Well, I don't see why they couldn't... it would basically be no different than our office fantasy draft legally. But once they have it done, they could make the results of it a part of the next CBA, whenever that came around. I doubt the draft is a big sticking point for the PA, so it probably wouldn't be a show-stopper if they put that clause on the table...
It would be if the NHLPA decides to decertify.
Dangling UFAs Seth Jones, Connor McDavid, Nathan Mackinnon and Jonathan Drouin in front of the Flyers, Leafs, Rangers and Habs respectively would be a pretty good way to test owner resolve, don't you think?
Dangling UFAs Seth Jones, Connor McDavid, Nathan Mackinnon and Jonathan Drouin in front of the Flyers, Leafs, Rangers and Habs respectively would be a pretty good way to test owner resolve, don't you think?
Everyone would be a UFA though, so how much $ would be left for those kids once the proven stars get 20-30M+ per season?
Thankfully it appears we are headed towards a resolution.
Dangling UFAs Seth Jones, Connor McDavid, Nathan Mackinnon and Jonathan Drouin in front of the Flyers, Leafs, Rangers and Habs respectively would be a pretty good way to test owner resolve, don't you think?
The NHL would still have to approve of any or all of the deals before they become a valid, legal contract and I doubt the NHL would approve any of these deals without an agreement in place between the players and all of the owners.
The NHL would still have to approve of any or all of the deals before they become a valid, legal contract and I doubt the NHL would approve any of these deals without an agreement in place between the players and all of the owners.
Which would make for a pretty interesting court case, don't you think?
"I'm of legal age to work, I have all the necessary qualifications to work in this industry, and I have a company willing to sign me to work for them. And yet this other entity says I am not allowed to work because they do not have an agreement with a union that no longer exists and of which I was never a part of."
If the NHL's "approval" was a necessary stamp to sign any player then why is decertification even a possibility or suggestion? The thing is nobody knows what exactly the legal ramifications of decertification would be, nobody knows what would happen if a player, prospect or otherwise, signs with a team. Maybe NHL approval would be necessary. Maybe it wouldn't be. It would be ultimately up to a judge to decide, and IF the NHLPA wanted to decertify I'm pretty sure they wouldn't rubber stamp a fantasy draft as suggested above. They'd want those players in the mix too, just to make it all that more difficult and complex and muddled. It's the stick that they hope encourages the NHL to bend.
The NHL would still have to approve of any or all of the deals before they become a valid, legal contract and I doubt the NHL would approve any of these deals without an agreement in place between the players and all of the owners.
If the PA decertifies and wins in court against the NHL (lockout would be declared illegal), there are no rules since there would be no CBA.
Which would make for a pretty interesting court case, don't you think?
"I'm of legal age to work, I have all the necessary qualifications to work in this industry, and I have a company willing to sign me to work for them. And yet this other entity says I am not allowed to work because they do not have an agreement with a union that no longer exists and of which I was never a part of."
If the NHL's "approval" was a necessary stamp to sign any player then why is decertification even a possibility or suggestion? The thing is nobody knows what exactly the legal ramifications of decertification would be, nobody knows what would happen if a player, prospect or otherwise, signs with a team. Maybe NHL approval would be necessary. Maybe it wouldn't be. It would be ultimately up to a judge to decide, and IF the NHLPA wanted to decertify I'm pretty sure they wouldn't rubber stamp a fantasy draft as suggested above. They'd want those players in the mix too, just to make it all that more difficult and complex and muddled. It's the stick that they hope encourages the NHL to bend.
I'm not disputing what you are saying, but for me the problem is what happens after the union decertifies. I'm not sure what the legal ramifications are either but I'm fairly certain that the NHL won't allow games to be played until Bettman and the majority of the owners are happy with the agreements in place.
I haven't seen any rules that mandate the NHL play any number of games or have a season at all if the owners don't feel that it's in their best interest to do so. The players may win every battle in court but that doesn't mean that the NHL will play any games at all under these rules. I can see the NHL telling the players that the doors are locked and will remain so until they change their attitude.
I'd be very curious if the court declared the lockout illegal how they could word in such a way as to mandate the NHL to play hockey. It's not an essential service and there's no way the government is getting involved with running the league or the individual teams. As soon as you start mandating hockey you get into the individual owner's property rights and the owner's personal rights.
Dangling UFAs Seth Jones, Connor McDavid, Nathan Mackinnon and Jonathan Drouin in front of the Flyers, Leafs, Rangers and Habs respectively would be a pretty good way to test owner resolve, don't you think?
Decertification is something else, and I would love that as a fan of a "have" team.
But I'm assuming the owners would be able to collude to the extent of having their fantasy draft in the meantime and legislating it into the next CBA, whenever that happens. And before the courts can deal with anything, given how long such processes seem to take in the modern world. Who knows, though. I almost resent the latest trend of "optimism" in the owners/players negotiations.
