News: Adam Fox staying at Harvard for senior year

[Habs Halifax]

Just to underline: the college boy becomes a draft-related UFA if he won't sign with the team that has his Draft rights. He only gets to pick the team who he signs with, but is subject to the Entry-level System rules and, once his ELC expires, subject to the RFA rules. He will become an actual UFA only after turning 27 (or having 7 Accrued seasons) by the normal rules.

Pretty sure the Canes would prefer to sign him on a fair ELC vs getting compensation (Prospect developing well > draft pick that could bust). But Fox has plans to not play with them. Why? Why are we letting prospects dictate the teams they want to play for? Makes no sense at all. You can explain how the current system is all day long. I understand just as much as you or anybody else on these boards. My disagreement with the current CBA (Call it a loophole if you wish) is prospects should not be able to screw over the team that drafts them or the team that has their NHL rights.

I explained how I personally would like to see it in the next CBA several times over this 27 page thread. Not going to explain it again

 

[Dr Quincy]

Pretty sure the Canes would prefer to sign him on a fair ELC vs getting compensation (Prospect developing well > draft pick that could bust). But Fox has plans to not play with them. Why? Why are we letting prospects dictate the teams they want to play for? Makes no sense at all. You can explain how the current system is all day long. I understand just as much as you or anybody else on these boards. My disagreement with the current CBA (Call it a loophole if you wish) is prospects should not be able to screw over the team that drafts them or the team that has their NHL rights.

I explained how I personally would like to see it in the next CBA several times over this 27 page thread. Not going to explain it again

I think you are looking at it completely backwards.

Instead of asking why someone should have a right, or suggesting they have to "earn" a right to decide their career, their future, their life path.....

Ask: When is there a compelling case to RESTRICT someone's freedom to work, choose their employer, open themselves to a market, get the fruit of their labor.

Ok, so if we ask that we can say that for the NHL there is a compelling interest to have an entry draft that helps promote parity. It's good for the league and its member teams collectively (though not individually) to have players enter the league this way.

But it does not really help the league or team in any great way to say that teams keep a never ending ownership of a player's rights. If you want to suggest why we should ignore individual liberty and autonomy to the point where we say that a player drafted must only EVER sign with the team that drafts him.... cool. Go ahead and make that case.

But the onus is on you to do so, not on those who say that liberty should be the default.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I think you are looking at it completely backwards.

Instead of asking why someone should have a right, or suggesting they have to "earn" a right to decide their career, their future, their life path.....

Ask: When is there a compelling case to RESTRICT someone's freedom to work, choose their employer, open themselves to a market, get the fruit of their labor.

Ok, so if we ask that we can say that for the NHL there is a compelling interest to have an entry draft that helps promote parity. It's good for the league and its member teams collectively (though not individually) to have players enter the league this way.

But it does not really help the league or team in any great way to say that teams keep a never ending ownership of a player's rights. If you want to suggest why we should ignore individual liberty and autonomy to the point where we say that a player drafted must only EVER sign with the team that drafts him.... cool. Go ahead and make that case.

But the onus is on you to do so, not on those who say that liberty should be the default.

I have my opinion and I understand the situation of the current CBA well. My focus is protecting the NHL draft and the teams that do their homework in scouting. You are looking it from the player perspective only. What about the teams that do their homework in scouting but end up taking a guy like Fox who decides to screw them over? How do you not see if from the GM and scout side of things? Do you think they don't work hard either?

If you feel the way you feel about it and it's your idea to open it up where the player can choose their teams. What's the point of the NHL draft then? Why not get rid of it? Why did they change that Montreal no longer had Quebec protection rights for all players back when? Was this fair to the players? Give me a break

Any player that decides to screw over the team that drafts them or the team that owns their rights, is selfish! Pure and simple. 99% of the other players who are drafted respect the draft and the team that drafts them. They negotiate their ELC and go through their 7 years of RFA.

