The Ducks more depth at D; especially puck movers

Why did that BOS vs. AVS shootout feel like both sides werent trying lul

They literally both looked like **** this **** just beat us already

He's played RD all year.

He might go back to the left side with Drysdale in the mix tho.

I still can't believe that happened last night lmaoo.

at least I'm not gonna buy a Cutter Gauthier BC Jersey anymore. Small wins for my bank account ig.

Little upset I wasted a week of my life watching the WJC to see Gauthier though lmao.

As funny as it is (it’s freaking hilarious actually) I’m still not a fan of refusing to play for the team you’re drafted by.

I feel like there should be some middle ground. Perhaps the signing bonuses are only due if it was the team making the draft pick selection that signs the ELC and it they are forfeited if the prospect refuses to sign. This might get tricky, but something along those lines. If Philly waits him out then they had a big "opportunity cost" but the player should have some penalty. It would be hard to make that determination in all cases however.

It seems to mostly only be NCAA players that do it (Fox, Vesey, Gauthier, etc). Due to the fact their reserve list rights expire after they finish Uni, they often sign right before their rights expire so some prefer to just wait a couple more months and sign with whatever team they want. I'm not sure the NHL has much recourse to stop NCAA players from doing it unless they extended how long an NHL team held NCAA player's rights

Punishing the NCAA kids for this seems incredibly knee-jerk considering the CHL kids hold more sway on their futures, but almost never exercise it. NHL teams hold the rights to an NCAA player for four years, the rights for CHL draftees are only held for two years before they're eligible to reenter the draft.

Perhaps a stipulation could be built around their draft eligibility after two or three years: make them declare whether or not they'll be reentering the draft and have that three year timer start all over again.

Eric Lindros, Bryan Berard...(Kobe Bryant, Eli Manning)...

CHL players can sign at age 18 and still play juniors, whereas NCAA players, or NCAA-bound players, are not allowed to sign a pro contract (otherwise they give up their amateur status and would be barred from NCAA). The league could also say CHL players cannot sign until they are playing professionally. CHL players could also refuse to sign. Their rights are only held for two years, until age 20.

If NHL extended rights for NCAA players until age 23-24....that would not be fair to NCAA players. If anything, it should be reduced to 3 years.

The real issue to fix is how CHL players can sign a professional contract at age 18....but are barred from playing professionally in AHL for two seasons while under contract.

So much of the league 'system' are policies that date back to when CHL players made up 75% of the league. Now they make up 40% of league and those rules are outdated.

The slide rule kind of addresses this already, does it not? It's not uncommon for an 18 year old's ELC to last 5 years because of slides, it's really just a way for teams to get cash via signing bonuses in their top prospects pockets to allow them to focus on their development more. Not really the leagues problem if the NCAA bars this from happening with their players. Can't imagine there'd be much appetite to change this from the league and the PA would absolutely push back against this. They're more likely to pressure the CHL into a more favorable player loan agreement to allow more junior age players in the AHL.

Dude's a crybaby. I think the Flyers dodged a bullet here.

That latter part is right solution. Call it the "Shane Wright rule"
If a player is drafted and signed, the NHL club should have choice to assign them to juniors, AHL, ECHL, wherever.

Also...I think NCAA should allow players who play CHL through draft year (or up until age 18) to maintain their amateur status.
Kids are making decisions on CHL at age 15-16. Too young to bar NCAA from their options.
If at age 18, or after draft, they opt to stay in CHL, they lose their amateur status.

CHL is often best development path for kids up until age 18...NCAA for kids age 19-22.

Simplify the rules.
You want to play in the NHL, you sign with the team that drafted you or enter the league as a free agent once you reach 27.
Alternatively you can opt out of the draft completely and enter as a free agent at 23.

If you want to make money, you follow the rules.
If you want freedom to choose, you get in line and wait.

The problem with this idea is that each of those organizations are making their rules in their own interests. They aren't interested in the NHL's perspective or prospect development ultimately. You are absolutely right that it would make a better pipeline for NHL success, but it's like proposing world peace. It just doesn't mean anything.
The NHL's agreement with the CHL is what prevents simply making a "Shane Wright-rule". They can't just make a new rule on their own to bypass it. I don't know how you plausibly convince the CHL to expand the exemptions. They want to protect their product, and that change greatly affects the CHL. They aren't interested in negotiating their sweetheart deal. It could kill off junior hockey as we know it.
Same with the NCAA. They won't want to open a new can of worms with amateur status unless it ultimately benefits them-- that one is potentially easier to solve, but still messy.

Was about to make a post but you said I what I would've said so I'll just concur. The CHL still has a lot of value in the 19-20 year olds that are signed. Only way you'll see CHL guys in the AHL if they were given an exemption like Wright was.

