So how many of the 2012 1st round draftees have singed ELC's ?
It appears like some kind of all-time record...Usually teams wait until a season after the draft (except for the few --usually the top pick and just a few more --the latter few being those who show they are "ready" for at least a 9 game trial to start the season ) .but now this year it seems to be much more ELC's going to first rounders from the getgo such that they could get their "shot" to impress this season (though with any season delay due to lockout over the CBA this chance may go by te wayside anyway..so WHY THE RUSH this year by teams to sign their top draftees from the 2012 draft (not all teams ,but a lot more than usual) ?
What do owners and GM's suspect would come from the new CBA that would provoke such a hastening to get sigbed strategy? I thought the expectation is that owners will want longer RFA rights terms (out to 10 years)--iF they get longer possession rights before a player can go UFA,then why rush to sign now? It makes no sense...We also expect owners want no bonuses to ELC's ..IF so why rush now to include bonuses counting on the cap where if they sign AFTER the new CBA,a GM would only be paying basic salary and less hit on the cap planning...AGAIN it makes little sense to rush these recent picks into ELC's...
I cannot see how a salary cutback under the new CBA if owner's get more of the revenue pie plays into any need to sign recent draftees as opposed to waiting a year..
SO i am mystified as to why this apparent rush to get them signed...
The only possible concept i could see connecting with all this is IF the new CBA did away with the draft but insisted that any ELC signed after the new CBA be a one-way contract and so while you could sign anyone from the 2013 ENTRY CROP on (who was not prior drafted) YOU WOULD NOT DO SO on a 1-way contract UNTIL they were ready...ONCE they did sign maybe you keep their rights 10 years instead of 7 but there is no point of signing anyone unless they can play for you now or you are willing to eat anm NHL size contract while they play in the AHL (the idea being they get at least to the AHL soomer and do not have to go back to junior if they can't make the NHL squad at 18 ) ....I have heard nothing speculating any of this major change BUT clearly if from 2013 on you can bid for ANY free agent junior without going to a draft as long as you PAY HIM an NHL salary no matter where he plays next year---that (aside from changing the dramatics involved and risk AND opportunity factors) WOULD favour signing existing 2012 top draftees NOW because you would get to keepthem on 2-way contracts for 3 years to "develop" whereas the new kids in 2013 you decide to RISK investiong NHL salary on must be "ready " to contribute or you pay a lot more for their development time.
WHY change a system this way? IT would allow teams to manage their assets to be more efficient in getting to competitive levels..
Under the current system a bottom feeder team could trade the future (a top first round pick slot) for imediate help --or it could keep the pick and wait out a long build process with youth often painful with losing while on such re-build..
UNDER a BIGGER CHOICE BUT MORE COST IF DEVELOPMENT TIME NEEDED RISK
maybe teams do not wish to risk that year on signing any such free agent juniors -if they do not that gives more earlier normally first rounders remaining in the pool of junior free agents that the bottom feeder teams can sign ..OR if the bottom feeders leave off signing the top of that new crop ,that leaves them more money to use on FA vets that can help NOW instead of goig through the trading process of the past where they may not have wanted to trade a high first rounder anyway for fear their fans would never forgive them if they guy they trade for fails to pan out but the draft they trade away turns into something.. UNDER the new system with no draft
it probably encourages more trading because teams on top trying to sign a top junior
need to clear off vet contracts to clear cap space to add the eLC's they decide to risk on..
Again I have heard no such idea proposed BUT what else could explain this new RUSH to sign top 2012 draftees? You last chance to develop more cheaply? (After all you do not pay bonuses to them unless they make your NHL squad AND achieve the bonus levels -but they do count for both salary and bonus potential in effecting cap planning for the year ahead...so as long as they are in development they do not cap effect you )...
So to understand the implication of such a monumental change such as NO DRAFT but only one-way ELC's and a longer rights before UFA system consider 2 teams
EDM and DET...
Currently EDM is loaded with your recent first rounder talent -it probably doesn't NEED more inexperienced youth --but from this point on NEEDS more support for their youth from more experienced vets in certain positions. IT could now trade say the 2013 first rounder for immediate help BUT since no one knows for sure where that pick slot will end up TEAMS probably won't risk on such a trade NOW --but only at draft time. SO EDM loses a season before it can get veteran better by making that trade and the value goes down the more EDM inproves this year and its draft slot worsens.