 

[Patagonia]

Does it matter if it's worse or not? If you're compensating a team, at what point does it stop? Flames aren't signing a player they drafted, so they trade him instead of being compensated with a draft pick (In this scenario where we're compensating a team that drafted him), now he's not signing with the Canes and they should be compensated the pick he was drafted at? That doesn't really make sense.

Also, a key piece or not, he wasn't the main piece. The Canes did not trade 2 former fifth overall picks for Fox. I don't think you can compensate a team for when the player doesn't sign.

College UFAs are normally in the later rounds 5th or later.

Fox was a little different, selected in the 3rd round @ 66 overall. He decides to stay the full 4 years and choose a team afterwards. AVs (similar) drafted Bleackley 1st round, but arrived in camp out of shape with a poor attitude. He went unsigned and returned to Juniors, traded to AZ that didn't offer a contract. He re-entered the draft. I believe AZ received a compensatory 2nd round pick.

I understand the need of a Compensatory Pick or delay UFAs. It's rare a player does not sign and unfair to the College to commit and leave a year later. Unfortunately, the player accepts all the risk for financial security vs education. I believe they should delay College UFAs until the following NHL Draft, approx. 9 months later. The player will have no education or hockey which could encourage them to sign.

 

[Dr Quincy]

I have my opinion and I understand the situation of the current CBA well. My focus is protecting the NHL draft and the teams that do their homework in scouting. You are looking it from the player perspective only. What about the teams that do their homework in scouting but end up taking a guy like Fox who decides to screw them over? How do you not see if from the GM and scout side of things? Do you think they don't work hard either?

If you feel the way you feel about it and it's your idea to open it up where the player can choose their teams. What's the point of the NHL draft then? Why not get rid of it? Why did they change that Montreal no longer had Quebec protection rights for all players back when? Was this fair to the players? Give me a break

Any player that decides to screw over the team that drafts them or the team that owns their rights, is selfish! Pure and simple. 99% of the other players who are drafted respect the draft and the team that drafts them. They negotiate their ELC and go through their 7 years of RFA.

It's like you didn't even bother to read my post.

You are suggesting that less freedom is a good thing. Yet you haven't given an actual reason why this is good other than "people should respect the draft".

And again, you seem to have no problem with a team drafting a player and then deciding not to offer a contract. But you want to force a player to accept a contract. Which shows that besides not understanding the concept of liberty, you don't understand the concept of a contract.

 

[Habs Halifax]

It's like you didn't even bother to read my post.

You are suggesting that less freedom is a good thing. Yet you haven't given an actual reason why this is good other than "people should respect the draft".

And again, you seem to have no problem with a team drafting a player and then deciding not to offer a contract. But you want to force a player to accept a contract. Which shows that besides not understanding the concept of liberty, you don't understand the concept of a contract.

It's like you didn't even bother reading my post. I did give an actual reason why. You ignored it just like you think I am ignoring you. We are even now.

I stand by my opinion and I understand the situation well. I DO NOT SUPPORT PROSPECTS WHO HAVE BEEN DRAFTED WHERE TEAMS WANT TO SIGN THEM BUT THE PROSPECT DECIDES TO SCREW THEM OVER AND CHOOSE THEIR OWN TEAMS. THE PROSPECT HAS EARNED NOTHING IN TERMS OF OTHER NHL PLAYERS WHO GO THROUGH THE ELC WITH THE TEAM THAT DRAFTS THEM AND THEN THE 7 YEARS OF RFA.

I bolded it for you so you can jump to my actual reason. I don't care if you agree or not. It's my reason and it's explained.

You want to talk about fairness? What about respect for a player like Tavares (and the other 99% of players) who would of liked to play for Toronto (or whatever team they prefer) from day 1 but respected who drafted him and paid his dues and played out his 7 RFA years. What about those players who are not selfish? Why are we leaving the door open for selfish players like Fox to dictate the team he wants to play for as a free agent where he has done nothing to earn free agent status

I explain a solution to all your comments in previous posts. Not going to do it again cause you will just ignore it and say I didn't prove a actual reason which is a JOKE! Force a player into a contract? Well he has to sign within ELC rules of the CBA. As I stated several times before, if the team low balls a ELC with no bonus structure, the player should have the right to have a arbitrator involved. Your fairness narrative has been resolved. Next?

