They Raised The Draft Age

[HockeyCritter]

Next years draft is going to look like one of the old supplemental drafts.

I don't think it will be that bad since they are only moving the birthdate cut off up by four months . . .

 

[kdb209]

Actually, we saw what a single judge thinks about this, not the courts. Until there is a Supreme Court ruling on this (which boils down to individual rights vs. union rights) then it can still go either way.

It wasn't a single judge. It was a 7 judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, with no dissent.

It is unlikely that this will ever go to the Supreme Court, unless a player manages to get a different ruling from another Circuit Court. And it is unlikely that you will be able to proceed with a suit against the NHL (or NBA or NFL) without starting in a New York court - all league US HQs are in NY - and all NY courts go thru the 2nd circuit on appeal.

It's not like this case was any unigue or interesting piece of caselaw. There is a body of precedent dealing with the rights of collective vs individual action when a potential plaintiff is covered by a CBA. as well as precedent (both within professional sports leagues and without) dealing with the non statutory exemption to anti trust law for terms negotiated as part of a CBA

 

[Blind Gardien]

Please cite it, because from what I recall, there was no court case that forced the NHL to lower its draft age in 1979. I recall that being worked out between the NHL and NHLPA to accomodate the merger with the WHA. If there's an applicable legal precedent handed down by a court, we want to see it.

Back in the days of the 20-year old draft... Ken Linseman:
"Challenged NHL ban on drafting underage juniors in a 1977 lawsuit that went through Canadian court system. The suit was later dropped when Linseman signed to play in the WHA, but it helped open the door for the NHL's drafting of 18-year-olds. ... Signed with Birmingham (WHA) as a 19-year-old underage junior in 1977, helping the team earn nickname "Baby Bulls" for its reliance on the signing of underage juniors. The WHA tried to block Linseman from signing his contract because it banned underage signings, but Linseman and his father went to court and got a restraining order that allowed him to play in the league. Because Linseman was older than 18, a judge ruled he could not be stopped from making a living as a pro hockey player."
http://hockeydraftcentral.com/1978/78007.html

Although the NHL was never directly ruled against, the results of the Linseman cases convinced them that they had no hope of winning if the next kid to come along ever challenged the draft. So they dropped back to 18 before somebody decided to push it.

 

[DaveMatthew]

I don't like this at all. First off, an 18 year old is considered an adult.

Also, this is not the NBA. The NBA had a reason to raise the draft age. Their drafted players go directly into the NBA. There is no minor league. In the NHL, an 18 year old who was just drafted would usually not play professionally anyways. He would usually be sent back to junior or return to college. A player would not make their professional debut until they are 19.

So really, what's the point?

 

[Buffaloed]

Although the NHL was never directly ruled against, the results of the Linseman cases convinced them that they had no hope of winning if the next kid to come along ever challenged the draft. So they dropped back to 18 before somebody decided to push it.

That's not a legal precedent. It's apples and oranges. The WHA's draft age didn't arise out of a collective bargaining agreement so antitrust law was applicable. The NHL and NHLPA had a CBA at that making the draft exempt from antitrust challenges.

The NHL had to lower their draft age to accept the underage players from the WHA. It's no coincidence that the NHL lowered the age the same time as the merger.

 

[NYR469]

there is absolutely NO way they can implement this change in 1 year without skipping a draft year, it just can't happen.

you have 2 choices, you cancel this years draft and push everyone back to 2006 or phase in the change gradually.

you can't have the 2005 cutoff by 9/15/87 and then make the eligibility for 2006 players born between 9/16/87 and 12/31/87 and have a draft with 3 months worth of players instead of 12 months.

what are you going to do hold a 3 round draft for kessel and anyone else born in those 3 months??

imo they will phase it in by changing the cutoff by 3 months each year...so 9/15/87 for 2005, 6/15/88 for 2006, 3/15/89 for 2007 and 12/31/89 for 2008

so by doing it that way you have 9 months worth of players for the next 3 years (which is an acceptable draft class size, 3 months is not) and by then by 2008 the new age is in effect.

this would also be the same thing they are doing for UFAs. ufa age will drop from 31 to 27 but it isn't dropping 4 years in 1 season it will gradually be lower...and you might notice that using my scenario the 27 year old ufa rule and the new draft age would go into effect at the same time.

 

[NYR469]

Does this mean no Phil Kessel next year ?

kessel was born oct 1987 so he would be 2006 eligible under any scenario

 

[sabresfan65]

The other thing you may see is more re-drafted players. They improve over the year and see a weak draft so they don't sign with the idea that they will move up and get a bigger contract in next years "weak" draft.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

I don't like this at all. First off, an 18 year old is considered an adult.

Also, this is not the NBA. The NBA had a reason to raise the draft age. Their drafted players go directly into the NBA. There is no minor league. In the NHL, an 18 year old who was just drafted would usually not play professionally anyways. He would usually be sent back to junior or return to college. A player would not make their professional debut until they are 19.

So really, what's the point?

Well if they aren't going to play professionally, what's the point? Why do they need to be drafted if they aren't going to play anyway?

I just don't understand what's the rush to put pressure on kids, not to mention make teams draft semi-blindly a bunch of extremely raw teenagers.

Frankly, the draft could be at 20 years old and we would all be better for it, especially the youngsters.

 

[Flukeshot]

Wow people are spazzing out over nothing. Crosby will be in this year's draft. Don't you think that headlines would be all over the place saying he wasn't if that were the case?

Also the 2006 draft won't be a left-overs draft. As people have said, including Bob McKenzie on his column weeks back; that it would be phased in over 3-4 drafts to make it in line with birth years. The following drafts would be 8 months worth of entries.

 

[Tekneek]

Well if they aren't going to play professionally, what's the point?