It's absolutely the right call development wise for many of these guys to be in the AHL, but the CHL holds the cards. Ultimately, they are more interested in their bottom line than they are in prospect development or where those kids are in five years. Not that they don't care about those things, but they care more about the health of their own system.

Tortorella and Hayes are getting blamed for Gauthier's decision... Good lord people.

https://x.com/FAN590/status/1744786021596680486?s=20

Friedman seems to think Gauthier got butthurt Flyers didn't sign him after his freshman year.

And now Hayes is getting death threats from Flyers fans. Did Anthony SanFilippo start this? He's a f'in clown.

https://twitter.com/CrossingBroad/status/1744547990994325572?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Seems he did in fact want to be pro this season.
If we assume he wanted to sign after last season and burn his first year, that would track.
Philly was also pretty busy and you have a new GM trying to put out fires and line up the right moves, which takes time.
Helping a prospect tick a year off their ELC is not in the best interest of the team and shouldn't be expected (though they normally do it with their top prospects anyway).
Definitely comes off as "butthurt".

Maybe Philly could have avoided this issue if they had signed him quicker, but if this is the reaction every time he doesn't get his way, better to cut bait now than continue a toxic relationship.

yes he did start it from what I've read.

F'ed up thing to report even if it were true (which I don't think it is.) It's unnessecary and unfair to Hayes.

Feel really bad for the guy.

yea such a childish reason.

anyway I'm now starting my "Jamie Drysdale is the Next Bobby Orr" campaign

They do...but as do NHL teams that draft them. How well a CHL develops its 19-20 year olds can have a big impact on a players draft stock and future success.







All the organizations have their own interests, which they have a duty to protect. But much of this is about CHL old-boys-club hanging onto the past.

The CHL agreement runs until 2029, so NHL would have to give something up in order to keep control of their players. In practice, even if amended, most junior-eligible players would return to their leagues. But they could find middle ground, where maybe a couple of players per team could be eligible for AHL in their D+2 season (the "Shane Wright exemption").

The NCAA issue is tricky.

From the NCAA side, it is a governing body overseeing all athletes (and dominated by football)...they aren't changing their rules. They view of CHL as 'professional league' when it is not much different that USHL, which maintains eligibility. The biggest difference being a couple hundred bucks in stipend money. The CHL doesn't want to lose their players to NCAA, so they continue to have them sign 'professional contracts' when they could just as easily have them sign an 'amateur contract'. The CHL teams recruit with the mantra that kids can get the best of both worlds (play CHL and get money towards education). But there have been many changes.

First, the percentage of players that actually get money for education is far less than what they advertise. Many get funds to take online classes. Some studies have shown that less than half the players promises funds actually receive them (and the actual dollar amount is around one-quarter of whats promised). And they have shortened the time period to access these funds (so you may be promised four years of tuition covered, you cannot access funds after two years).

Second, the delta between what CHL promises towards education and the value of a full ride scholarship gets wider every year. In best-case scenario in CHL, you would get the amount pegged to the cheapest local university, even if you do not attend that school. So that is maybe $8k. In US, tuition is often 5x-10x more expensive.

Third, is that USHL and other amateur leagues that feed into NCAA have caught up to CHL in terms of development (and according to some, the USHL has surpassed the CHL). In the past, a player would have a better path to becoming a pro by playing in CHL. Now, that is no longer the case.

Fourth, NCAA players graduate nearly 90% of their players. Only about one-quarter of CHL players receive a degree. If we are talking strictly NHL development, maybe that shouldn't matter a whole lot. And decades ago, maybe it didn't. But most kids these days will want a degree. And if CHL keeps losing top talent to USHL and Junior A (just look at top-5 in recent drafts), it will dilute its on-ice product.

Fifth, the NCAA wants the best players (ahem, "student-athletes") too. If CHL players were allowed to maintain amateur status until they turn 18 (or their draft year), they would get a whole bunch of good players instantly. (The players would have to want their amateur status and go through the NCAA's eligibility process).

Sixth, the biggest arguments from Junior A and USHL for recruiting players over CHL is that they are amateur leagues. (NTDP is separate beast, but that is for American players only). If CHL views USHL's rise as a threat, by opening up their leagues to having 'amateur contracts', they could neutralize the threat. Instead of losing players to NCAA, they would be keeping or gaining many younger top players. If anything, it would just make them slightly younger leagues.

Okay, off the soapbox.

Carry on...

Most sane Philadelphians:

I don’t necessarily disagree but is this that different from what Adam Fox did? Or even Eric Lindros?

Lindros told the Nordiques prior to selecting him that he wouldn't play for them. Gauthier said he was "made to be a Flyer" (according to Briere). Slightly different in that regard, but more or less the same. I get it's tough for Flyers fans, but the hate sent Cutter's way is unreal