 

[StreetHawk]

I don’t think a team should hold a players rights indefinitely either.

Ilya Sorokin is a goalie drafted by the Isles back in 2014 in round 3 in the year he turned 19, August birthday so not considered a late one.

It’s now 2019 and he’s due to turn 24 in August. It’s been 5 years and the Islanders still hold his rights. That doesn’t seem fair does it? So there’s issues on both sides on the rights of drafted players and how long a team should maintain that right for.

 

[4thline]

You want to talk about fairness? What about respect for a player like Tavares (and the other 99% of players) who would of liked to play for Toronto (or whatever team they prefer) from day 1 but respected who drafted him and paid his dues and played out his 7 RFA years. What about those players who are not selfish? Why are we leaving the door open for selfish players like Fox to dictate the team he wants to play for as a free agent where he has done nothing to earn free agent status

They could have done it, they chose the money.

 

[Habs Halifax]

They could have done it, they chose the money.

You mean when they first sign their ELC? Pretty sure every single team in the league offers Tavares the max ELC he can get. So he choose the money don't fit. Tavares respected the team that drafted him and paid his ELC/7 years of RFA dues and earned his free agent status. Fox has earned nothing and it's not about money, it's about him being selfish and screwing over the Canes where he wants to choose his own team.

Do you think the Canes are not able to sign Fox cause they are being cheap in an ELC? You can't be serious to think the reason is money? . Lets say it is, do you think my arbitrator idea won't work?

Based on the debate comments I am getting... A better argument comeback is to say get rid of the NHL draft and open it all up to all prospects choosing their own teams. Pretty sure you would hate this

 

[4thline]

You mean when they first sign their ELC? Pretty sure every single team in the league offers Tavares the max ELC he can get. So he choose the money don't fit. Tavares respected the team that drafted him and paid his ELC/7 years of RFA dues and earned his free agent status. Fox has earned nothing and it's not about money, it's about him being selfish and screwing over the Canes.

Sigh.

For John Tavares, Between the ages of 19 and 25 which is more money,
3 years of max elc + 3 years of negotiated standard player contracts
OR
3 years of max elc?

For Adam Fox, between the ages of 20 and 25 which is more money
3 years of AHL/NHL ELC blend and 2 years of standard player contracts
OR
3 years of AHL/NHL ELC blend

Adam Fox is potentially choosing freedom over money.

John Tavares chose a lot more money over freedom.

By electing to gain draft related UFA status a player is essentially buying their freedom both in directly foregone earnings from age 18 to age 21 and in delaying their RFA contract and potentially their UFA contract. The better the player the higher the cost.

 

[Albatros]

Why are we leaving the door open for selfish players like Fox to dictate the team he wants to play for as a free agent where he has done nothing to earn free agent status

Free agent status does not have to be "earned", it simply occurs when certain conditions are met. Fox has every right to defend his own interests in these matters and would be stupid to not to.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I don’t think a team should hold a players rights indefinitely either.

Ilya Sorokin is a goalie drafted by the Isles back in 2014 in round 3 in the year he turned 19, August birthday so not considered a late one.

It’s now 2019 and he’s due to turn 24 in August. It’s been 5 years and the Islanders still hold his rights. That doesn’t seem fair does it? So there’s issues on both sides on the rights of drafted players and how long a team should maintain that right for.

There are ways to make it fair for both the team and the player.

1) All players enter in the NHL through the draft. Players need to declare the year they want to be eligible.
2) If the player goes undrafted, they are now a free agent.
3) If the player is drafted, the team owns their NHL rights.
4) The team can try to negotiate a contract with a drafted player at any time.
5) If there is no contract negotiated at the time the player want to play pro (AHL/NHL), the team has to offer one or let them go. If they let them go by not offering a contract, the player is a free agent.
6) If there is a contract dispute in the ELC, the player has the option to get a arbitrator involved and they decide what is fair based on past examples and what the player has accomplished in development leagues.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Sigh.

