What does the consensus think on players like Adam fox who don't sign with draft team

[Pavel Buchnevich]

The league pushes parity.

Why can't we have one mechanism that works against it?

 

[93LEAFS]

In that example I’d see the NHL as the employer. You may want to work in department ‘a’ but you need to put in your time in ‘x, y, or z’ before you get to have that choice.

I don’t fault the player for taking his pick but I think the rule should be consistent for everyone. Not fair to teams that lose an asset for nothing or a late pick before the signing deadline.

Where else are the top jobs monopolized by one employer to this extent? The NHL is an employer which is the only one that offers a comparable salary in the western world. If you are uber-talented in a profession where you are among the 99%th percentile you get to choose where you start and generally get a job in the department you want. Kids who are drafted in the first round are essentially Harvard Econ grads or Stanford Comp-sci graduates at the top of their class. Those people get a vast amount of options on where they want to start and what field. If they aren't up to it, they are fired or transferred to a lesser department (like NHL players getting waived, sent to the AHL or traded).

It's perfectly fair to the teams. If a kid indicates he wants to do the 4 years in college or you don't offer him early enough (some guys don't get a legit ELC offer until the end of their junior year). You know the risk-taking of these players and their draft value may have allowed you to get them at the spot you did because of it.

 

[abo9]

There's no option: "The rule is dumb the league should deal with it"?
Imo it's not the player's fault if they take advantage of a dumb rule. The league however, should not want that, since it defeats the purpose of a draft AND the purpose of player's rights.

I don't know, I think it's kind of a servitude mentality to think that because you draft someone they owe you lifetime fealty.

A team won't cough at the idea of drafting you and then trading you off for someone they think will better fit their team today. That should be a two way street.

Then what's the point of a draft? Let just every team fight for the best prospects and let the prospects decide which team they want to sign on.

 

[GoldiFox]

The return that Carolina got for Adam Fox was Jamieson Rees (2nd round) + Anttoni Honka (3rd round) + Noel Gunler (2nd round). Pretty damn good for a player they never had a chance of signing.

I'm a Hurricanes fan and Adam Fox is still one of my favorite players outside of the Canes. He made his choice and waited out the clock. That is his right. No use getting upset about that. He could have lost millions if he had been injured badly in the NCAA without a contract.

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

It’s nice for the Rangers that it worked out for them, but I think it’s a joke that teams lose the rights to NCAA players.

Frankly, if I were a GM it might scare me away from drafting project type players that need to stay in college for a while.

 

[IceNeophyte]

There's no option: "The rule is dumb the league should deal with it"?
Imo it's not the player's fault if they take advantage of a dumb rule. The league however, should not want that, since it defeats the purpose of a draft AND the purpose of player's rights.



Then what's the point of a draft? Let just every team fight for the best prospects and let the prospects decide which team they want to sign on.

It isn't that simple. A player should be able to say "I am not signing an ELC with that team." The consequence is that he cannot immediately sign with another team, which is the consequence Fox bore. There has to be a mechanism by which a player can opt out of a drafting team besides permanent banishment from the league, because otherwise, it isn't an entry level contract, it's an entry level conscription.

 

[sparxx87]

Where else are the top jobs monopolized by one employer to this extent? The NHL is an employer which is the only one that offers a comparable salary in the western world. If you are uber-talented in a profession where you are among the 99%th percentile you get to choose where you start and generally get a job in the department you want. Kids who are drafted in the first round are essentially Harvard Econ grads or Stanford Comp-sci graduates at the top of their class. Those people get a vast amount of options on where they want to start and what field. If they aren't up to it, they are fired or transferred to a lesser department (like NHL players getting waived, sent to the AHL or traded).

It's perfectly fair to the teams. If a kid indicates he wants to do the 4 years in college or you don't offer him early enough (some guys don't get a legit ELC offer until the end of their junior year). You know the risk-taking of these players and their draft value may have allowed you to get them at the spot you did because of it.

They aren’t. Top tier professional sports leagues are that 1%.

With the NCAA rules as they are, players who intend to stay 4 years should have to unregister from the draft or allow teams to retain their rights.

NCAA allowing players to sign and remain in school would be great but likely never happen.

 

[93LEAFS]

They aren’t. Top tier professional sports leagues are that 1%.

Which is monopolized by one company. In any other profession, these guys would have mobility across different employers at a comparable pay rate that didn't require moving to Russia. A first-round pick does have that pedigree among other potential candidates. In no other field do elite entry-level candidates have this level of restrictions in the Western World.

Why should NCAA players be forced to have their rights retained? They are forced to enter the draft. The NHL draft has no opt-in.

