The College Free Agent Debate: Should the Loophole Exist?

[LGR4GM]

Get it out of the draft thread. Put it here. 

 

I am fine with it. Few players who are highly ranked prospects will do all 4 years and go to UFA because every year they delay adds another year they don't get paid and another year they don't get off that ELC. Let it be. 

 

The idea of only having 2 draft rounds is ridiculous considering the talent you find later in the draft and the NBA sucks. The Idea we should have to sign every player we draft is also bad as that would exceed the max contract allowance in about a year. 

[sabills]

I try to side with the players as much as possible, so I'm ok with the rule as is. But I think either it will be changed in the next CBA, or teams will start drafting college kids later, or possibly both. Its a serious risk, and I'm not wasting a highish round pick (2-3) on a guy who could just walk after a couple years. Guys who are first rounders aren't as big a deal, as they'll probably enter earlier, but if I'm a GM I want as close as I can get to a sure thing that a player will eventually play for my team with every pick.

[shrader]

A loophole is an unexpected discovery due to a poorly written contract.  This is not a loophole.  It is explicitly stated in the CBA.  It is exactly what they wanted.  Van Ryn was a loophole.  This is not.

 

What I'm still trying to figure out is why people think there is an added risk in drafting a guy who you control for four years instead of one you control for two.

Edited June 12, 2017 by shrader

[tom webster]

Get it out of the draft thread. Put it here.

 

I am fine with it. Few players who are highly ranked prospects will do all 4 years and go to UFA because every year they delay adds another year they don't get paid and another year they don't get off that ELC. Let it be.

 

The idea of only having 2 draft rounds is ridiculous considering the talent you find later in the draft and the NBA sucks. The Idea we should have to sign every player we draft is also bad as that would exceed the max contract allowance in about a year.

Drafting only two rounds wouldn't stop teams from finding late developing talent, it would just change the way they secure it.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Get it out of the draft thread. Put it here. 

 

I am fine with it. Few players who are highly ranked prospects will do all 4 years and go to UFA because every year they delay adds another year they don't get paid and another year they don't get off that ELC. Let it be. 

 

The idea of only having 2 draft rounds is ridiculous considering the talent you find later in the draft and the NBA sucks. The Idea we should have to sign every player we draft is also bad as that would exceed the max contract allowance in about a year. 

The only change that I can see "working" is for kids that reject their drafting team make them an College RFA instead of UFA.  This way the team that loses the player gets at least a draft pick from the acquiring team.  The pick could be based on the type of ELC signed.  For Example, Petersen signs for the rookie max.  The Sabres should be given a 2nd rd pick.  I think this is relatively fair to all parties.  The Sabres spent a draft pick, time and money developing him and should receive some compensation.  

 

As to signing all draftees, that is easily solvable.  Since the Sabres have a full slate of teams (NHL, AHL and ECHL), simply sign lesser players to AHL/ECHL deals.  These contracts don't count against 50.  For example, Austin was on a AHL deal, but his contract was purchased by the Sabres so that could call him up.  Florentino will be on one this season.  2 way contracts (NHL/AHL) do count against the limit as do signed deals with players who are then loaned to a Euro team.  

[GoPre]

I'm still w/ the NFL on this one.  If a player doesn't want to play for a team that drafted them, they can miss a season and re-enter the draft.  It's a privilege to play in the NHL.  

[thewookie1]

Leave the loophole but give the teams some type of compensation

[shrader]

I'm still w/ the NFL on this one.  If a player doesn't want to play for a team that drafted them, they can miss a season and re-enter the draft.  It's a privilege to play in the NHL.  

 

You are opening a huge can of worms with this idea.  To make them re-enter the draft, you are essentially expanding the age of draft eligibility beyond age 20.  If you do that, guess what, the junior players are also forced to go back in beyond that age.  Why would the union ever agree to this?

 

Comparing the two leagues is apples and oranges.  There's a huge age gap between players drafted in the two leagues.  Also, NFL players don't really have anywhere to go if they don't sign, which is why the rule you're stating is about as rare as a liger post without a youtube clip.

 

Leave the loophole but give the teams some type of compensation

 

They already do, but only if the player was taken in the first round.  If you're going to compensate in this case, you're going to have to compensate for every single unsigned draft pick.  Why are the college guys special?

[nfreeman]

I don't have strong feelings about the "morality" of either side of this issue.  There are reasonable points to be made on both sides.

