At 20 they should be in the ahl it would do wonders for those rookies that have a hard time transitioning to the NHL level and have that ability to call them up late in a season to give them a chance to get there feet wet
Every man, woman and child on the planet could sign a petition if it makes NHL fans happy, but it will still have no bearing on whether there's a lock out or not.
20 year old players in the OHL is ridiculous. AHL makes more sense
needs to change - bobbyflex
20 year olds are in the AHL. It's UNDER 20 that can't move up from the CHL.
I like the 3 year proposal. Once they've been there for 3 years, they typically have plateaued and need to move on to keep progressing. In some cases that causes players to be rushed to the NHL so that they can continue to develop which hampers them long term (Latendresse for example)
Every man, woman and child on the planet could sign a petition if it makes NHL fans happy, but it will still have no bearing on whether there's a lock out or not.
20 year olds are in the AHL. It's UNDER 20 that can't move up from the CHL.
I like the 3 year proposal. Once they've been there for 3 years, they typically have plateaued and need to move on to keep progressing. In some cases that causes players to be rushed to the NHL so that they can continue to develop which hampers them long term (Latendresse for example) - Pea-Brain
That and being injured for 2/3's of every season...
If there is a full season lockout what happens to players with one year left on their contract? Does it expire or does it carry on to the next season? - klasic
you sure? I thought that too, but others have said the year counts on contracts... I honestly don't remember - Big_Lightnin
Well it seems if there would be a lock out for an entire season, that season would be null and void thus rendering that year of the players contracts null and void as well. I mean if they aren't getting paid, it stands to reason that year wouldn't count against their contract. On the other hand, a partial season lockout would most likely count as a year against players contracts. Just a somewhat logical guess, could be competely wrong though.
If this season is to be a total washout, maybe it's time for the league to make the draft year 19, instead of 18. Then there's no fuss about who gets to receive the top player in the draft, this year. If that doesn't work, maybe they should make the first two rounds of the draft, 18 year olds, but subsequent rounds, 19 years old. That way the draft is less of a crap shoot and players will be better developed. The AHL for 19 year olds option is a bad idea. Why? What if your a career AHL'er, and have nothing much to lose? Do you want your blue chip prospect getting KO'd by some noname goon in the minors? I think the CHL deserves to keep their players for as long as possible. They're the one's doing the development, so they should be rewarded in kind.