 

[The Macho King]

Where else are the top jobs monopolized by one employer to this extent? The NHL is an employer which is the only one that offers a comparable salary in the western world. If you are uber-talented in a profession where you are among the 99%th percentile you get to choose where you start and generally get a job in the department you want. Kids who are drafted in the first round are essentially Harvard Econ grads or Stanford Comp-sci graduates at the top of their class. Those people get a vast amount of options on where they want to start and what field. If they aren't up to it, they are fired or transferred to a lesser department (like NHL players getting waived, sent to the AHL or traded).

It's perfectly fair to the teams. If a kid indicates he wants to do the 4 years in college or you don't offer him early enough (some guys don't get a legit ELC offer until the end of their junior year). You know the risk-taking of these players and their draft value may have allowed you to get them at the spot you did because of it.

So taking this logic and running with it - I just graduated from Yale Law. I want a Big Law job with a market-beating law firm, so I apply to Kirkland & Ellis. Their home office is in Chicago, but they have offices all over the country.

If I'm dead set on working for K&E (and god bless you if you are because they are a sweatshop), and they say they don't have any positions in their NY office, but I can work out of Houston - that seems... fine?

I mean the reality is the NHL is really one employer with 31 offices despite the actual facts on the ground. And if you want to work in the NHL, they get to decide where you start your career. It doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world - and you can always simply *not* sign an ELC as a workaround (or play in Europe which the equivalent to the hypo above may be taking a job at Skadden?) until you have UFA rights.

The other elephant in the room is the team control period is probably too long by at least two years.

 

[wintersej]

They take a risk by staying in college and potentially blowing out a knee or whatever.

If Fox had a career ending injury in his junior year, would Carolina or Calgary shown loyalty with dollars then? Of course not.

 

[NJ DevLolz]

I mean if a player did that to my team I would be pissed. Luckily that will never happen.

But its not like he pulled a Lindros and demanded a trade.

I mean, he was going to play his senior year and sign with the rangers, so in a way, he was going there no matter what

 

[93LEAFS]

So taking this logic and running with it - I just graduated from Yale Law. I want a Big Law job with a market-beating law firm, so I apply to Kirkland & Ellis. Their home office is in Chicago, but they have offices all over the country.

If I'm dead set on working for K&E (and god bless you if you are because they are a sweatshop), and they say they don't have any positions in their NY office, but I can work out of Houston - that seems... fine?

I mean the reality is the NHL is really one employer with 31 offices despite the actual facts on the ground. And if you want to work in the NHL, they get to decide where you start your career. It doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world - and you can always simply *not* sign an ELC as a workaround (or play in Europe which the equivalent to the hypo above may be taking a job at Skadden?) until you have UFA rights.

The other elephant in the room is the team control period is probably too long by at least two years.

There are other comparable firms though which pay comparable amounts and similar tracks to partner. You can apply to Watchtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz or other comparable law firms, since once a firm doesn't have that level of monopoly. If you have a high-level econ degree, if you can't get a job at Goldman Sachs, and you can apply to multiple hedge funds or banks, if you are an accountant you can go to one of the big 4.

The NHL is the only option in Hockey (outside of going to Russia) where you can make a comparable salary. Law Firms, Accounting Firms, Hedge-Funds, Banks and Hospitals (where most top students are drawn to outside of sciences) don't. If you impose the desire to only work for Deloitte or in your example Kirkland & Ellis that is a self-imposed limiting factor in your field since there are other comparable options that will offer you just as much.

The thing is, every NHL team would hire those top 5 to 10 picks with full bonuses. If you are the top candidate for a law-firm for your Yale Graduating Class, it is likely the NYC branch would hire you. They wouldn't collude to create parity among their branches.

 

[7even]

I think that it's both a dick move and also wholly his prerogative. I'd be miffed if it happened to my team, but I get it.

 

[apollo18]

but why even enter the draft if you only want to play for one team? no one forced him to enter

 

[abo9]

It isn't that simple. A player should be able to say "I am not signing an ELC with that team." The consequence is that he cannot immediately sign with another team, which is the consequence Fox bore. There has to be a mechanism by which a player can opt out of a drafting team besides permanent banishment from the league, because otherwise, it isn't an entry level contract, it's an entry level conscription.

Fair enough. But the rules are all over the place, should not they be somewhat consistent? Euro kids have different rights rules (longer) than Canadians or US players as far as I'm aware.

As far as US-Canada discrepancy, how would a Canadian in juniors pull off the same thing? By signing an AHL contract? I thought they went back in the drafting process.

Otherwise like I said, I have no qualms in abolishing the draft since it has no purpose then. Just let the resources (players) go where the demand is.

 

[Voight]

If I recall this was an open secret at least two seasons before he actually signed.

There were rumors yes, but it would be better for all parties if the player outright said they had 0 desire to sign w/ the team that drafted them. Its fine if they want to play elsewhere, but at least teams could recoup better assets than conditional/late picks.

