ScoresFromCentre
Registered User
- Jan 29, 2016
- 553
- 185
In the OHL Trades topic, a discussion evolved recently on the topic of teams trading away draft picks well in the future in order to supplement their present squads. Each year we see people remarking on how "ridiculous" this trend is, but h10 made the point that these massive arms races lead to a very dull second half of the season and first round or two of the playoffs, in which a given year's handful of superteams decimate the also-rans that just finished trading with them. He then suggested the league look into restricting player movement in order to combat this. (See his original post here.)
This particular phenomenon has always sat a bit uncomfortably with me, so I typed up an overview of why I think the league might want to look into restricting player movement. I'll quote my post (almost) in full for anyone who hasn't seen it:
These could easily be two separate topics, but as they both relate to the issue of restricting player movement, I think we can tackle them both here. There are two big questions I want to ask:
1. Does the current model of rebuilding and reloading work for you as a fan?
2. If not, what can the OHL do about it?
I should stress that I'm not necessarily convinced the current model doesn't work, but that it does make me quite uneasy, particularly the player welfare component. Judging from the replies in the Trades topic, a lot of others share these concerns.
cfaub made a fantastic post that hit on a lot of areas in which he thought the league could realize immediate improvement--I hope he doesn't mind if I quote him in full:
There are a lot of ideas here I agree with: moving the draft to after the Memorial Cup, for example, would remove an unnecessary distraction from the league championship and do away with the somewhat awkward reality in which some teams are still active during the draft while others aren't. (This is quite uncommon in professional sports leagues, as far as I can see.) I also like the idea of increasing the OA eligibility requirements from one year in the league (the "Mike Van Ryn Rule") to two, though I'm not sure how many players this would necessarily affect. (Dakota Mermis would be one.)
The import draft changes are intriguing, but I'm not sure how teams would populate themselves with imports in that case--would it be made legal for teams to sign import free agents? (Or is that currently allowed?) cfaub, I think we'd all appreciate it if you explored a number of these proposals in more detail if you have the time. I for one don't know what the stipend is for OHLers or how many gold packages each team has available.
The last thing I wanted to do in this post was respond to some of OMG67's rather stinging criticisms of the topic:
With all due respect, I don't think this is an effective rebuttal to any of my earlier points. The fact that some players have used NTCs to block trades doesn't absolve the fact that many players have waived NTCs to accept trades. As I said previously, I believe GMs often pressure these young people into waiving these clauses. It's certainly not difficult to imagine how those discussions might play out, and I remember Steve Spott in Kitchener complaining to the press about a specific player (Ben Thomson) failing to waive a no-trade clause. Certainly we've seen posters on here express frustration with said players, for what that's worth.
You mention the cyclical model of the OHL as proof that the current model of trading draft picks works, but no one is disputing this mode's existence; we're disputing its efficacy. Does this cyclical model maximize fan engagement, the welfare of these young people, and their success as hockey players? You're right to raise Oshawa as an example of a team that seems to be working the cyclical model well, but even they just finished unloading their top assets in a year in which they're leading their conference and a team in the opposite conference is hosting the Memorial Cup. Sure, Windsor is far from a sure thing to get out of the west, and Oshawa isn't success-starved the way, say, Peterborough might be, and can afford to mortgage a decent shot this year for a better shot next year. But, again, is this an outcome we want? Do we want a conference's top teams to be throwing in the towel halfway through a surprisingly successful season? Maybe Oshawa fans can weigh on this.
You claim that "kids" sign up for the CHL route knowing it has its drawbacks. This is a very weak argument. First, these young people are making these decisions at fifteen or sixteen. If you don't think young people have "delusions" at that age, well... we'll have to agree to disagree, I suppose. More important, just because the OHL/CHL are reasonably functional systems doesn't mean they can't be improved. You go on to cite some of the disadvantages of going the NCAA or CIS routes--shouldn't those be evidence why the OHL/CHL should endeavour to improve the experience for their players? They could potentially attract more talent and provide a better future for literally hundreds of young people. Your argument here amounts to "the other options are worse; why improve?", which I feel is extremely shortsighted.
