Opponent and other news and results of interest 2024-2025

[marty]

So kids are drafted hoping they will be good.. If they do play well the team has to sign them or they go back into the pool?  How is that a bad thing?

I might not understand what you mean but the problem is that once you are 22 the NHL team will try to sign you - if they want you - and this is without worries as to whether you will graduate. I would think it's a bad thing if the rules push the NHL teams to sign the players before they graduate.

But would some of the younger players be less likely to have pressure to sign.  If one doesn't turn 22 until senior year then wouldn't the new rule be less likely to cause the player to leave early? Granted this is a subset of the whole universe of potential draftees.

[adamw]

one thing that might happen, is NHL teams will be less likely to take NCAA-bound players in the later rounds.

[chimpfood]

one thing that might happen, is NHL teams will be less likely to take NCAA-bound players in the later rounds.

Absolutely, was just thinking that this hurts the chances of DiGiulian and Cournoyer getting drafted (but I guess helps us). Does anyone know if players drafted under the old rules are going to be immediately subject to the new ones or will there be grandfathering in? This is relevant for some of our draftees like Fegaras, Devlin, Walsh and Fisher who are already 21 with multiple years of
NCAA eligibility remaining.

[BearLover]

one thing that might happen, is NHL teams will be less likely to take NCAA-bound players in the later rounds.

Absolutely, was just thinking that this hurts the chances of DiGiulian and Cournoyer getting drafted (but I guess helps us). Does anyone know if players drafted under the old rules are going to be immediately subject to the new ones or will there be grandfathering in? This is relevant for some of our draftees like Fegaras, Devlin, Walsh and Fisher who are already 21 with multiple years of
NCAA eligibility remaining.

Seems like it would be a complete disaster for existing players to be grandfathered in. Imagine a 23-y/o draft pick whose rights are suddenly expired.

[abmarks]

one thing that might happen, is NHL teams will be less likely to take NCAA-bound players in the later rounds.

Absolutely, was just thinking that this hurts the chances of DiGiulian and Cournoyer getting drafted (but I guess helps us). Does anyone know if players drafted under the old rules are going to be immediately subject to the new ones or will there be grandfathering in? This is relevant for some of our draftees like Fegaras, Devlin, Walsh and Fisher who are already 21 with multiple years of
NCAA eligibility remaining.

Seems like it would be a complete disaster for existing players to be grandfathered in. Imagine a 23-y/o draft pick whose rights are suddenly expired.

I must be missing something.  What's the downside to free agency vs. being locked to the team that drafted you?   If you get drafted by Carolina (to pick a team at random), their exclusivity expires and you become a free agent,  how's that hurt you?

If Carolina really really wants to not lose you, they might well be motivated to overpay you to sign before you are a free agent, I'll grant that point. But nothing prevents Carolina from signing you a year later and if you're any good at that point a year later you may well have multiple teams interested and will then actually have a choice in what the best fit is, plus the competitive bidding that might be involved.

The only guys I see it hurting would be players who were drafted but as the rights near expiration they have underperformed significantly versus expectation. It seems plausible that some of those underperformers would make a little more money short-term because a team didn't want to have completely wasted draft pick then at player might receive trying to hook up as a free agent given that they had underperformed.

Someone please fill in the banks for me...

[upprdeck]

Pretty much the marginal players have to bank on themselves.  They wait and play in college and hope to get better and improve a contract.  If you get to the end and you have not done so, then you are more desperate to sign or else give up the dream.  If you play well signing makes no sense with no control of where you might go.

[BearLover]

one thing that might happen, is NHL teams will be less likely to take NCAA-bound players in the later rounds.

Absolutely, was just thinking that this hurts the chances of DiGiulian and Cournoyer getting drafted (but I guess helps us). Does anyone know if players drafted under the old rules are going to be immediately subject to the new ones or will there be grandfathering in? This is relevant for some of our draftees like Fegaras, Devlin, Walsh and Fisher who are already 21 with multiple years of
NCAA eligibility remaining.

Seems like it would be a complete disaster for existing players to be grandfathered in. Imagine a 23-y/o draft pick whose rights are suddenly expired.

I must be missing something.  What's the downside to free agency vs. being locked to the team that drafted you?   If you get drafted by Carolina (to pick a team at random), their exclusivity expires and you become a free agent,  how's that hurt you?

If Carolina really really wants to not lose you, they might well be motivated to overpay you to sign before you are a free agent, I'll grant that point. But nothing prevents Carolina from signing you a year later and if you're any good at that point a year later you may well have multiple teams interested and will then actually have a choice in what the best fit is, plus the competitive bidding that might be involved.

