View Single Post
Old
06-05-2013, 05:44 PM
  #44
HabsProspectsExpert
Artturi Lehkonen
 
HabsProspectsExpert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habs03 View Post
I'm not 100% sure, but when drafting college player, you have there rights, and don't have to sign them for more time than drafting guys out of the CHL, so you have more time to see if they are worth given a contact to. And seeing how guys from later rounds are probaly guys that need to work on their game, drafting guys you have more time with could be a factor in their decision making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
Teams can only have 50 players at a time under contract. Teams must decide to sign a CHL player when within two years (if I'm not mistaken) of being drafted otherwise they have to go back in the draft. College players can wait much, much longer. This allows teams to better evaluate this prospect on the longer term, therefore minimizing the risk of signing busts to pro contracts. If a team drafted all CHL prospects, they'd run out of contracts...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezpz View Post
Also as others have stated you can't sign 7 prospects a year realistically and stay under the 50 contract limit. That's why you go for longshots in the late rounds or NCAA guys who have four-five years to develop and only require a 2 year ELC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monctonscout View Post
I think you're the one not getting it. Most times when NHL teams go for college players or guys headed to college it's later round picks where they benefit from 3-4 or even 5 years development before they have to commit a contract to that player. Similar to 15 years ago when the Wings would draft Euros in later rounds and let them develop 4-5 years at home before bringing them over.

My take on the 50 contracts argument is; I agree that for the NCAA players the 2+ more years you have to evaluate them help you diminish the risk of wasting a contract on rookies that doesn't deserve it. But even then, the evaluation doesn't become perfect with those extra years, some players are still "borderliner", for example, we signed Joe Stejskal when it was unnecessary. Nevertheless at the end on the day, the goal is to select the best player and I don't think that this futile technicality really make any difference when drafting a prospect. And, if it has made a difference, I believe it was a mistake, particularly if you compare our list of CHLers and NCAA players we have drafted in the later rounds. Anyway, when you are drafting NCAA players your goal is to sign them one day or an other, so signing them in 2 years or in 4 years doesn't really make a difference in the end. And as an offset, if you are finally able to lend on a good player, those extra years become a risk because you might lose the player, as Anaheim did with Justin Schultz for example.


Last edited by HabsProspectsExpert: 06-05-2013 at 07:25 PM.
HabsProspectsExpert is offline   Reply With Quote