As for your final paragraph: it's simply unfair. No one in the other topic was "whining" about anything. I found the discussion thoughtful and engaging, between people who really know this league (and a whole lot better than I do). I don't even think anyone was being particularly critical of the league or its teams, as you suggest. I think most people realize that the league operates the way it does for a reason, and is generally successful. But that doesn't mean it can't improve, and it's hardly hubris for some of a league's most ardent, knowledgeable fans and paying customers to attempt to make a few constructive suggestions as to how it could be better run. The list of further grievances you cite, as evidence that these purported "whiners" don't really care about player welfare, are all potential causes for concern as well, in my book, but as you quite rightly point out, the league in order to exist has to draw the line somewhere. All I'm looking to do with this topic is explore where that line is drawn.
With that long digression aside, I'd love to hear people's further thoughts on this (if any still remain), but with the caveat that this topic not turn into a referendum on whether the London Knights are good for the OHL. (Though of course we can't not talk about London--thanks, Dale and Mark!)
This particular phenomenon has always sat a bit uncomfortably with me, so I typed up an overview of why I think the league might want to look into restricting player movement. I'll quote my post (almost) in full for anyone who hasn't seen it:
The way I see it, there are two particularly compelling reasons to explore some kinds of player movement restrictions, and h10 has suggested both of them:
1. Player welfare. These are young people who are in most cases pursuing an education. Their hockey schedules already place considerable demands on their time and energy. Asking young people, and in some cases legal minors, to uproot themselves mid-school-year and relocate hours away, occasionally to a town that lacks a university and/or college, could be considered unfair or even unethical. Providing all high school-age players NTCs helps alleviate this somewhat, but I suspect (though many others here would know much better than I do) that teams pressure some of these young people quite hard in their attempts to convince them to waive their NTCs in order to accommodate trades.
The league could look at a number of ways to address this: perhaps restricting trades to players under eighteen to the off-season, or even restricting trades of undrafted players to the offseason, under the theory that getting an education should be a higher priority for undrafted players. I don't necessarily agree with this, but it's an idea, and perhaps others could expand on it. Another possibility is reducing the number of cards per team, though I imagine that would have the side-effect of teams playing reduced rosters at various points during the season to avoid using cards, exposing players to greater risk of injury or fatigue, and may hurt more marginal players' chances of playing in the league (again, someone with more knowledge than me ought to weigh in on this).
But I think most people would agree that h10's strongest point, and the one he said aresknights missed, is this:
2. Sustained success. As currently constituted, the trade deadline frenzy is more entertaining than the first round of the OHL playoffs, when each year's designated super-teams wipe out that year's middle-of-the-pack teams with all of the players they sent them three months prior. More people come to this forum to read the trade deadline scuttlebutt than to discuss first-round playoff matchups; the trade deadline arguably gets more media coverage than the OHL playoffs do from non-league-specific sources. I saw more than a few posters comment that they "couldn't wait until the trade deadline was all over" and speculate that many players would feel the same way.
Is this really what we want? There have been five upsets in five years in the first round of the OHL playoffs, out of 40 matchups. That's 12.5%. Put another way, there's an 87.5% chance that the top seed in a series in the first round of the playoffs will win that series. That's crazy. Over the same period, the NHL has had 19 first-round upsets, meaning the top seed in a first-round matchup has won just 52.5% of the time! And later matchups aren't much better: a team that finished lower than second OVERALL in the OHL hasn't won the league since 2002. In years where one super-team steamrolls another, the playoffs can be a real dud.
