Player Discussion Will Lockwood

[Bubbles]

People are waaaaaaaaaaayy overrating Lockwood here. And not only that, there's always an inherent risk of taking a college player anyways, they all have this power as per the CBA.

For every Lockwood, there's a Kellan Lain.

 

[canucks20]

Whether Lockwood signs is meh for me....Now Adam Fox is a different story. After his senior season at Harvard, and if he elects free agency in August next season, then the Canucks need to be all over it.

Fox is going to New York. Basically zero percent chance he comes to Vancouver

 

[Zarpan]

How often do players go back for their senior year and then sign with the team that drafted them?

From what I've seen, over 90% of players that go back for their senior year sign with the team that drafted them.

 

[DomY]

To hell with him. Hope he fails and never steps one bloody foot on a NHL ice

Where have you been hiding lately

 

[F A N]

I thought this was where things were going. Benning wanted Lockwood to go develop in ?Utica. The kid could just as easily develop at school, finish his degree, and get to UFA status. Benning gave this kid no reason to sign, which tells me Captain “not so” Clever has decided Lockwood is not going to become an NHL player.

And what reasons can Benning give for Lockwood to sign? Have the ELC start this year so it gets burned? Max bonuses that he doesn't deserve and is unlikely to achieve? Outside of undrafted UFAs, only Boeser and Hughes have been signed and given NHL games to end the year. They were both, rightfully, projected to be good enough to play in the NHL next season.

The sticking point is probably when the ELC begins. If Lockwood signs an ELC this year it will be for 3 years. If he signs next year it will be 2. That means that potentially, if Lockwood signs next season and gets to burn a year off his ELC he will have one year remaining on his ELC. Otherwise it will be the same. If I'm Lockwood and I think I have a realistic chance of cracking the NHL next season I'll probably turn pro. If I think I will spend the year in Utica for sure and might actually spend 2 years there, I might as well spend another year in college.

I think Benning does think Lockwood is going to become an NHL player. But if he's not offering to burn a year off his ELC, he's probably thinking Lockwood is at least 2-3 years away from the NHL, which is how I would project it as well.

People criticize Benning for agreeing to deals with Boeser and Hughes where a year off the ELC is burned. But these guys are top prospects who in reality were/are able to step right into the NHL. Lockwood isn't in that class of prospects. Personally, I don't think burning a year off the ELC matters too much but if Benning wants to draw a line here I'm fine with it.

 

[Fatass]

And what reasons can Benning give for Lockwood to sign? Have the ELC start this year so it gets burned? Max bonuses that he doesn't deserve and is unlikely to achieve? Outside of undrafted UFAs, only Boeser and Hughes have been signed and given NHL games to end the year. They were both, rightfully, projected to be good enough to play in the NHL next season.

The sticking point is probably when the ELC begins. If Lockwood signs an ELC this year it will be for 3 years. If he signs next year it will be 2. That means that potentially, if Lockwood signs next season and gets to burn a year off his ELC he will have one year remaining on his ELC. Otherwise it will be the same. If I'm Lockwood and I think I have a realistic chance of cracking the NHL next season I'll probably turn pro. If I think I will spend the year in Utica for sure and might actually spend 2 years there, I might as well spend another year in college.

I think Benning does think Lockwood is going to become an NHL player. But if he's not offering to burn a year off his ELC, he's probably thinking Lockwood is at least 2-3 years away from the NHL, which is how I would project it as well.

People criticize Benning for agreeing to deals with Boeser and Hughes where a year off the ELC is burned. But these guys are top prospects who in reality were/are able to step right into the NHL. Lockwood isn't in that class of prospects. Personally, I don't think burning a year off the ELC matters too much but if Benning wants to draw a line here I'm fine with it.

So you’re saying Lockwood was a wasted (or the wrong) pick?

 

[beachcomber]

Smart decision by the kid. Stay away from the dumpster fire.

 

[Canadian Canuck]

He might still sign here not sure why people are freaking out, let him get his degree.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

People are waaaaaaaaaaayy overrating Lockwood here. And not only that, there's always an inherent risk of taking a college player anyways, they all have this power as per the CBA.

For every Lockwood, there's a Kellan Lain.

It’s not so much whether Lockwood pans out as an NHLer so much as it’s a rebuilding team rolling the dice on its prospects to see what they have. We need to play as many young players as we can to develop a new core. Lockwood might be a useful bottom 6 forward in the future, but it’s more the principle of retaining our prospects and giving them a proper shot at playing since we have nothing to lose.