DET on the other hand is decimated by vets like lidstrom packig it in and other vets getting older .THEY probably WANT to get more top draft picks and sort on re-build the talent pool BUT because they still were good enough lsst season could not get a really top pick in 2012 and unless they nose dive to bottom feeder this year also won't get a shot at the cream of the crop in 2013 under the draft system...IF however there was no draft ,but a free for all--they would get a crack at adding several of the 2013 cream of the crop as long as they were willing to pay for one-way contracts (those would be without bonuses BUT at least the kid could play in the AHL if not quite ready) SO there would be higher development COST but a QUICKER PATH to better youth talent infusion because of the opportunity to acquire better more talented kids from the ELC entry crop ...
Again-I have hear nothing so radical as this--BUT IF teams can add "ready" rookies who CAN IMPACT on their teams right away -then you stillget them relatively "cheap" for an ELC of (proposed 5 years) ...
THE RISK would be a 1-way contract for 5 years and if the ELC kid you signed as a JR. FA (no draft) never pans out-you are on the hook for a more costly AHL payroll..
THE BENEFITS would be: i) relatively cheap LONGER ELC's --5 years not 3; ii) no bonuses so no TOEWS/KANE surprises if all bonuses hit such that it destroys your cap for the next year and forces clearing out of some valueable vet players to clear cap room--so a better KNOWN number in planning... iii) better ability of GM's to adjust plans quickly from NEED YOUTH INFUSION to DO NOT NEED YOUTH NEED VET INFUSION planning ..
IF such a radical change was instituted in the new CBA --then it also spices up interst as to which way GM's allocate their resourves and rosters -what risks hey want to take or avoid ...
POSSIBLY this all comes into effect with the propsed demand from owners of trading cap space ..IF say a bottom feeder team has lots of cap space it could trade it to a team rewuiring more just to keep all its cuirrent "stars" BUT with the intention of RISKING with more YOUTH which it would pursue with relatively cheap 5 year ELC risk on newbies AND then after 5 years pay them big on renewal or trade their cap space for either vet infusions OR more youth cream of the crop singings because the teams they traded the cap space to are using it to keep their own vets and have no room to add 1-way ELC's..
NOW somebody would need to be genius to figure out WHICH system is best for the NHL and its teams -the cuurent INFLATION and CAP ESCALATION SYSTYEM+DRAFT+ BONUSES system OR a new system of NO DRAFT (signing free for all) yet with no hoarding consequence due to risk of paying too much on 1 -way contracts while kids develop which self-limits the grred to sign too many top kids to ELC's + NO MORE BONUSES + LONGER ELC term+ LONGER RFA rights term + TRADING OF CAP SPACE..
YES the new system would make GM's jobs more complex... MAYBE some teams opt not to risk too much on unproven talent --but KIDS could get to the AHL quicker on 1-way NHL pay if teams do risk for them-- but overal there is a greater VARIETY of ways to CHANGE a team's fortunes quicker ,MORE SURPRISES, MORE TRADES , LESS OVERALL COST TO OWNERS ,LONGER RETENTION LOYALTIES TO FANS as players on the big squad not gone after just 7 years in the NHL but at least 10... GREATER trade movement for vets in cases where teams decide to load up that year on Junior FA ENTRIES... A more complex system,but maybe more eciting and interesting for the grater variety of strategiies involved...
I can't fathom all the ramifications but certinly it WOULD BE INTERESTING...
Again I have heard nothing about scrapping the draft --only about cutting ELC bonuses --but while that helps with cap planning and cuts agent's pay or pay potential it pales into the savings owners could get from longer ELC's out 2 ore years since that effects every ELC where bonuses are paid only if you reach them...
BUT maybe the scrapping of the draft goes with affording greater OPTIONS for GM"s if they can also trade cap room and in planning 2nd contracts after the ELC expires in 5 years..
The current system probably is hated by owners not only due to 5&5 of the revenue paid to NHL players but ALSO because the huge escalations in 2nd contracts after an ELC expiresafter just 3 year should such player turn into a"star" ....Ownerswnt to stretch out the cheaper years for that layer longer and do not want to lose him so early on 3rd contracts but are forvced to give longer term on 2nd contracts to retain such stars now.. PERHAPS if terms were just a max of 7 --you could get a 12 year retentiion on any new ENTRY player the NHL ..by then you could judge his true worth --so owners would want an intial 5 year ELC relatively cheap--- a big increase-WHERE MERITED after 5 years for upto a 7 more years risk ,and be unable to keep players stockpiled in the AHL too long at NHL pay such that MORE of these would spread to teams that need help and could infuse them...OVERALL this new system might be better for competiotion and quicker re-builds,spread the wealth of talent better according to needs (ie,.aybe a team now has draftedwell at F and D but lacks top echelon goalie talent -it has to trade for it or start drafting it next year...BUT say you go to a new system ---There is a limit to how much teams want to spend on AHL payroll-if over-spent due to the new 1-way contract rule when signed on ELC -that kid CANNOT BE HOARDED THERE -so you force a trade from that team earlier than they are pressured to do now -they only will if he soon willbe going uFA .but they cannot hoard if the cost of keeping him on a 1-way pay scale is too much to keep now without hurting other needs on their far,m..
