Central Scouting Preliminary Rankings
Posted by pfibiger
Central Scouting Preliminary Rankings
Posted by: pfibiger (---.dfafunds.com)
Date: November 16, 2004 04:19PM
[centralscouting.nhl.com] (l: public access p: hockey 2004)
Sasha Pokulok is ranked #8 among NCAA skaters. They don't have any listings for the canadian jr. leagues or for the other US junior leagues (so no info on Greening, Connors, etc).
Sasha Pokulok is ranked #8 among NCAA skaters. They don't have any listings for the canadian jr. leagues or for the other US junior leagues (so no info on Greening, Connors, etc).
Re: Central Scouting Preliminary Rankings
Posted by: cbuckser (134.186.177.---)
Date: November 16, 2004 04:55PM
Matt Connors and Colin Greening are listed as players to watch. Connors is listed as an "A" player, and Greening is a "B."
Re: Central Scouting Preliminary Rankings
Posted by: JasonN95 (38.117.186.---)
Date: November 16, 2004 05:08PM
This is a ranking of "draft eligible" players w/r/t the next draft, correct?
Re: Central Scouting Preliminary Rankings
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---.danicacomputing.com)
Date: November 16, 2004 05:17PM
w/r/t the 2005 draft if there is one
Re: Central Scouting Preliminary Rankings
Posted by: bring.it (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: November 16, 2004 09:22PM
he definitely could jump up if he has a strong pre-christmas...
Re: Central Scouting Preliminary Rankings
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
Date: November 16, 2004 11:00PM
[q]w/r/t the 2005 draft if there is one[/q]That brings up an interesting question regarding the lockout. Let's say that this season gets wiped out and there's no settlement by next spring. Does this mean that the owners couldn't/wouldn't have an entry draft? My ill-informed first thought is that sense the draft is part of the current work agreement the owners couldn't continue a lockout while proceeding with a draft (but I certainly could be wrong).
There's another possibility though. If the season is washed out there's a good chance that the owners will declare an impasse and unilaterally impose a new system. Now that may not work - the players would certainly sue to contest this, arguing that the owners have bargained in bad faith. MLB players managed to get a judicial stay of baseball owners attempt at a unilateral solution right before the settlement in '95. But it certainly could work for the NHL. Anyway, the NHL could conduct a draft under new rules next summer. I suspect this wouldn't happen on time because of logistics, particularly the legal challenges - you don't want to have a draft and then have the courts declare it illegal. But it could happen at some point. Of course, I could be completely wrong here - I think it's happened once or twice before...
There's another possibility though. If the season is washed out there's a good chance that the owners will declare an impasse and unilaterally impose a new system. Now that may not work - the players would certainly sue to contest this, arguing that the owners have bargained in bad faith. MLB players managed to get a judicial stay of baseball owners attempt at a unilateral solution right before the settlement in '95. But it certainly could work for the NHL. Anyway, the NHL could conduct a draft under new rules next summer. I suspect this wouldn't happen on time because of logistics, particularly the legal challenges - you don't want to have a draft and then have the courts declare it illegal. But it could happen at some point. Of course, I could be completely wrong here - I think it's happened once or twice before...
Re: Central Scouting Preliminary Rankings
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---.rover.cornell.edu)
Date: November 17, 2004 12:28AM
The NHL is not bound to hold an NHL Draft, and certainly is not bound to hold one when there is no CBA in place. As yet another chip in the negotiations and based on what I have read from countless people on this issue, there will be no draft in 2005 if there is no CBA in place. After all, why would the NHL have any interest in increasing NHLPA membership during this battle?
Regarding the draft, my guess is that there will be no draft in 2005 when there is no CBA in place, and the "2005 draft" will take place in June, 2006 like the weekend before the 2006 draft. This would all theoretically happen after a CBA is negotiated and in place, although this could very well not be in the case by June, 2006. Some people have suggested the 2005 crop and 2006 crop be mixed into one super draft. This is impossible considering teams have traded picks in the 2005 and 2006 drafts already and the value of a 2nd round pick, for instance, in a super draft would be greatly inflated and the original trade would be unfair.
Just another issue caught up in this ongoing war. It will certainly become increasingly interesting as June approaches and no CBA is in place. I would imagine the two sides will speak about this issue at some point before then and hopefully a resolution is negotiated. Of course that could also be said about the issue facing "cost certainty" and that obviously hasn't had any progress.
Regarding the draft, my guess is that there will be no draft in 2005 when there is no CBA in place, and the "2005 draft" will take place in June, 2006 like the weekend before the 2006 draft. This would all theoretically happen after a CBA is negotiated and in place, although this could very well not be in the case by June, 2006. Some people have suggested the 2005 crop and 2006 crop be mixed into one super draft. This is impossible considering teams have traded picks in the 2005 and 2006 drafts already and the value of a 2nd round pick, for instance, in a super draft would be greatly inflated and the original trade would be unfair.
Just another issue caught up in this ongoing war. It will certainly become increasingly interesting as June approaches and no CBA is in place. I would imagine the two sides will speak about this issue at some point before then and hopefully a resolution is negotiated. Of course that could also be said about the issue facing "cost certainty" and that obviously hasn't had any progress.
Re: Central Scouting Preliminary Rankings
Posted by: ben03 (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: November 17, 2004 12:47AM
[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
Some people have suggested the 2005 crop and 2006 crop be mixed into one super draft. This is impossible considering teams have traded picks in the 2005 and 2006 drafts already and the value of a 2nd round pick, for instance, in a super draft would be greatly inflated and the original trade would be unfair.[/q]
there's a large "if -> then" in such a statement ... you've assumed the league, the current teams, and subsequent draft (& said picks) are still in tact. for all we know they might just start from scratch and disregard all previous transactions.
but then again who knows ...