For John Tavares, Between the ages of 19 and 25 which is more money,
3 years of max elc + 3 years of negotiated standard player contracts
OR
3 years of max elc?

For Adam Fox, between the ages of 20 and 25 which is more money
3 years of AHL/NHL ELC blend and 2 years of standard player contracts
OR
3 years of AHL/NHL ELC blend

Adam Fox is potentially choosing freedom over money.

John Tavares chose a lot more money over freedom.

By electing to gain draft related UFA status a player is essentially buying their freedom both in directly foregone earnings from age 18 to age 21 and in delaying their RFA contract and potentially their UFA contract. The better the player the higher the cost.

I will reply with one line. Fox has not earned the right to be a free agent in my opinion.

 

[Dr Quincy]

It's like you didn't even bother reading my post. I did give an actual reason why. You ignored it just like you think I am ignoring you. We are even now.

I stand by my opinion and I understand the situation well. I DO NOT SUPPORT PROSPECTS WHO HAVE BEEN DRAFTED WHERE TEAMS WANT TO SIGN THEM BUT THE PROSPECT DECIDES TO SCREW THEM OVER AND CHOOSE THEIR OWN TEAMS. THE PROSPECT HAS EARNED NOTHING IN TERMS OF OTHER NHL PLAYERS WHO GO THROUGH THE ELC WITH THE TEAM THAT DRAFTS THEM AND THEN THE 7 YEARS OF RFA.

I bolded it for you so you can jump to my actual reason. I don't care if you agree or not. It's my reason and it's explained.

You want to talk about fairness? What about respect for a player like Tavares (and the other 99% of players) who would of liked to play for Toronto (or whatever team they prefer) from day 1 but respected who drafted him and paid his dues and played out his 7 RFA years. What about those players who are not selfish? Why are we leaving the door open for selfish players like Fox to dictate the team he wants to play for as a free agent where he has done nothing to earn free agent status

I explain a solution to all your comments in previous posts. Not going to do it again cause you will just ignore it and say I didn't prove a actual reason which is a JOKE! Force a player into a contract? Well he has to sign within ELC rules of the CBA. As I stated several times before, if the team low balls a ELC with no bonus structure, the player should have the right to have a arbitrator involved. Your fairness narrative has been resolved. Next?

Please find where I used the word fairness in my post. I didn't. It has nothing to do with what I said.

1) Tavares has nothing to do with what other players choose to do with their lives.
2) If owners put a limit on a team's rights to a team, a player isn't "screwing over" anyone if he does what he is explicitly allowed to do by the contract drawn up by the NHL owners and the NHLPA.
3) Saying why you personally don't support something is not the same as making a case why another person should have less liberty. You don't support someone choosing what they want to do. I get it. That's not the same thing. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about: A public school has a compelling reason to lock it's doors and require visitors to check-in at the office before entering, even though it's public property. The compelling reason is of course the safety of the students and staff. We accept that it's ok to make people sign in.

We accept that it's not good for the health of a sports league to have players enter through the league as purely free agents (though the NHL and MLB were run that way for many many years). The reason being that we recognize that this would hurt parity, a lack of parity would hurt member teams. When a league has a number of poor teams with no hope, the quality of the whole league suffers as a product. Thus there is a reason to restrict the liberty to just enter the league at 18 as a free agent. Thus we have a draft, with rules. We have agreed upon rules about how long a team owns a players rights BECAUSE the league recognizes there IS NO COMPELLING REASON for a team to keep a player's rights FOREVER.

I get that you don't like that. But why in the world should the NHL, the owners, the players, the NHLPA, drafted players, coaches, fans, hot dog sellers at the arenas, or broadcasters give 2 cents about what you personally like?