All these things MAY go hand in hand..as a total changover of system rather than a
singular item by item change in the system.
AIN --WHY the rush to sign ELC's to entry draftees NOW -when teans BEFORE waited a year after the draftr. THERE must be some comnnective reason associated with the new CBa that owners really want thaty s forcing them to get the kids signed now (my speculation was the last chance at cheaper development cost ---ie. 2-way contracts ,7 years of cheapness IF the kid never "makes it to the show" ---maybe those cheaper and less risky development decisions are about to disappera under the new CBA . IF not --then WHY the rush now?
But seriously, are you at all suggesting that the NHL should scrap the draft? I tried reading this but I apologize if I missed any parts. I just saw you mentioning IF the CBA was scrapping the draft or something, which is definitely not happening.
__________________
Senators | 67's | Texans | Blue Jays
Twitter: @TyFi10 | Formerly: Mighty Manked, SeanMonahan | BF3 All-Star
"What if something amazing happens today?" - Jack Jablonski Blog (Click Here): Turris, The Goal. Ottawa, The Win.
I couldn't make it through the whole first post either but I have also been curious why anyone would sign a 2012 draftee to an ELC when said draftee is not expected to be on the roster of the NHL team that drafted them -why not wait?
I couldn't make it through the whole first post either but I have also been curious why anyone would sign a 2012 draftee to an ELC when said draftee is not expected to be on the roster of the NHL team that drafted them -why not wait?
With the whole 'contract slides a year if player plays less than 10 games' thing, there's virtually no harm. And the sooner the contract is signed the sooner the team can stop worrying about the (CHL) player deciding not to sign for two years and re-entering the draft.
For this summer in particular, I wonder if the agreements are being reached because of one side or the other (or both!) being especially worried that the contract terms they'll get under the current CBA are better for their side than the contract terms they'll get under the new CBA. The whole 'the Devil you know' angle.
1. Nail Yakupov
2. Ryan Murray
3. Alex Galchenyuk
4. Griffin Reinhart
5. Morgan Rielly
6. Hampus Lindholm
7. Matt Dumba
11. Filip Forsberg
12. Mikhail Grigorenko
13. Radek Faksa
14. Zemgus Girgensens
16. Tom Wilson
20. Scott Laughton
30. Tanner Pearson
As far as I know, that's the list for the first round at least. Could have missed a few.
I think what happened with Tim Erixon and CGY has also played a factor in the quick signings from a team perspective.
Quite frankly I don't think the CBA negotations have much impact on it. With so many contracts already signed, I find it hard to believe a new agreement with longer term on ELC would then allow other 2012 draftees signed after the new CBA to be under different rules. Whatever new measures are implemented will be for the 2013 class and beyond and the draftees from 2012 and previous drafts will be under the rules of the previous CBA.
It appears like some kind of all-time record...Usually teams wait until a season after the draft (except for the few --usually the top pick and just a few more --the latter few being those who show they are "ready" for at least a 9 game trial to start the season ) .but now this year it seems to be much more ELC's going to first rounders from the getgo such that they could get their "shot" to impress this season (though with any season delay due to lockout over the CBA this chance may go by te wayside anyway..so WHY THE RUSH this year by teams to sign their top draftees from the 2012 draft (not all teams ,but a lot more than usual) ?
What do owners and GM's suspect would come from the new CBA that would provoke such a hastening to get sigbed strategy? I thought the expectation is that owners will want longer RFA rights terms (out to 10 years)--iF they get longer possession rights before a player can go UFA,then why rush to sign now? It makes no sense...We also expect owners want no bonuses to ELC's ..IF so why rush now to include bonuses counting on the cap where if they sign AFTER the new CBA,a GM would only be paying basic salary and less hit on the cap planning...AGAIN it makes little sense to rush these recent picks into ELC's...
I cannot see how a salary cutback under the new CBA if owner's get more of the revenue pie plays into any need to sign recent draftees as opposed to waiting a year..
SO i am mystified as to why this apparent rush to get them signed...