The only guys I see it hurting would be players who were drafted but as the rights near expiration they have underperformed significantly versus expectation. It seems plausible that some of those underperformers would make a little more money short-term because a team didn't want to have completely wasted draft pick then at player might receive trying to hook up as a free agent given that they had underperformed.

Someone please fill in the banks for me...

It's pretty clearly a complete disaster for the teams that drafted the players? For the teams that traded for those player?

[adamw]

FYI Frank Seravalli - who most likely has the CBA deal sitting in front of him - is saying something different about draft rights (that basically nothing will change). I spent a bunch of time at the draft trying to get more specifics, but couldn't - so - stay tuned.

[Trotsky]

I don't see a good argument against this rule so far.  The idea of the timeout is NHL teams can't throttle players' careers by holding their rights indefinitely.  If the player develops sufficiently he should move up and into the pro system.  If they can't come to terms, the player becomes a UFA and can shop himself to the whole league.

The rules are there to protect the drafting team but also prevent them from stockpiling.  Seems like a good balance to me.

For the NC$$, unless I am misinterpreting, it introduces greater risk for Q'ing players by delaying their freshman season until their first prostate exam.  Younger players are safer from being coaxed away to the pros.

Or am I missing something?

[BearLover]

For the NC$$, unless I am misinterpreting, it introduces greater risk for Q'ing players by delaying their freshman season until their first prostate exam.  Younger players are safer from being coaxed away to the pros.

Or am I missing something?

Neither we nor Quinnipiac are getting the truly high-end players who sign pro after one or two college seasons. Cornell/Q get players taken in the third round and beyond who rarely sign until their junior or senior year is complete. This new draft eligibility rule would lead to:
—players going straight to college even if they aren't ready and would benefit from a year of juniors
—players like Ryan Walsh, Xavier Veilleux, Alexis Cournoyer, Colin Greening, many others having a maximum three years at Cornell before their draft teams sign them, assuming they are good enough to sign [I'm using these four players merely as an example; likely the old rule will be grandfathered in for at least Walsh and Veilleux]
—fewer players staying four years and graduating from college in general. Under the new rule, there will be greater desire by NHL teams to sign these players before their senior year, and players will have to choose between completing school and going pro/big payday, whereas under the prior rule it was very possible to do both

I'm not making a normative claim over what's fairer or better for the players; I'm commenting from the perspective of how it will affect college hockey teams.  Since most of our draft picks are long-shots to have a long NHL career, I'd personally prefer a rule that lets them stay in college for longer.

[BearLover]

Another example of the silliness of this rule is Cole Tuminaro: he was ranked by NHL Central Scouting before this season. He missed the entire year to injury and wasn't drafted. If next year he has a strong season and gets drafted in his second year of eligibility, he'll only have three years at Cornell before getting signed.

[stereax]

For the NC$$, unless I am misinterpreting, it introduces greater risk for Q'ing players by delaying their freshman season until their first prostate exam.  Younger players are safer from being coaxed away to the pros.

Or am I missing something?

Neither we nor Quinnipiac are getting the truly high-end players who sign pro after one or two college seasons. Cornell/Q get players taken in the third round and beyond who rarely sign until their junior or senior year is complete. This new draft eligibility rule would lead to:
—players going straight to college even if they aren't ready and would benefit from a year of juniors
—players like Ryan Walsh, Xavier Veilleux, Alexis Cournoyer, Colin Greening, many others having a maximum three years at Cornell before their draft teams sign them, assuming they are good enough to sign [I'm using these four players merely as an example; likely the old rule will be grandfathered in for at least Walsh and Veilleux]
—fewer players staying four years and graduating from college in general. Under the new rule, there will be greater desire by NHL teams to sign these players before their senior year, and players will have to choose between completing school and going pro/big payday, whereas under the prior rule it was very possible to do both

I'm not making a normative claim over what's fairer or better for the players; I'm commenting from the perspective of how it will affect college hockey teams.  Since most of our draft picks are long-shots to have a long NHL career, I'd personally prefer a rule that lets them stay in college for longer.

I think it's still up in the air exactly how it's going to work - I heard that if a player is in the NCAA, the team will retain rights past 22 until I think either 30 days after four years of college or 30 days after the player declares intent to no longer play college. But I might be mistaken.

[marty]

For the NC$$, unless I am misinterpreting, it introduces greater risk for Q'ing players by delaying their freshman season until their first prostate exam.  Younger players are safer from being coaxed away to the pros.

Or am I missing something?