 

[IceNeophyte]

So taking this logic and running with it - I just graduated from Yale Law. I want a Big Law job with a market-beating law firm, so I apply to Kirkland & Ellis. Their home office is in Chicago, but they have offices all over the country.

If I'm dead set on working for K&E (and god bless you if you are because they are a sweatshop), and they say they don't have any positions in their NY office, but I can work out of Houston - that seems... fine?

I mean the reality is the NHL is really one employer with 31 offices despite the actual facts on the ground. And if you want to work in the NHL, they get to decide where you start your career. It doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world - and you can always simply *not* sign an ELC as a workaround (or play in Europe which the equivalent to the hypo above may be taking a job at Skadden?) until you have UFA rights.

The other elephant in the room is the team control period is probably too long by at least two years.

To twist your analogy, you can opt to do do post-doc work until the NY office has an opening.

The reason the analogy doesn't work perfectly is that the NY Office and the Houston Office are not in competition with one another.

 

[InfinityIggy]

To me it is more important how the player does it.

Fox made it clear to Calgary privately that he wouldn't sign, so the Flames were at least able to include him to help facilitate a big trade. I am fine with how he handled it, if disappointed.

Tom Erixon on the other hand waited until the final hour after playing coy that he would sign here. Which gets a big FU from me.

 

[IceNeophyte]

Fair enough. But the rules are all over the place, should not they be somewhat consistent? Euro kids have different rights rules (longer) than Canadians or US players as far as I'm aware.

As far as US-Canada discrepancy, how would a Canadian in juniors pull off the same thing? By signing an AHL contract? I thought they went back in the drafting process.

Otherwise like I said, I have no qualms in abolishing the draft since it has no purpose then. Just let the resources (players) go where the demand is.

The Euro thing has to do with interleague agreements between NHL and the North American minor/junior leagues.

The draft absolutely has a purpose. It is a very rare occurrence that a draftee doesn't excitedly and happily sign his ELC. There has to be an escape route for the very rare kid who just doesn't want this particular contract, or like I said, you can't call it a mutual contract.

 

[IceNeophyte]

There were rumors yes, but it would be better for all parties if the player outright said they had 0 desire to sign w/ the team that drafted them. Its fine if they want to play elsewhere, but at least teams could recoup better assets than conditional/late picks.

Do you remember the flak Eli Manning took on his draft day?

 

[93LEAFS]

but why even enter the draft if you only want to play for one team? no one forced him to enter

You don't opt into the draft. You reach an age and you are eligible. So, yes, they are forced into the draft.

 

[93LEAFS]

To twist your analogy, you can opt to do do post-doc work until the NY office has an opening.

The reason the analogy doesn't work perfectly is that the NY Office and the Houston Office are not in competition with one another.

They also aren't colluding to create parity. If you are a top talent you can pick your branch or choose to work for another competing law-firm that has an opening in the area. If you are a promising young law-graduate, the disparity in pay between working for one of the top firms in NYC is in no way comparable to the disparity between playing in Switzerland or Sweden and playing in the NHL.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Considering the team can waive, trade(unless theres trade protection), or buy you out at any moment. I don't blame guys for controlling what little aspects of their career as they can.

 

[93LEAFS]

There were rumors yes, but it would be better for all parties if the player outright said they had 0 desire to sign w/ the team that drafted them. Its fine if they want to play elsewhere, but at least teams could recoup better assets than conditional/late picks.

But, they may have got him at a depressed value since he said things along those lines in pre-draft interviews.

 

[hamzarocks]

Personally am fine with it. Even if a college player did this to the leafs I would not be upset

A players obligation with an organization only begins once he signs a contract. Until then he is free to do as he wishes with really no constraints

NCAA players are legally allowed 4 years of time before teams lose their rights. NHL teams benefit from this more often than not with NCAA players taking advantage of strong programs and developing well mostly on their own outside of dragyed organization before signing with the drafted team

Fox is amongst the rare exceptions and people are really only complaining(the ones who are) because he became a elite 1D so shortly after entering the NHL. He took 3 years of education and sacrificed the privileges that come with being an NHL affiliated prospect and the present earnings he could have had instead of playing in year 2 or 3 in the NCAA. Their was risk of injuries which could have derailed his long-term career yet he stuck with the program and went after his education and the opportunity to play in his preferred market.

If a player sacrifices the fancy benefits and lifestyle which comes with being a NHL prospect/young player for 3 years(usually 4, Fox just got lucky both the canes and flames dealt him instead of being stubborn) of NCAA before making he NHL I see no reason to complain about the players decision to determine his pathway. The player developed in isolation and had little support from flames(and canes organizations). He is free to sign where he wanted and it just worked well for him that the Rangers wanted him and gave him the chance to become the player he is