The only possible concept i could see connecting with all this is IF the new CBA did away with the draft but insisted that any ELC signed after the new CBA be a one-way contract and so while you could sign anyone from the 2013 ENTRY CROP on (who was not prior drafted) YOU WOULD NOT DO SO on a 1-way contract UNTIL they were ready...ONCE they did sign maybe you keep their rights 10 years instead of 7 but there is no point of signing anyone unless they can play for you now or you are willing to eat anm NHL size contract while they play in the AHL (the idea being they get at least to the AHL soomer and do not have to go back to junior if they can't make the NHL squad at 18 ) ....I have heard nothing speculating any of this major change BUT clearly if from 2013 on you can bid for ANY free agent junior without going to a draft as long as you PAY HIM an NHL salary no matter where he plays next year---that (aside from changing the dramatics involved and risk AND opportunity factors) WOULD favour signing existing 2012 top draftees NOW because you would get to keepthem on 2-way contracts for 3 years to "develop" whereas the new kids in 2013 you decide to RISK investiong NHL salary on must be "ready " to contribute or you pay a lot more for their development time.
WHY change a system this way? IT would allow teams to manage their assets to be more efficient in getting to competitive levels..
Under the current system a bottom feeder team could trade the future (a top first round pick slot) for imediate help --or it could keep the pick and wait out a long build process with youth often painful with losing while on such re-build..
UNDER a BIGGER CHOICE BUT MORE COST IF DEVELOPMENT TIME NEEDED RISK
maybe teams do not wish to risk that year on signing any such free agent juniors -if they do not that gives more earlier normally first rounders remaining in the pool of junior free agents that the bottom feeder teams can sign ..OR if the bottom feeders leave off signing the top of that new crop ,that leaves them more money to use on FA vets that can help NOW instead of goig through the trading process of the past where they may not have wanted to trade a high first rounder anyway for fear their fans would never forgive them if they guy they trade for fails to pan out but the draft they trade away turns into something.. UNDER the new system with no draft
it probably encourages more trading because teams on top trying to sign a top junior
need to clear off vet contracts to clear cap space to add the eLC's they decide to risk on..
Again I have heard no such idea proposed BUT what else could explain this new RUSH to sign top 2012 draftees? You last chance to develop more cheaply? (After all you do not pay bonuses to them unless they make your NHL squad AND achieve the bonus levels -but they do count for both salary and bonus potential in effecting cap planning for the year ahead...so as long as they are in development they do not cap effect you )...
So to understand the implication of such a monumental change such as NO DRAFT but only one-way ELC's and a longer rights before UFA system consider 2 teams
EDM and DET...
Currently EDM is loaded with your recent first rounder talent -it probably doesn't NEED more inexperienced youth --but from this point on NEEDS more support for their youth from more experienced vets in certain positions. IT could now trade say the 2013 first rounder for immediate help BUT since no one knows for sure where that pick slot will end up TEAMS probably won't risk on such a trade NOW --but only at draft time. SO EDM loses a season before it can get veteran better by making that trade and the value goes down the more EDM inproves this year and its draft slot worsens.
DET on the other hand is decimated by vets like lidstrom packig it in and other vets getting older .THEY probably WANT to get more top draft picks and sort on re-build the talent pool BUT because they still were good enough lsst season could not get a really top pick in 2012 and unless they nose dive to bottom feeder this year also won't get a shot at the cream of the crop in 2013 under the draft system...IF however there was no draft ,but a free for all--they would get a crack at adding several of the 2013 cream of the crop as long as they were willing to pay for one-way contracts (those would be without bonuses BUT at least the kid could play in the AHL if not quite ready) SO there would be higher development COST but a QUICKER PATH to better youth talent infusion because of the opportunity to acquire better more talented kids from the ELC entry crop ...
Again-I have hear nothing so radical as this--BUT IF teams can add "ready" rookies who CAN IMPACT on their teams right away -then you stillget them relatively "cheap" for an ELC of (proposed 5 years) ...
THE RISK would be a 1-way contract for 5 years and if the ELC kid you signed as a JR. FA (no draft) never pans out-you are on the hook for a more costly AHL payroll..
THE BENEFITS would be: i) relatively cheap LONGER ELC's --5 years not 3; ii) no bonuses so no TOEWS/KANE surprises if all bonuses hit such that it destroys your cap for the next year and forces clearing out of some valueable vet players to clear cap room--so a better KNOWN number in planning... iii) better ability of GM's to adjust plans quickly from NEED YOUTH INFUSION to DO NOT NEED YOUTH NEED VET INFUSION planning ..
IF such a radical change was instituted in the new CBA --then it also spices up interst as to which way GM's allocate their resourves and rosters -what risks hey want to take or avoid ...