Neither we nor Quinnipiac are getting the truly high-end players who sign pro after one or two college seasons. Cornell/Q get players taken in the third round and beyond who rarely sign until their junior or senior year is complete. This new draft eligibility rule would lead to:
—players going straight to college even if they aren't ready and would benefit from a year of juniors
—players like Ryan Walsh, Xavier Veilleux, Alexis Cournoyer, Colin Greening, many others having a maximum three years at Cornell before their draft teams sign them, assuming they are good enough to sign [I'm using these four players merely as an example; likely the old rule will be grandfathered in for at least Walsh and Veilleux]
—fewer players staying four years and graduating from college in general. Under the new rule, there will be greater desire by NHL teams to sign these players before their senior year, and players will have to choose between completing school and going pro/big payday, whereas under the prior rule it was very possible to do both

I'm not making a normative claim over what's fairer or better for the players; I'm commenting from the perspective of how it will affect college hockey teams.  Since most of our draft picks are long-shots to have a long NHL career, I'd personally prefer a rule that lets them stay in college for longer.

I think it's still up in the air exactly how it's going to work - I heard that if a player is in the NCAA, the team will retain rights past 22 until I think either 30 days after four years of college or 30 days after the player declares intent to no longer play college. But I might be mistaken.

I hope so.  This makes sense and not really akin to suing your orthodontist three years after you reach the age of majority - but what is?

[adamw]

For the NC$$, unless I am misinterpreting, it introduces greater risk for Q'ing players by delaying their freshman season until their first prostate exam.  Younger players are safer from being coaxed away to the pros.

Or am I missing something?

Neither we nor Quinnipiac are getting the truly high-end players who sign pro after one or two college seasons. Cornell/Q get players taken in the third round and beyond who rarely sign until their junior or senior year is complete. This new draft eligibility rule would lead to:
—players going straight to college even if they aren't ready and would benefit from a year of juniors
—players like Ryan Walsh, Xavier Veilleux, Alexis Cournoyer, Colin Greening, many others having a maximum three years at Cornell before their draft teams sign them, assuming they are good enough to sign [I'm using these four players merely as an example; likely the old rule will be grandfathered in for at least Walsh and Veilleux]
—fewer players staying four years and graduating from college in general. Under the new rule, there will be greater desire by NHL teams to sign these players before their senior year, and players will have to choose between completing school and going pro/big payday, whereas under the prior rule it was very possible to do both

I'm not making a normative claim over what's fairer or better for the players; I'm commenting from the perspective of how it will affect college hockey teams.  Since most of our draft picks are long-shots to have a long NHL career, I'd personally prefer a rule that lets them stay in college for longer.

I think it's still up in the air exactly how it's going to work - I heard that if a player is in the NCAA, the team will retain rights past 22 until I think either 30 days after four years of college or 30 days after the player declares intent to no longer play college. But I might be mistaken.

This is what Frank Seravalli reported while we were at the draft. Which basically means nothing would change. Now, Frank Seravalli knows more than any of us put together about what's going on - and like I said, was probably reading directly from the draft CBA. But it would contradict everything I've about what the point of the new CBA is on this point -- which is the make things simpler and uniform for all players. So I've been trying to get clarification.

[stereax]

For the NC$$, unless I am misinterpreting, it introduces greater risk for Q'ing players by delaying their freshman season until their first prostate exam.  Younger players are safer from being coaxed away to the pros.

Or am I missing something?

Neither we nor Quinnipiac are getting the truly high-end players who sign pro after one or two college seasons. Cornell/Q get players taken in the third round and beyond who rarely sign until their junior or senior year is complete. This new draft eligibility rule would lead to:
—players going straight to college even if they aren't ready and would benefit from a year of juniors
—players like Ryan Walsh, Xavier Veilleux, Alexis Cournoyer, Colin Greening, many others having a maximum three years at Cornell before their draft teams sign them, assuming they are good enough to sign [I'm using these four players merely as an example; likely the old rule will be grandfathered in for at least Walsh and Veilleux]
—fewer players staying four years and graduating from college in general. Under the new rule, there will be greater desire by NHL teams to sign these players before their senior year, and players will have to choose between completing school and going pro/big payday, whereas under the prior rule it was very possible to do both

I'm not making a normative claim over what's fairer or better for the players; I'm commenting from the perspective of how it will affect college hockey teams.  Since most of our draft picks are long-shots to have a long NHL career, I'd personally prefer a rule that lets them stay in college for longer.

I think it's still up in the air exactly how it's going to work - I heard that if a player is in the NCAA, the team will retain rights past 22 until I think either 30 days after four years of college or 30 days after the player declares intent to no longer play college. But I might be mistaken.

This is what Frank Seravalli reported while we were at the draft. Which basically means nothing would change. Now, Frank Seravalli knows more than any of us put together about what's going on - and like I said, was probably reading directly from the draft CBA. But it would contradict everything I've about what the point of the new CBA is on this point -- which is the make things simpler and uniform for all players. So I've been trying to get clarification.

Seravalli's a fucking hack... hate the guy since he went to bat for Bowman and Quenneville... but we'll see.