 

[iceburg]

Madden is probably closer to the NHL than Lockwood. There will be some player movement in the coming 12 months since the top 9 are now one of the youngest groups in the NHL. I'm not sure there will be room for both Madden and Lockwood on the roster starting 20/21 (if they each deserve a spot at that point).

 

[me2]

From what I've seen, over 90% of players that go back for their senior year sign with the team that drafted them.

Players exploiting UFA is more common now, or at least it seems to be. Many have realised they can make up any lost earning by getting a better contract as a UFA than taking a lower RFA one.

 

[Snatcher Demko]

Well this is disappointing, he looks like he was ready to take the next step and has the makings of potentially good middle 6 winger.

You'd think a player would have some loyalty to the team that drafted you, but that's the NHL nowadays. Seems to be happening more and more.

Kind of surprised the CBA hasn't shut this loophole yet.

 

[me2]

With Lockwood's injury history, wouldn't it be smarter for him to take the guaranteed contract rather than risking an injury-riddled season? If I was his agent I would've advise him against going back to school. Although I obviously don't know his situation, maybe he really want to be UFA and choose his employer?

maybe he doesn't trust his shoulders to survive pro hockey and would rather a degree to be safe.

 

[me2]

Well this is disappointing, he looks like he was ready to take the next step and has the makings of potentially good middle 6 winger.

You'd think a player would have some loyalty to the team that drafted you, but that's the NHL nowadays. Seems to be happening more and more.

Kind of surprised the CBA hasn't shut this loophole yet.

CHL who choose not to sign for 4 years can be a UFA. CHL guys don't do it because they want to get their hockey careers started fast but they can wait it out for 4 years if they want. It is hard to say college players should have that same out.

 

[M2Beezy]

maybe he doesn't trust his shoulders to survive pro hockey and would rather a degree to be safe.

If thats the case hes a idiot too

 

[jd22]

If thats the case hes a idiot too

I've been watching you post for years and I keep expecting you to grow up somewhat as time goes on, but it still hasn't happened.

 

[M2Beezy]

I've been watching you post for years and I keep expecting you to grow up somewhat as time goes on, but it still hasn't happened.

I guess it was just anger getting out of me, after we drafted this guy and did everything for him. I guess these things happen and is not the end of the world. Point taken

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

I guess it was just anger getting out of me, after we drafted this guy and did everything for him. I guess these things happen and is not the end of the world. Point taken

Ah, don't beat yourself up M2B. A good education is probably what's best for the young man anyway.

 

[Hockeyphysio]

What have we really done for him?

 

[jd22]

I guess it was just anger getting out of me, after we drafted this guy and did everything for him. I guess these things happen and is not the end of the world. Point taken

Kudos for that. But like the poster below says, what have we done for him? Hockey players are humans and should put their own lives before a corporate sporting entity.

What have we really done for him?

 

[F A N]

So you’re saying Lockwood was a wasted (or the wrong) pick?

Not sure how you came to that conclusion from my post. But to answer your question, no I don't think Lockwood was a wrong pick. Lockwood pretty much came as advertised and had the extra offensive gear that the Canucks thought he had. Whether it's a wasted pick or not remains to be seen. If the Canucks get nothing for Lockwood and he walks as a UFA then yes I would consider it a wasted pick.

 

[krutovsdonut]

lockwood was not in a position to jump to the nhl.

i think he weighed the option of another year in michigan vs a year in the ahl, and decided to try again next year.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Unless he has a totally insane Senior year, I don't foresee a big bidding war if he goes UFA. I'll bet he signs with the Canucks, if he signs with anyone.

 

[me2]

If thats the case hes a idiot too

Why? A professional career could last him for the rest of his life. He can still try pro-hockey next year and get a fatter contract as a UFA.

 

[Fatass]

Not sure how you came to that conclusion from my post. But to answer your question, no I don't think Lockwood was a wrong pick. Lockwood pretty much came as advertised and had the extra offensive gear that the Canucks thought he had. Whether it's a wasted pick or not remains to be seen. If the Canucks get nothing for Lockwood and he walks as a UFA then yes I would consider it a wasted pick.

I agree with your sentiments. I wonder if, with these college kids, a GM needs to consider how many years of development before the kid will be NHL ready when drafting one? If the kid will need a full four years, then it might be wise to not pick him? Hughes was clearly ready to come out after no more than two years. Rathbone looks like he’s only going to need a couple years. When Lockwood was drafted did we think he might need all four years? I think we should not draft those guys, because there is no incentive for them to come out early. They can develop at school, and finish their degrees.