CAR traded for an asset: The rights to a player. They knew they had that player's rights for 2 years. Had that player retired, gotten hurt, become a lumberjack or just plain sucked, they would have lost that asset. They didn't actually get a human being in that trade. They got 2 year negotiating rights.

1 of those years is up. They may decide that they can trade that same asset for something else or they might let that asset lose its value completely.

Everyday humans make decisions that might work out or might not. We don't get guarantees or warranties on every decision we make. We are adults. There is risk and reward.

Live with it.

 

[BPD]

You mean when they first sign their ELC? Pretty sure every single team in the league offers Tavares the max ELC he can get. So he choose the money don't fit. Tavares respected the team that drafted him and paid his ELC/7 years of RFA dues and earned his free agent status. Fox has earned nothing and it's not about money, it's about him being selfish and screwing over the Canes where he wants to choose his own team.

Do you think the Canes are not able to sign Fox cause they are being cheap in an ELC? You can't be serious to think the reason is money? . Lets say it is, do you think my arbitrator idea won't work?

Based on the debate comments I am getting... A better argument comeback is to say get rid of the NHL draft and open it all up to all prospects choosing their own teams. Pretty sure you would hate this

And there's an argument that Tavares was foolish for doing so. And there's an argument for McDavid being a fool for sticking himself in Edmonton until he's 30. You're not an asshole or a bad person for wanting to have a better opportunity to do the things that matter to you.

They're people, not property. If they've got no desire to play for a team, they can choose that avenue, with some punishment. In Fox's case, the punishment is losing a year toward UFA.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Please find where I used the word fairness in my post. I didn't. It has nothing to do with what I said.

1) Tavares has nothing to do with what other players choose to do with their lives.
2) If owners put a limit on a team's rights to a team, a player isn't "screwing over" anyone if he does what he is explicitly allowed to do by the contract drawn up by the NHL owners and the NHLPA.
3) Saying why you personally don't support something is not the same as making a case why another person should have less liberty. You don't support someone choosing what they want to do. I get it. That's not the same thing. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about: A public school has a compelling reason to lock it's doors and require visitors to check-in at the office before entering, even though it's public property. The compelling reason is of course the safety of the students and staff. We accept that it's ok to make people sign in.

We accept that it's not good for the health of a sports league to have players enter through the league as purely free agents (though the NHL and MLB were run that way for many many years). The reason being that we recognize that this would hurt parity, a lack of parity would hurt member teams. When a league has a number of poor teams with no hope, the quality of the whole league suffers as a product. Thus there is a reason to restrict the liberty to just enter the league at 18 as a free agent. Thus we have a draft, with rules. We have agreed upon rules about how long a team owns a players rights BECAUSE the league recognizes there IS NO COMPELLING REASON for a team to keep a player's rights FOREVER.

I get that you don't like that. But why in the world should the NHL, the owners, the players, the NHLPA, drafted players, coaches, fans, hot dog sellers at the arenas, or broadcasters give 2 cents about what you personally like?

CAR traded for an asset: The rights to a player. They knew they had that player's rights for 2 years. Had that player retired, gotten hurt, become a lumberjack or just plain sucked, they would have lost that asset. They didn't actually get a human being in that trade. They got 2 year negotiating rights.

1 of those years is up. They may decide that they can trade that same asset for something else or they might let that asset lose its value completely.

Everyday humans make decisions that might work out or might not. We don't get guarantees or warranties on every decision we make. We are adults. There is risk and reward.

Live with it.

You are wasting your time trying to explain the situation. I understand it very well (told you this already). I'm not willing to live with it cause I vote for change and improvements. They tweaked things in the last CBA to the current one and you are acting like they won't tweak it again in the next one.

You don't see it as a problem and I do. You can go on and on about it where you talk about the situation and you pretend that I don't understand it. Your wasting your time. I do understand it and I don't like it and I vote for change. Stop acting like the current CBA is perfect

 

[Dr Quincy]

And there's an argument that Tavares was foolish for doing so. And there's an argument for McDavid being a fool for sticking himself in Edmonton until he's 30. You're not an ******* or a bad person for wanting to have a better opportunity to do the things that matter to you.