Some people have suggested the 2005 crop and 2006 crop be mixed into one super draft. This is impossible considering teams have traded picks in the 2005 and 2006 drafts already and the value of a 2nd round pick, for instance, in a super draft would be greatly inflated and the original trade would be unfair.[/q]
there's a large "if -> then" in such a statement ... you've assumed the league, the current teams, and subsequent draft (& said picks) are still in tact. for all we know they might just start from scratch and disregard all previous transactions.
but then again who knows ...
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
Let's GO Red!!!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2004 01:38AM by ben03.
Re: Central Scouting Preliminary Rankings
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---.rover.cornell.edu)
Date: November 17, 2004 12:56AM
[Q]ben03 Wrote:
calgARI '07 Wrote:
Some people have suggested the 2005 crop and 2006 crop be mixed into one super draft. This is impossible considering teams have traded picks in the 2005 and 2006 drafts already and the value of a 2nd round pick, for instance, in a super draft would be greatly inflated and the original trade would be unfair.[/Q]
there's a large "if -> then" in such a statement ... you've assumed the league, the current teams, and subsequent draft & said picks are still in tact. for all we know they might just start from scratch and disregard all previous transactions.
but then again who knows ...[/q]
I see it as very improbable that any teams will fold based on what Bettman has said to this point.
Re: Central Scouting Preliminary Rankings
Posted by: ben03 (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: November 17, 2004 01:15AM
[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
ben03 Wrote:
calgARI '07 Wrote:
Some people have suggested the 2005 crop and 2006 crop be mixed into one super draft. This is impossible considering teams have traded picks in the 2005 and 2006 drafts already and the value of a 2nd round pick, for instance, in a super draft would be greatly inflated and the original trade would be unfair.[/Q]
there's a large "if -> then" in such a statement ... you've assumed the league, the current teams, and subsequent draft & said picks are still in tact. for all we know they might just start from scratch and disregard all previous transactions.
but then again who knows ...[/Q]
I see it as very improbable that any teams will fold based on what Bettman has said to this point.[/q]
point taken.
... but as long as we're on the "Bettman record" ... we won't be seeing anything resembling the NHL anytime soon and therefore any/all teams ... might as well fold.
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
Re: Central Scouting Preliminary Rankings
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---.danicacomputing.com)
Date: November 17, 2004 02:16AM
[Q]ben03 Wrote:
calgARI '07 Wrote:
ben03 Wrote:
calgARI '07 Wrote:
Some people have suggested the 2005 crop and 2006 crop be mixed into one super draft. This is impossible considering teams have traded picks in the 2005 and 2006 drafts already and the value of a 2nd round pick, for instance, in a super draft would be greatly inflated and the original trade would be unfair.[/Q]
there's a large "if -> then" in such a statement ... you've assumed the league, the current teams, and subsequent draft & said picks are still in tact. for all we know they might just start from scratch and disregard all previous transactions.
but then again who knows ...[/Q]
I see it as very improbable that any teams will fold based on what Bettman has said to this point.[/Q]
point taken.
... but as long as we're on the "Bettman record" ... we won't be seeing anything resembling the NHL anytime soon and therefore any/all teams ... might as well fold.[/q]
I have heard the folding theory from many people. I just don't see why any franchises would fold while not operating when they are losing very little money, and for the most part, losing less money than they have been operating the last couple seasons.
Re: Central Scouting Preliminary RankingsPosted by: BCrespi (---.twcny.rr.com)Date: November 17, 2004 03:28AM
I don't think anthing short of burning an effigy of Bettman on the steps of Ives will get this thing figured out anytime soon. (Note: I don't necessarily blame Bettman, I just think it would be fun, and it's going to start getting cold soon...)
___________________________
Brian Crespi '06Re: Central Scouting Preliminary RankingsPosted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)Date: November 17, 2004 11:52AM
I don't think adding some younger players to the NHLPA would hurt the owners position at all. In fact, maybe it would help, since there would be more younger players who don't have large reserves to last out a work stoppage. Also, do players enter the union when drafted? I would think you don't join until signed, and if there's a work stoppage I doubt there would be any signing.
The reason to hold a draft would be the same as it always is - to divide up new players among the teams. But holding the "2005" draft in June '06 would do this equally well (and maybe better, because the later you hold it the more information teams have to make their decisions).Re: Central Scouting Preliminary RankingsPosted by: calgARI '07 (128.84.198.---)Date: November 17, 2004 01:07PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
I don't think adding some younger players to the NHLPA would hurt the owners position at all. In fact, maybe it would help, since there would be more younger players who don't have large reserves to last out a work stoppage. Also, do players enter the union when drafted? I would think you don't join until signed, and if there's a work stoppage I doubt there would be any signing.
The reason to hold a draft would be the same as it always is - to divide up new players among the teams. But holding the "2005" draft in June '06 would do this equally well (and maybe better, because the later you hold it the more information teams have to make their decisions).[/q]
Well one of the issues that has been brought up amongst the many is possibly raising the draft age to 19 or 20. Most GM's are in favor of raising it.
Players enter the Union once signed, and the guys that get screwed first in CBA negotiations in all sports are the younger ones. In 1994, the big issue in the NHL labor war was actually entry level contracts. On November 11th, after no talks had taken place, the PA decided that they would concede on the issue of entry level contracts, so negotiations started from there. The gateway issue this time around is "cost certainty" and it sure doesn't look like either side will budge on it, thus preventing any talks from taking place. But the fact that negotiations began November 11th, 1994 and the season didn't start until mid-January shows how the prospect of this season occuring is getting very slim seeing as it is already a week past November 11th.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.