 

I do find it interesting though that the PA apparently cares enough about it to have negotiated for it.  It seems like a pretty rare occurrence and it benefits only those who are not yet PA members. 

[shrader]

I don't have strong feelings about the "morality" of either side of this issue.  There are reasonable points to be made on both sides.

 

I do find it interesting though that the PA apparently cares enough about it to have negotiated for it.  It seems like a pretty rare occurrence and it benefits only those who are not yet PA members. 

 

It exists because of Mike Van Ryn.  They had to put something in writing so that players couldn't flee to major junior and become free agents anymore.

[Sabel79]

As stated above, it's not really a loophole as it's explicitly deal th with in the CBA. I don't see much appetite to change it from either the league or NHLPA. The league likes it because it disincentivises (in theory) teams from drafting middling NCAA talent and spend draft picks on junior players. The PA likes it because kids who hold out the entire distance aren't taking a job from a dues paying union member for that much longer.

 

Honestly, if I were a major junior player, I'd be wondering why the college guys get to be free agents faster. Teams should sign guys if they really want them, or trade them if they don't think the guy's gonna sign. Any advantage the player gets is a positive, frankly (IMO). The percentage of drafted college players who go unsigned and the drafting team gives a hoot is probably not very high. There have been a few examples lately, but so what?

[shrader]

Honestly, if I were a major junior player, I'd be wondering why the college guys get to be free agents faster.

 

They don't.  They only difference is that junior players can go back into the draft after 2 years.  Both, if unsigned, can be free agents at the same age, depending on where birthdays fall.

[Sabel79]

They don't.  They only difference is that junior players can go back into the draft after 2 years.  Both, if unsigned, can be free agents at the same age, depending on where birthdays fall.

They do though. Assuming Junior players get drafted at 18, they get reserve listed by teams. Then they go back into the draft and perhaps get reserve listed again and, if not signed are free agents ineligible for the draft again. Most college players who get drafted have spent some time in minor junior, and are 19-20. (Your Eichels excluded). They have to sit until their class graduates. Just so their school can suck the marrow out of the bone in the name of "education" (sorry, as a Bonaventure graduate I hate the NCAA and all college sports because as our science building collapsed we renovated the basketball locker room and they didn't win and also literally ruck everyone responsible for that decision). I'm leaving it as ruck, I don't even care anymore.

[pi2000]

The only change that I can see "working" is for kids that reject their drafting team make them an College RFA instead of UFA.  This way the team that loses the player gets at least a draft pick from the acquiring team.  The pick could be based on the type of ELC signed.  For Example, Petersen signs for the rookie max.  The Sabres should be given a 2nd rd pick.  I think this is relatively fair to all parties.  The Sabres spent a draft pick, time and money developing him and should receive some compensation.  

 

As to signing all draftees, that is easily solvable.  Since the Sabres have a full slate of teams (NHL, AHL and ECHL), simply sign lesser players to AHL/ECHL deals.  These contracts don't count against 50.  For example, Austin was on a AHL deal, but his contract was purchased by the Sabres so that could call him up.  Florentino will be on one this season.  2 way contracts (NHL/AHL) do count against the limit as do signed deals with players who are then loaned to a Euro team.  

 

I like this idea.   Make them an RFA... if they want to become an UFA then they have to sit out a year.

[MattPie]

I'm confused by the process for both. Please correct:

Major Junior Player:

- Draft at age 18 and 19.

- Team holds rights for 2 years

- Team can make a qualifying offer and retain rights further. Teams almost always do if the player shows promise.

- The end game is the team holds the players rights until 27 or so by making qualifying offers unless the team allows the player to become UFA.

 

College:

- Draft at age 18 or 19.

- Team holds rights until the player graduates from College (22-ish)

- Player can't sign any contracts or whatnot due to the NCAA rules while playing in college.

 

My take: post-college, there should be a qualifying offer option from the NHL team to retain the players for another two years, similar to the RFA process for CHL Juniors.

Edited June 12, 2017 by MattPie

[Eleven]

A loophole is an unexpected discovery due to a poorly written contract.  This is not a loophole.  It is explicitly stated in the CBA.  It is exactly what they wanted.  Van Ryn was a loophole.  This is not.

 

What I'm still trying to figure out is why people think there is an added risk in drafting a guy who you control for four years instead of one you control for two.

 

Because the team can sign the kid in juniors immediately and let him develop; the team cannot sign the kid in college and let him develop.