POSSIBLY this all comes into effect with the propsed demand from owners of trading cap space ..IF say a bottom feeder team has lots of cap space it could trade it to a team rewuiring more just to keep all its cuirrent "stars" BUT with the intention of RISKING with more YOUTH which it would pursue with relatively cheap 5 year ELC risk on newbies AND then after 5 years pay them big on renewal or trade their cap space for either vet infusions OR more youth cream of the crop singings because the teams they traded the cap space to are using it to keep their own vets and have no room to add 1-way ELC's..
NOW somebody would need to be genius to figure out WHICH system is best for the NHL and its teams -the cuurent INFLATION and CAP ESCALATION SYSTYEM+DRAFT+ BONUSES system OR a new system of NO DRAFT (signing free for all) yet with no hoarding consequence due to risk of paying too much on 1 -way contracts while kids develop which self-limits the grred to sign too many top kids to ELC's + NO MORE BONUSES + LONGER ELC term+ LONGER RFA rights term + TRADING OF CAP SPACE..
YES the new system would make GM's jobs more complex... MAYBE some teams opt not to risk too much on unproven talent --but KIDS could get to the AHL quicker on 1-way NHL pay if teams do risk for them-- but overal there is a greater VARIETY of ways to CHANGE a team's fortunes quicker ,MORE SURPRISES, MORE TRADES , LESS OVERALL COST TO OWNERS ,LONGER RETENTION LOYALTIES TO FANS as players on the big squad not gone after just 7 years in the NHL but at least 10... GREATER trade movement for vets in cases where teams decide to load up that year on Junior FA ENTRIES... A more complex system,but maybe more eciting and interesting for the grater variety of strategiies involved...
I can't fathom all the ramifications but certinly it WOULD BE INTERESTING...
Again I have heard nothing about scrapping the draft --only about cutting ELC bonuses --but while that helps with cap planning and cuts agent's pay or pay potential it pales into the savings owners could get from longer ELC's out 2 ore years since that effects every ELC where bonuses are paid only if you reach them...
BUT maybe the scrapping of the draft goes with affording greater OPTIONS for GM"s if they can also trade cap room and in planning 2nd contracts after the ELC expires in 5 years..
The current system probably is hated by owners not only due to 5&5 of the revenue paid to NHL players but ALSO because the huge escalations in 2nd contracts after an ELC expiresafter just 3 year should such player turn into a"star" ....Ownerswnt to stretch out the cheaper years for that layer longer and do not want to lose him so early on 3rd contracts but are forvced to give longer term on 2nd contracts to retain such stars now.. PERHAPS if terms were just a max of 7 --you could get a 12 year retentiion on any new ENTRY player the NHL ..by then you could judge his true worth --so owners would want an intial 5 year ELC relatively cheap--- a big increase-WHERE MERITED after 5 years for upto a 7 more years risk ,and be unable to keep players stockpiled in the AHL too long at NHL pay such that MORE of these would spread to teams that need help and could infuse them...OVERALL this new system might be better for competiotion and quicker re-builds,spread the wealth of talent better according to needs (ie,.aybe a team now has draftedwell at F and D but lacks top echelon goalie talent -it has to trade for it or start drafting it next year...BUT say you go to a new system ---There is a limit to how much teams want to spend on AHL payroll-if over-spent due to the new 1-way contract rule when signed on ELC -that kid CANNOT BE HOARDED THERE -so you force a trade from that team earlier than they are pressured to do now -they only will if he soon willbe going uFA .but they cannot hoard if the cost of keeping him on a 1-way pay scale is too much to keep now without hurting other needs on their far,m..
All these things MAY go hand in hand..as a total changover of system rather than a
singular item by item change in the system.
AIN --WHY the rush to sign ELC's to entry draftees NOW -when teans BEFORE waited a year after the draftr. THERE must be some comnnective reason associated with the new CBa that owners really want thaty s forcing them to get the kids signed now (my speculation was the last chance at cheaper development cost ---ie. 2-way contracts ,7 years of cheapness IF the kid never "makes it to the show" ---maybe those cheaper and less risky development decisions are about to disappera under the new CBA . IF not --then WHY the rush now?
Not sure why the owner would rush why did they sign Skinner early??? i know why the players want to sign afraid of what may come. I think the owners want NO BONUS so all the ELC get bonus today they could lose them after September 15. this year i think more players have sign that just got drafted then every before.
To me the owners must not all agree with the new CBA with the contracts they are throwing around before September 15. It is the owners that is causing the problem and that is why they need someone to tell them not to sign long term contracts.
Because with he new teammates he has, Skinner just might have the type of year that will make this new contract of his a bargain.
he still had one year left and once the new cba he may have no options until he was 30 which is 10 years so they did not need to pay him until next year and at that time they could pay him less.