Barkov, after missing a penalty shot yesterday: "It was my own fault. You can't beat swedish goalie with a swedish deke. Must remember that in future."
1) They draft heavily from the QJMHL. There is so much talent in the Q this year, we cannot pass on it. I know that talent must prevail over where the player is from, but this year we can find player that have both. Mantha, Carrier, Gauthier, Duclair, Drouin are all 1st or 2nd round player that the Habs should take a very good look.
2) Find 1st line potential. Every foward in the top 10 have 1st line potential. My favorite is Barkov, but Mackinnon, Drouin, Lindholm, Monahan, Shinkaruk are all players that could play on our 1st line. But players like Erne, Mantha, Lazar, Nichushkin, Burakowsky, Duclair, Sorensen could have 1st line potential and they could as low as the 2nd round. I'm sure Timmins will do magic at the begining of the 2nd and find another player like Collberg. We need player to play with Gally.
3) A big stay at home defenser. We already have Subban, Beaulieu and Gorges as mobile defensemen. We don't have a lot of player like Tinordi. I think we should take one of the 2nd round picks to get another big defenseman. Like: Sherman, Valiyev, Eric Roy or Graves.
4) Jordan Subban. Nothing to add.
5) A good Grinder. It's been a long time since we had a big 3rd line Grinder.
yeah, i'd like to get all the subbans, pokemon style, except jordan is teeny-tiny-teeeeeeeeny... at this point, i'd take him with our third, but other than that, i'd pass...
yeah, i'd like to get all the subbans, pokemon style, except jordan is teeny-tiny-teeeeeeeeny... at this point, i'd take him with our third, but other than that, i'd pass...
Depending on if we fill our needs with the first 3 picks, id snag subban with the third 2nd rounder
Depending on if we fill our needs with the first 3 picks, id snag subban with the third 2nd rounder
i think we could do better with that pick than to draft an undersized offensive d. that said, 'undersized' in his case is more like built like a fridge. but still...
i think we could do better with that pick than to draft an undersized offensive d. that said, 'undersized' in his case is more like built like a fridge. but still...
Any chance Jordan grow a couple of inches? I would surely be interested to draft him with our last 2nd round pick.. I would be surprised if he is still around with our 3rd round pick. Because of his name he might go higher than he should.. see Jared Staal.
That's a nice sign. I'm all for the Q pumping out some legitimate talent instead of the rare few they do every year. It's much easier to swallow the pressure to draft local talent when there actually IS local talent.
It's also nice that it happens in the particular draft where we have 4 picks in the top6
i dont care how strong you are when you are 5'9. he could 'maybe' grow to 5'11 - maybe... and the kid IS strong as hell. i see him as a possible ellis clone (nashville's ellis). which is great, not an absolute need for the habs.
still wouldn't waste our 2 top picks on him. that said, if timmins picks him, i'll do the jingle dance. more subbans is always better. i am high on him, but not high enough to pick him too early
i dont care how strong you are when you are 5'9. he could 'maybe' grow to 5'11 - maybe... and the kid IS strong as hell. i see him as a possible ellis clone (nashville's ellis). which is great, not an absolute need for the habs.
still wouldn't waste our 2 top picks on him. that said, if timmins picks him, i'll do the jingle dance. more subbans is always better. i am high on him, but not high enough to pick him too early
Subban isn't going into the 3rd round. If the habs want him they gotta use one of their 2nd rounders for sure. I'd do it. He leads his team in poins! He is undersized but built like his bro... He would be fine at the nhl level i think
Also remember the habs have 3 picks in the 2nd. One "reach" pick would be ok
I'll be happy with Subban and one of either: Roy or Heatherington.
Like MD, I probably wouldn't take Subban before the 3rd. Maybe with our last pick in the 2nd. But if we could get Roy in the 2nd and Subban in the 3rd, I'd be happy.
I'd love to get Jordan Subban. Maybe not in the first or second rounds, but anything after that would be nice. His certainly has got some skill and has great hockey sense. He is undersized, but has surprising good lower body strength.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But
I'd love Jordan and every Subban, but isn't he kind of redundant when we drafted Thrower last year? I guess it depends what else we draft this year..
I don't see why Thrower would make Jordan Subban redundant. Other than both being undersized offensive-orientated right defenceman they aren't really similar. Thrower is bigger, and plays a much more gritty game. He also has just as much offensive upside, but is still pretty raw at this point. Whereas Subban plays a strong two-way game, but is very polished already. He doesn't have that explosive or gritty element to his game that Thrower has.
Also, you can never enough defenceman. So even if they did make each other redundant, if he's BPA, draft him.