[matter2003]

The rule should be you play for the team that drafted you unless they waive their rights to you and then you become a free agent.  Not seeing why these kids can just go to school and wait it out and become a FA afterwards.  No idea why it's not like that to begin with, this rule makes pretty much zero sense.

[shrader]

Because the team can sign the kid in juniors immediately and let him develop; the team cannot sign the kid in college and let him develop.

 

So you sacrifice that right to let them develop while under contract and in exchange hold the rights for an additional amount of time.

 

It's kind of a double edged sword though, isn't it?  If you sign that junior kid early but then he doesn't develop, you're stuck with a wasted contract for three years once he does leave juniors.  So they'll roll the dice on certain guys in those leagues, not sign them, then see what happens (Gloria Estefan).  This whole exercise we're going through right now is focusing on draft rights from one very specific angle.  From that, we say that the system is broken, completely ignoring the other scenarios that play out just fine.  If people want it changed, that's fine, but we can't ignore what those changes are going to do to those other scenarios that work just fine.  So do you want to fix 10% so that you can break the other 90?

[LGR4GM]

Drafting only two rounds wouldn't stop teams from finding late developing talent, it would just change the way they secure it.

The NHL isn't the NBA

[thewookie1]

They already do, but only if the player was taken in the first round. If you're going to compensate in this case, you're going to have to compensate for every single unsigned draft pick. Why are the college guys special?

Since it's the player not the team refusing to sign.

[Eleven]

So you sacrifice that right to let them develop while under contract and in exchange hold the rights for an additional amount of time.

 

It's kind of a double edged sword though, isn't it?  If you sign that junior kid early but then he doesn't develop, you're stuck with a wasted contract for three years once he does leave juniors.  So they'll roll the dice on certain guys in those leagues, not sign them, then see what happens (Gloria Estefan).  This whole exercise we're going through right now is focusing on draft rights from one very specific angle.  From that, we say that the system is broken, completely ignoring the other scenarios that play out just fine.  If people want it changed, that's fine, but we can't ignore what those changes are going to do to those other scenarios that work just fine.  So do you want to fix 10% so that you can break the other 90?

 

It's this simple:  Let the NHL sign the college kids as soon as they're drafted.  They don't get paid by the NHL team until they play AHL / NHL, just like the kids in juniors. 

[Weave]

It's this simple: Let the NHL sign the college kids as soon as they're drafted. They don't get paid by the NHL team until they play AHL / NHL, just like the kids in juniors.

No way the NCAA buys into that. Signing players as soon as they are drafted would mean NCAA players are signed with an agency. And that is a no no, correct?

[Eleven]

No way the NCAA buys into that. Signing players as soon as they are drafted would mean NCAA players are signed with an agency. And that is a no no, correct?

 

Correct.  But it's a stupid no-no.

[Taro T]

I'm confused by the process for both. Please correct:

Major Junior Player:

- Draft at age 18 and 19.

- Team holds rights for 2 years

- Team can make a qualifying offer and retain rights further. Teams almost always do if the player shows promise.

- The end game is the team holds the players rights until 27 or so by making qualifying offers unless the team allows the player to become UFA.

 

College:

- Draft at age 18 or 19.

- Team holds rights until the player graduates from College (22-ish)

- Player can't sign any contracts or whatnot due to the NCAA rules while playing in college.

 

My take: post-college, there should be a qualifying offer option from the NHL team to retain the players for another two years, similar to the RFA process for CHL Juniors.

You are missing that if the MJ player & team don't agree on a contract he goes back into the draft & a team will hold his rights another 2 years. If he still doesn't work out a deal by the end of that, he becones a UFA after that 4th year.

 

Which works out essentially the same as for drafted college kids.

 

Had the Sabres not grabbed the rights to Vesey last season, we wouldn't be over-digesting this.

Correct.  But it's a stupid no-no.

Not disputing that but that no-no is in there to keep college football & basketball players in college on scholarship for as long as possible. THOSE sports are the ones that butter the NCAA's bread.

[shrader]

Had the Sabres not grabbed the rights to Vesey last season, we wouldn't be over-digesting this.

 

 

Exactly.  And now they're about to lose one that they actually drafted and invested time into.  It was never a problem until that long shot hit close to home.

 

My main problem with everything discussed here is that each suggested "fix" is nothing more than a punishment to the player who goes the college route.  If these suggestions miraculously came to be, all it does is dry up the college talent pool.