted prospect can make the NHL at 18-19 and hit UFA at 25-26, compared to in baseball it often doesn't happen until the players 30s due to a ridiculous number of minor league option years, etc that teams use to f*** over prospects.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

For all of you advocating for team compensation if a player exercises his rights to not sign, what do you propose the player gets for compensation if the team chooses to not sign the player?

This happens a lot more often than a player not signing so why is it a one way street?

The fact is, compensation needs to be bargained for in the cba because allowing for compensation is an extra obstacle the player needs to compete with to get a contract.

 

[NotOpie]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the current system. Teams have a significant, defined amount of time to sign draftees. If they don't then the door is open for all teams to try and sign the guy. Everybody wins or everybody loses. It isn't discriminatory is any way. The fact that New York, Boston, and Chicago have an attraction for some of these guys is absolutely understandable. In the end, it's a potentiality that all teams can and do plan for.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

For all of you advocating for team compensation if a player exercises his rights to not sign, what do you propose the player gets for compensation if the team chooses to not sign the player?

This happens a lot more often than a player not signing so why is it a one way street?

The fact is, compensation needs to be bargained for in the cba because allowing for compensation is an extra obstacle the player needs to compete with to get a contract.

I don’t think that’s a logical point.

The draft exists to give teams a fair shake at drafting talent to their team (so that they don’t all just go to the Leafs because they like them). If a player gets drafted by a team (which is the universal way a player enters the league), and uses a loophole to let his rights expire despite the team that drafted him waiting to sign him, it makes sense that the team could be compensated when that player signs with another team. It wouldn’t be an obstacle to the player trying to sign a contract, because it’d only kick in if the team that drafted him wanted him in the first place (you’d need an objective measure of whether they “wanted” him, but that would probably just be “offered him a contract”). If the team didn’t want him, nothing changes vs. today. It really wouldn’t affect the player much, just that he’d be a little less likely to leave the team that drafted him because all the other teams that would want to sign him would have to give up a pick to get him (if you go the “RFA” route), or it frankly wouldn’t affect the player at all if you go the “make up a draft pick from thin air” route. In fact, as @Lempo already posted, this system is indeed already in place for 1st round picks. So it’s not that it’s not possible or logical. Maybe it just makes sense to extend it to the rest of the rounds somehow.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

So what about when a team chooses to not sign a player, does the player get compensation for having his rights tied up for however long and then not being signed?

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

So what about when a team chooses to not sign a player, does the player get compensation for having his rights tied up for however long and then not being signed?

No because once his rights are up now he’s free to go wherever just like anyone else. In both cases the player’s rights are “tied up” until they expire. It’s just you get compensation if you want him and he leaves you hanging (since you drafted him and the point of the draft is that the player is “supposed” to play for your team), you don’t get compensation if you didn’t want him.

 

[MadeUpName]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the current system. Teams have a significant, defined amount of time to sign draftees. If they don't then the door is open for all teams to try and sign the guy. Everybody wins or everybody loses. It isn't discriminatory is any way. The fact that New York, Boston, and Chicago have an attraction for some of these guys is absolutely understandable. In the end, it's a potentiality that all teams can and do plan for.

Your second sentiment is a definition of discrimination or bias. New York, Boston and Chicago almost every time get the drafted free agents. The appeal is understandable. It is like dating. The entire process is discrimination. Some players are happy to wait out their clock to sign with whoever they want. That is their right in rejecting the team who drafted them.

It is not discrimination in the sense of "I don't like you". It is discrimination in the sense of "I am not interested in being with your team. I want to be elsewhere. I understand the rules and will wait out my freedom to sign where I want"

That said, personally I don't see an issue with the system. It is what it is. If Carolina wants to become a destination then they need to win. Shrimple as that.

 

[NotOpie]

Your second sentiment is a definition of discrimination or bias. New York, Boston and Chicago almost every time get the drafted free agents. The appeal is understandable. It is like dating. The entire process is discrimination. Some players are happy to wait out their clock to sign with whoever they want. That is their right in rejecting the team who drafted them.

