When you think back to when you were 18 years old, what were you doing? You were probably finishing high school or just starting in college or the working world. You probably had never lived on your own before and likely had never been responsible for paying your own bills, feeding yourself or keeping a budget. You probably made some pretty dumb decisions.
Now how about when you were 20? By then, you were probably used to making big choices and managing in the world as a grownup. You probably still made dumb decisions, but perhaps not as often or as egregious. And that mustache you were trying to grow since high school finally came in.
It's only a two-year difference, but physical, mental and emotional development is much farther advanced in a 20-year-old than in a teenager. Any parent who sent a high-school grad away to university can tell you the kid who left home back then is a very different person than the one who's leaving to start her third year. When it comes to evaluating the development of a young hockey player, scouts need to have a clearer vision as to how they will pan out. And that's why one of the smartest things the league could do right now is return to a 20-year-old draft.
🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒
When the NHL draft was introduced in 1963, and up until 1978, a player had to be 20 in that calendar year to qualify for selection. Then, in the late '70s along came the World Hockey Association with its aim of challenging the NHL's pro hockey monopoly in North America. It found an advantage in setting its own draft age at 18, scooping up future stars like Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier two years before the NHL could grab their rights.
With the merger of the two pro leagues in 1979, the NHL adopted the 18-year-old draft and scouting changed. Where once a scout's most valuable tool was whatever beater car he drove to junior rinks all over the country, now it's a crystal ball. Most of them will tell you it's pretty tough to tell at 18 how a player will look at 24 when he's theoretically entering his prime.
Lane Hutson is the perfect example of how a player overlooked by every team in the league in the first round of the NHL draft can beat the odds and become a big-league superstar. And Alexis Lafrenière stands as proof the kid who looks like a world beater at 18 and is merely a competent pro winger at 20. If both players were given an extra two years to develop before their draft, it's unlikely Hutson would have slipped to #62 overall in his draft, and equally unlikely Lafrenière would have gone first in his. In fact, just about every "redraft" ranking...the hindsight report in other words...has a different look a couple of years after the actual draft.
🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒
There are a couple of problems with the crap-shoot aspect of the 18-year-old draft. NHL teams invest a lot of money scouting, drafting and developing young hockey players. These kids represent the future of a franchise and are appropriately given every chance to succeed. With the uncertainly around physical development (Hutson) and translation of skill to the pros (Lafrenière), as well as emotional and mental maturity (hi there, Alex Galchenyuk), teams basically commit a large part of their resources to growing children they hope will eventually help them win. When those players don't end up fulfilling expectations, teams lose money, the player loses hope and the fans lose patience.
The other big problem with the 18-year-old draft is that not every player develops at the same pace. Sure, the Macklin Celebrinis and Matthew Shaffers of the world seem to roll into the NHL as fully-formed professionals. Others, like Hutson and even Juraj Slafkovsky, need more time to show their true potential.
Right now, David Reinbacher, drafted by Montreal fifth overall in 2023 is 21 years old and hoping to make the Canadiens' roster in the desperately-needed RD position. Unfortunately for him, he's now entering his fourth pro season and has played only two NHL games. That's enough for critics to be proposing he be included in a trade and writing him off as a bust.
As a comparison, consider Hall-of-Famer Nicklas Lidstrom. He wasn't even on most scouts' radar at 18. He was drafted in the third round (Canadiens took Lindsay Vallis, Patrice Brisebois, Pierre Sevigny and Steve Larouche ahead of Lidstrom) at 19 years of age. He didn't play his first NHL game until he was 21 and what would today be considered a bit of a late start developed into an all-time great career.
Reinbacher has had his injury troubles, definitely, but he's still on track to make the big league at the same age as Lidstrom. If he'd been drafted at 20 instead of 18, it might not feel so much as though his developmental window is narrowing. One could argue a lot of players would face less pressure and far less judgement if they were allowed to grow up before being drafted. That goes for teams as well, since managers tend to panic when the time and money they invest in their prospects risks being wasted. Panic-driven trades in order to avoid losing a prospect for nothing can end up being the source of huge regrets when it turns out a certain player is just a bit of a late bloomer.
🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒
Naturally, there are significant counter arguments to moving the draft back to 20. The players' association, for one, would be opposed to limiting its members' earning potential by two years. However, when you consider that many draftees don't sign pro deals until they're 19 or 20 anyway, that doesn't seem to be quite such a big problem.
There's also the issue of exceptional player status. When there's a Crosby, Celebrini or Shaffer available at 18, the NHL, like the QMJHL and other junior leagues, could grant them special draft status. Sometimes it's just obvious that a player is ready to make the jump, but it's rare. If the Canadiens had drafted Slafkovsky at 20 instead of 18, he might have benefitted from the extra development time and not have had to go through his first bumpy couple of years being questioned about his legitimacy as an NHLer. (On the flip side, in a 20-year-old draft, it's very, very unlikely Hutson would have fallen to 62.)
The NHLPA could facilitate a change without harming its members' incomes too much by negotiating different entry-level contract rules. Right now, a rookie between 18-21 must sign a 3-year contract with a maximum base salary of USD 950-000. Even with bonuses, those contracts can't exceed USD 1.775-million. Allowing teams to offer more money to young players right away would take some sting out of the delay in starting a pro career.
Owners like having low contracts for young players because they save money that way. However, they also waste money by signing prospects to entry-level deals at 18 when they end up never making the NHL at all, or having little impact when they do get there. Managers like those first contracts too, because they allow teams to hold the rights of a prospect while he develops for a low price. The argument there is if a player is drafted at 20, there are fewer questions about what he brings to the ice and less need for under-contract development time.
That also reflects the direction in which the league is headed financially overall. The current collective bargaining deal was structured to make young players pay their dues before they earn big money while veterans signed their "career deals" in their later years. These days, kids are making up to USD 20-million a year (!) while veterans are increasingly on one or two-year contracts for minimal money. An extra two years to really know what a team is drafting would help managers better make those important financial decisions.
Right now, about 75% of first-round picks play at least one NHL game. That number plummets to just 34% of second rounders. Imagine giving those players a little more time to develop and scouts a little more time to assess them, and those odds could conceivably go up...to the benefit of both the prospects and the teams.
In the next week or so, as teams launch their rookie camps and dust off their crystal balls to predict what teenager will be a pro hockey player at 24, it's a move worth considering.
