I first about this issue on CBC’s Satellite Hot-Stove Saturday, then read Corey Pronman’s response at the awesome Hockey Prospectus.
Essentially, Eric Francis (perhaps the least intelligent of CBC’s group of nimrods) believes that the CHL/NHL agreement will be a contentious issue during negotiations for the next CBA. All this chatter started when Steve Yzerman suggested that NHL clubs should be able to send junior eligible players to the AHL instead of having to send them back to their CHL teams.
Here’s what Yzerman had to say.
“We talk about it all the time,” Yzerman told the Tampa Bay Times. “We would like to have, particularly guys who have played three years in junior that when we feel it’s time to go to another level, we’d rather see them in the American League.”
“I’d like to see us talk further about it,” Yzerman told the paper. “We’re not trying to raid junior hockey, but we look at Brett, he’s played in junior hockey for three years. Part of the reason we wanted to keep him is we felt like it was time to play against stronger competition and a higher pace. Junior hockey is good, but he’s had three full years.”
Brett is Brett Connolly, and most people would agree with Yzerman’s assessment. It’s probably not a stretch to suggest that some players see their development stunted by playing more junior hockey instead of making the jump to the pros. I would certainly make that case for Nazem Kadri, who wasn’t physically ready for the NHL at 18 but could have used his skills to negate that problem in the slower-paced AHL, while gaining some experience against stiffer competition.
Regardless of whether or not we agree on that point, I can’t understand how this will be a contentious CBA issue.
Without further knowledge, we can’t assume that all NHL clubs share Yzerman’s views. However, what he’s suggesting makes sense, and would be in the best interest of player development. There are certainly downsides. Players would start eating away their entry-level contracts (ELC) earlier in their career, thus arriving at restricted free agency at a younger age. That’s really the only downside for the teams, but faced with restricted free agency 2 years earlier vs. stunting the development of a future star, I think we know which side they’d fall on.
It follows that the NHLPA would certainly be in favour of this. The earlier they can get to their RFA year, the earlier they can hit the jackpot. It also makes it more likely that youngsters can get to the show, so there may be some infighting over the potential loss of jobs to fringe veterans.
All of this assumes that there aren’t significant changes coming to the entry-level system, something that the Hockey Prospectus article seems to accept as a given. I’m not sure. I think the current system has worked out rather well for both sides. Obviously the owners will want to delay free agency, the players will want it earlier. They’ve settled on 3 years before, and I have no reason to suspect they won’t do so again.
Recent Comments