It is not discrimination in the sense of "I don't like you". It is discrimination in the sense of "I am not interested in being with your team. I want to be elsewhere. I understand the rules and will wait out my freedom to sign where I want"

That said, personally I don't see an issue with the system. It is what it is. If Carolina wants to become a destination then they need to win. Shrimple as that.

Maybe my quibble with your statement is merely semantics. Discrimination - no, preference - yes. Let's look at this from another angle. As we all know, Carolina is a very good destination for players wanting to raise a family and have a modicum of anonymity. So for every unproven draftee who waits out the system to go to a destination of preference, there's the allure of a family-friendly destination for UFAs. It all balances out in the end.

Also, for every Adam Fox or Blake Wheeler, there's a Jimmy Vesey or Jeremy Welsh. Either quite a pedestrian player or an out and out bust.

It just seems to me this is the proverbial tempest in a teapot.

 

[Svechhammer]

For all of you advocating for team compensation if a player exercises his rights to not sign, what do you propose the player gets for compensation if the team chooses to not sign the player?

This happens a lot more often than a player not signing so why is it a one way street?

The fact is, compensation needs to be bargained for in the cba because allowing for compensation is an extra obstacle the player needs to compete with to get a contract.

In my opinion, the team drafting a player does so in a sign or release mindset. They either elect their intentions to sign the player or he's outright released to UFA status and free to play where he wants.

I'm also fine with untangling so many of the things that bind prospects to organizations long term when there's little to no career growth there. I'm very much in favor of shortening the period to UFA after drafting, where you basically get 5 years to develop a prospect or he's free to go where he wants.

But, for key valuable contributing players at the NHL level, I'd also throw the teams a bone and, even if you remove RFA status, I'd implement a system where you could essentially franchise 1 player in FA every year where you get highly compensated if they walk.

 

[spockBokk]

Not sure if this was posted anywhere, but seems official now:

 

[AhosDatsyukian]

I never got to go watch him play in person out here so I still have time to do that. Though do I really want to watch him if he's gonna be a traitorous piece of sH***(T?

Seriously though, I still do think we'll be able to sign him. Staying in college another year is probably best for his development versus playing in Chicago which notoriously hasn't been great for young guys. And with Burns, Pesce and Chatfield all locked in next year he has some steep competition to make it to the big leagues. That likely opens up quite a bit in 2024 with a very clear path to a significant role in 2025 if he proves himself in 2024.

All that being said, if we do have to move a top prospect in a trade for a scoring upgrade I would much rather move Morrow than Nikishin.

 

[Daeavorn]

I never got to go watch him play in person out here so I still have time to do that. Though do I really want to watch him if he's gonna be a traitorous piece of sH***(T?

Seriously though, I still do think we'll be able to sign him. Staying in college another year is probably best for his development versus playing in Chicago which notoriously hasn't been great for young guys. And with Burns, Pesce and Chatfield all locked in next year he has some steep competition to make it to the big leagues. That likely opens up quite a bit in 2024 with a very clear path to a significant role in 2025 if he proves himself in 2024.

All that being said, if we do have to move a top prospect in a trade for a scoring upgrade I would much rather move Morrow than Nikishin.

I think we should already be trying to trade him this summer. This was the time to sign and move up to the AHL. We shouldn't risk him becoming a free agent and getting nothing for him.

 

[Svechhammer]

I never got to go watch him play in person out here so I still have time to do that. Though do I really want to watch him if he's gonna be a traitorous piece of sH***(T?

Seriously though, I still do think we'll be able to sign him. Staying in college another year is probably best for his development versus playing in Chicago which notoriously hasn't been great for young guys. And with Burns, Pesce and Chatfield all locked in next year he has some steep competition to make it to the big leagues. That likely opens up quite a bit in 2024 with a very clear path to a significant role in 2025 if he proves himself in 2024.

All that being said, if we do have to move a top prospect in a trade for a scoring upgrade I would much rather move Morrow than Nikishin.

Thing is, I'm not sure he's that good of a prospect that we should be sitting around and waiting for him to come over and instead we should be packaging him in a big deal while he still has value. I go get the feeling that he's going to ride this out to Free Agency with us, but might be willing to sign elsewhere. And I also value Nikishin over him, so if we were going to move on from one, I would move on from Morrow. And if we can re-sign Gost, it does make someone like Morrow a little redundant