If they were sent to the minors, they would be on professional contracts. Any player not currently in the CHL leagues could be sent to a professional minor league team at 18.

 

[futurcorerock]

Here's my question:

Wouldn't the seven year UFA rule debunk the entire need of raising the draft age? Clubs will not sign their draft picks out of their junior/NCAA/whatever teams unless they are of the generational type (which, even to say Ovechkin prolly won't be in Washy this year).

 

[TeamPlayer]

Wow people are spazzing out over nothing. Crosby will be in this year's draft. Don't you think that headlines would be all over the place saying he wasn't if that were the case?

Also the 2006 draft won't be a left-overs draft. As people have said, including Bob McKenzie on his column weeks back; that it would be phased in over 3-4 drafts to make it in line with birth years. The following drafts would be 8 months worth of entries.

So where would Frolik Go? What draft ?????

 

[NYR469]

So where would Frolik Go? What draft ?????

he'll still be in the 2006 draft cause he is an early 88 bday so he won't be effected by the phasing in next year.

 

[NYR469]

Here's my question:

Wouldn't the seven year UFA rule debunk the entire need of raising the draft age? Clubs will not sign their draft picks out of their junior/NCAA/whatever teams unless they are of the generational type (which, even to say Ovechkin prolly won't be in Washy this year).

the reason for raising the age has nothing to do with ufa rules or any of that other crap. it is because of the simple fact that your odds of success picking a 19 year old are improved over your odds of success picking an 18 year old because the 19 year old is that much closer to being the nhler he'll be down the road...

just take a look at any draft year and look at the preliminary rankings a year before the draft, the rankings at the time of the draft and then the 're-ranking' a year after the draft in hindsight and you'll see some major difference between the list showing that at this age a year or 2 makes a HUGE difference.

i heard one scout say that trying to pick the best future nhler out of a group of 18 year olds is like trying to pick the best doctor out of a 6th grade science class...

so picking the kids a year later simply reduces the risk of busts

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

The NHL had to lower their draft age to accept the underage players from the WHA. It's no coincidence that the NHL lowered the age the same time as the merger.

Wasn't it lowered prior to the merger in response to the WHA scooping up 17 year olds?

 

[Buffaloed]

Wasn't it lowered prior to the merger in response to the WHA scooping up 17 year olds?

No, it was done after the merger and had to be done to accomodate it. I finally found a link.
http://www.hockeydraftcentral.com/1979/79facts.html

In terms of available talent, the 1979 draft had some big advantages over its predecessors. In fact, it was really two drafts in one. For the first time since 1974, the NHL allowed the drafting of underage players (those who would reach age 20 in their draft year). This draft also included the influx of underage players from the WHA, which had merged with the NHL in the spring of 1979.

There's quite a bit more there about the history of it. Had the WHA succeeded financially it's quite possible the NHL would have responded in the way you suggest.

One of the things that's getting overlooked in this discussion is that CHL players, and other junior players outside of college and high school, are bound by contracts. They're not free agents who can sign anywhere they want before the expiration of their contract.
From http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=112587

"When you sign a major junior contract at our level, you sign it for the duration of your stay (junior eligibility)," Courteau (QMJHL commissioner) said, adding that playing in Europe isn't an option for Crosby.

The NHL and CHL had a specific agreement so they could use CHL players still under contract, and I'm sure they'll work out a new one that'll fit the new CBA. The old IIHF transfer deal is another such arrangement. Until that's replaced teams have to negotiate individual deals. CHL players under contract can't flock to Europe, as has been suggested, in the same way their European junior counterparts can't play in the NHL until their teams/leagues are compensated to secure their release.

 

[dolfanar]

I have always advocated differant age restrictions for different rounds of the draft.

Round 1
18 by December 31st of the draft year (up to 3 months younger than current)

Round 2 & 3
18 by August 31st fot he current draft year

Round 4,5,6
19 by December 31st of the draft year

Round 7-9
20 by December 31st of the draft year


The only round that gets any play is the first round, so there wouldn't be any real confusion int he rules. The last 3 rounds would end up being an overage draft for the guy's finishing up their amateur career, or older euros and whom could be instantly moved to an AHL or ECHL farm club. The middle rounds would end up being dedicated to long shots who were passed over the previous year. The first two rounds would look much the same as today. This would eliminate the 17/18 year olds being drafted in the late rounds who are almost complete random gamble picks anyway, but would allow the Gretzky's and Messier's who were and are able to play in the pros at 17/18.

 

[NYR469]

I have always advocated differant age restrictions for different rounds of the draft.

Round 1
18 by December 31st of the draft year (up to 3 months younger than current)

Round 2 & 3
18 by August 31st fot he current draft year

Round 4,5,6
19 by December 31st of the draft year

Round 7-9
20 by December 31st of the draft year


The only round that gets any play is the first round, so there wouldn't be any real confusion int he rules. The last 3 rounds would end up being an overage draft for the guy's finishing up their amateur career, or older euros and whom could be instantly moved to an AHL or ECHL farm club. The middle rounds would end up being dedicated to long shots who were passed over the previous year. The first two rounds would look much the same as today. This would eliminate the 17/18 year olds being drafted in the late rounds who are almost complete random gamble picks anyway, but would allow the Gretzky's and Messier's who were and are able to play in the pros at 17/18.

this makes zero sense imo, so if you have a deep draft certain players become ineligible mid-way thru the draft because you get past a certain round?? horrible idea

 

[dolfanar]

this makes zero sense imo, so if you have a deep draft certain players become ineligible mid-way thru the draft because you get past a certain round?? horrible idea

Why not? Even in a deep draft perhaps 5 or 6 18 year olds will make it to the NHL, and how many 18 year olds in te last 10 years drafted in the 4-6 th round have ever made it straight to the NHL?