NHL to change age cut-off at Entry Draft

[HabLover]

Players to be selected by birth year, as the Sept 15th cut-off will be eliminated.

An example would be all players born from Jan 1st to Dec 31st in the year 1988 would be eligible for the NHL draft and the next year 1989 and so on.

Click to read more...

 

[CurtisJD13]

Where did you hear about this? I think it's a good idea, however, it would end about half of the arguments on this board...

 

[Rather Gingerly 1*]

I agree with that. I don't know why Sept. 15th was ever picked anyway.

 

[Safir*]

Players to be selected by birth year, as the Sept 15th cut-off will be eliminated.

An example would be all players born from Jan 1st to Dec 31st in the year 1988 would be eligible for the NHL draft and the next year 1989 and so on.

Link?

 

[Seachd]

When would they start this? Guys like Kessel, Joensuu, etc. are all '87s... That would change quite a bit, eh?

 

[Slats432]

Someone provide link or I have to close the thread.

 

[fredez]

I agree with that. I don't know why Sept. 15th was ever picked anyway.

It's the start of training camp and they don't want people under 18 years old playing in the NHL

 

[fredez]

Someone provide link or I have to close the thread.

They said it this morning on TSN during the Canada vs Denmark blowout

 

[hawksfan50]

Were they just speculating on this or did the TSN crew say it was certain the NHL would do this? I can see where IF there is still a lock-out by Sept 15th 2005 but a resolution before January 2006,the NHL might allow the kids born between Sept.16/87 and Dec31/87 to be included in the "delayed" NHL draft of 2005 --because they would be 18 before any play resumes in January 2006.....however this could only be for this one special draft--in "normal" June drafts they would want all draftees to be 18 by Sept 15 of that year in order to ensure no under 18's are going to play in any NHL games including pre-season ...

 

[ChemiseBleuHonnete]

that makes too little sense. 17 years old playing in the nhl? I doubt it.

 

[Galchenkel]

the september 15th correspond to the beginning of the season, 'cause it would make some players (called the "lates") start at 17 for a couple of months. the problem might be with the insurances.

 

[Tricolore#20]

The September 15th date is also the day the CBA expired. I wonder if that had anything to do with it.

 

[BobMckenzie]

They said it this morning on TSN during the Canada vs Denmark blowout

It was my first intermission insider. Details should be up on tsn.ca a little bit later, probably around 6:30 eastern. There may or may not be a separate piece on the early edition of SC tonight, almost positive it will be there on the later editions tonight.

Long story short, the NHL is looking at phasing in a nine-month bump in the age limit. i.e. You have to be 18 by Jan. 1 of the year in which you're drafted. Has to be phased in, though, otherwise every 1987 birth date wouldn't be eligible for the 2005 draft. You'll get the details tonight.

 

[Beauty eh?]

Thanks Bob! Any other news you want to share with us? We're starving!

 

[HabLover]

It was my first intermission insider. Details should be up on tsn.ca a little bit later, probably around 6:30 eastern. There may or may not be a separate piece on the early edition of SC tonight, almost positive it will be there on the later editions tonight.

Long story short, the NHL is looking at phasing in a nine-month bump in the age limit. i.e. You have to be 18 by Jan. 1 of the year in which you're drafted. Has to be phased in, though, otherwise every 1987 birth date wouldn't be eligible for the 2005 draft. You'll get the details tonight.

so if this was in effect now, which it isn't, then all 1987 born players would not be eligible until the 2006 Entry Draft?

 

[BobMckenzie]

so if this was in effect now, which it isn't, then all 1987 born players would not be eligible until the 2006 Entry Draft?

Correct. The desired effect is to make sure the youngest player who plays in the NHL is at least 18 years, nine months old, not 18 years and a couple of weeks old.

 

[gamblor]

I hope they phase this change in slowly, perhaps by bumping the "you must have been born by" date up by one month, to Aug 15th, July 15th etc for each draft year. (so that it would take 8 years to fully implement).
Otherwise, if they made the jump all at once, there would be one spectacularly bad draft year.

 

[espo*]

Good,there is only so many guys who should be in the nhl at 18 anyway.Too young,there are exceptions but not many.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Good,there is only so many guys who should be in the nhl at 18 anyway.Too young,there are exceptions but not many.

I agree. I wish they had gone further but this is a good start. Better than nothing.

 

[BobMckenzie]

I hope they phase this change in slowly, perhaps by bumping the "you must have been born by" date up by one month, to Aug 15th, July 15th etc for each draft year. (so that it would take 8 years to fully implement).
Otherwise, if they made the jump all at once, there would be one spectacularly bad draft year.

It won't take that long. In fact, if it wasn't for Crosby, you could do it really fast. You're dealing with a 16 month window (Sept. 16, 2004 to Dec. 31st, 2005). You could split the difference easily enough. 2005 draft could be for those who turn 18 between Sept. 16, 04 and, say, May 15th, 05. The 2006 draft could be for those who turn 18, between May 16th and Dec. 31st of 05. Just one problem, a big one, and his name is Crosby. Crosby doesn't turn 18 until Aug. 7. Would be a tough sell for the NHL to tell him and the teams he's not eligible until 06, IMO. So, also in my opinion, it will take until Dec. 31st, 2006, to fully phase it in. The phasing in is all hypothetical, the NHL being intent on bumping up the draft age is not. That's going to happen, pending CBA negotiations.

 

[MaV]

so if this was in effect now, which it isn't, then all 1987 born players would not be eligible until the 2006 Entry Draft?

What I see happening next is someone coming and telling you, that no, actually players born January 1st 1987 would be 18 on January 1st 2005 and thus eligible for 2005 Entry Draft, if the rule was actually what Bob told us. ; -)

 

[BobMckenzie]

What I see happening next is someone coming and telling you, that no, actually players born January 1st 1987 would be 18 on January 1st 2005 and thus eligible for 2005 Entry Draft, if the rule was actually what Bob told us. ; -)

Nope, in the hypothetical scenario laid out, you would have to be 18 by Dec. 31, 04, to be eligible for the 05 draft. In other words, you have to have turned 18 before the calendar year of the draft.

 

[NYR469]

Correct. The desired effect is to make sure the youngest player who plays in the NHL is at least 18 years, nine months old, not 18 years and a couple of weeks old.

this is something i've thought they should do since the lockout provides a perfect situation for this. if they decide to do this then imo that should mean that the 2005 draft just gets canceled. forget trying to figure out the draft order without a season, just push everyone back to 2006 and then you are in line with the new cuts...

obviously there are some exceptions and guys that this might not work smoothly for, but for the most part skipping a draft year is the easiest way to raise the draft age.

 

[BobMckenzie]

Here's the link to the story.

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp

 

[Safir*]

Here's the link to the story.

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp

From HF straight to TSN. That's neat.

Thx Bob.