They're people, not property. If they've got no desire to play for a team, they can choose that avenue, with some punishment. In Fox's case, the punishment is losing a year toward UFA.

And going 3 or 4 years without a paycheck.

 

[Habs Halifax]

And there's an argument that Tavares was foolish for doing so. And there's an argument for McDavid being a fool for sticking himself in Edmonton until he's 30. You're not an ******* or a bad person for wanting to have a better opportunity to do the things that matter to you.

They're people, not property. If they've got no desire to play for a team, they can choose that avenue, with some punishment. In Fox's case, the punishment is losing a year toward UFA.

Yes, there is an argument that he held the Islanders hostage and didn't reveal his plans that he was not coming back. Islanders could of traded him as a rental for futures. However, does this change the fact that Tavares paid his dues towards the ELC and 7 years of minimum RFA servies? NO. Does Fox have 7 years of RFA services in the NHL? NO!! Therefore, Fox (IMO) has not earned free agent status

 

[Habs Halifax]

And going 3 or 4 years without a paycheck.

They can turn pro whenever they want. That applies equally to all prospects

 

[4thline]

They can turn pro whenever they want. That applies equally to all prospects

No. To become a draft related UFA a player has to *ahem* PAY THEIR DUES *ahem* by waiting out the 4 year right holding period, directly costing them money, delaying their UFA status (if they're good enough to play in the NHL at 18) by up to two years, and delaying their RFA status by 2 years.

7 years of paid service, 4 years of unpaid exile. Two routes to UFA.

 

[BPD]

Yes, there is an argument that he held the Islanders hostage and didn't reveal his plans that he was not coming back. Islanders could of traded him as a rental for futures. However, does this change the fact that Tavares paid his dues towards the ELC and 7 years of minimum RFA servies? NO. Does Fox have 7 years of RFA services in the NHL? NO!! Therefore, Fox (IMO) has not earned free agent status

No, there's an argument that Tavares was dumb to ever even extend with the Isles.

You're arguing from the NHL19 GM perspective, not the "hockey players are actual people" perspective.

 

[Habs Halifax]

No, there's an argument that Tavares was dumb to ever even extend with the Isles.

You're arguing from the NHL19 GM perspective, not the "hockey players are actual people" perspective.

He had to respect the RFA years of service of he sits like the Leafs did with Nylander.

Hockey players are people. I'm treading Tavares and Fox equally. Nice try. You don't get a pass on Fox cause he is a person. Fox has not earned free agent status IMO. There is nothing you can say that proves to me he has earned the right to choose the team he wants to play for where a guy like Tavares served his RFA years.

 

[BPD]

He had to respect the RFA years of service of he sits like the Leafs did with Nylander.

Hockey players are people. I'm treading Tavares and Fox equally. Nice try. You don't get a pass on Fox cause he is a person. Fox has not earned free agent status IMO. There is nothing you can say that proves to me he has earned the right to choose the team he wants to play for where a guy like Tavares served his RFA years.

Except Fox has actually earned free agent status - if he goes back. It's literally a rule; your opinion on "loyalty" and "paying dues" doesn't matter here.

You may not like it. You may not agree with it. It's a rule for College Hockey players.

 

[Dr Quincy]

They can turn pro whenever they want. That applies equally to all prospects

Nope. Only to ones that get an offer. Not all prospects get an offer.

And to go further.. one could also say that having a team's rights to a prospect expire applies to all prospects as well.

So glad we cleared that up.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Yes, there is an argument that he held the Islanders hostage and didn't reveal his plans that he was not coming back. Islanders could of traded him as a rental for futures. However, does this change the fact that Tavares paid his dues towards the ELC and 7 years of minimum RFA servies? NO. Does Fox have 7 years of RFA services in the NHL? NO!! Therefore, Fox (IMO) has not earned free agent status

The CBA doesn't require "dues". Why do you?