As I said above, I think this is primarily a reflection of the trade deadline buildup of "super-teams", where we see anywhere from two to five teams "go all in" and trade away massive amounts of future assets for a shot at a title. If a non-contending team fails to move its major assets, or moves them for less than what fans feel they're worth, the team gets pilloried by fans for not knowing how cycles of contention work in the OHL, and rightly so: those fans know their team has no shot at winning the league, and fear that their teams haven't done enough to ensure their own contention window opens up soon. But things are even worse for the one to four teams that go all-in and lose. Teams like SSM, Erie, and Oshawa have had success this year despite going "all in" just two years ago. This is impressive and, in my opinion, remarkable. But Erie in particular (and also Windsor) is staring at a lean few years without many high-end picks (eight years without 2nds for Erie, ten years without 2nds for Windsor). Yes, these teams can and will restock their cupboards, but fans know this will take at least a couple years, and potentially much longer. And at best they had a single shot at the playoffs to show for it.
Personally, I don't think the league is particularly well served by this model, whereby only a handful of teams have a chance at winning the league each year and every team rebuilds for a couple years afterward. Yes, this model is "fair" in the strictest sense. But it's not really all that much fun, and I think this is reflected in the way the fanbases feel about their teams right now. I'm a Rangers fan, and despite the fact that the Rangers have had decent teams in the past half decade (the Rangers are sixth in average finishing position since 2011, have made the second round of the playoffs three times, the third round once, and were ranked in the CHL's top ten for most of last year), very few fans are happy. And if you look around the league, you can make arguments why almost no fanbase should be happy.
These could easily be two separate topics, but as they both relate to the issue of restricting player movement, I think we can tackle them both here. There are two big questions I want to ask:
1. Does the current model of rebuilding and reloading work for you as a fan?
2. If not, what can the OHL do about it?
I should stress that I'm not necessarily convinced the current model doesn't work, but that it does make me quite uneasy, particularly the player welfare component. Judging from the replies in the Trades topic, a lot of others share these concerns.
cfaub made a fantastic post that hit on a lot of areas in which he thought the league could realize immediate improvement--I hope he doesn't mind if I quote him in full:
There are a number of ways to improve this league, OHL/CHL and I think the first thing is to put all 3 leagues under the same set of rules for everything from drafting age, trade rules, length of schedule etc.
Next would be their respective drafts.
With the OHL doing a supplemental draft this year for midget major aged kids I would like to see the main draft reduced to 10 rounds. This would increase the value of draft picks, forcing teams to improve their scouting and focus more on kids that will likely show up. Also having a 2 round supplemental draft for 17 year olds and older the main draft should become a 16 year old draft only.
The Import draft should be reduced to a single round, allow goaltenders again.
Draft picks from the main draft, including 1rsts and the import draft would be tradeable, the picks from the supplemental draft would not be tradeable.
Trading non reporting 1rst round players must include the acquiring teams own 1rst round pick the following year thus eliminating the need for compensatory picks from the league. This should also help level the playing field for where kids will report if they are declared non reporting as it limits their destinations on what teams are available to trade for them based on who has their own 1rst rounders available. Only non reporting 1rst rounders can be traded prior to the start of the season and the trades can be expanded to include other players/picks.
Rights to any other non reporting players cannot be traded until after the first season.
All first year players that have reported should be available for trade at the same time as first round players currently are. Give them equal treatment and opportunity for increased playing time as well as for teams acquiring younger players more chances to increase their youth if they are rebuilding.
Move the draft back until 2 weeks after the Memorial Cup, open up trades again 1 week prior to the draft and allow players to be traded including during the draft.
Place a 3 or 4 year limit on how far out draft picks can be traded. It is getting ridiculous when you see draft picks moved that are 10 years out. This will start forcing teams to make more hockey trades that benefit both teams.
Allow teams to carry 3 import players even though you are reducing the import draft to a single round.
Change the OA eligibility requirements from one year in the league to two years in the CHL to be eligible as an OA.
Increase the stipend given to players based on number of years played in the league.
Improve the standard education package and if possible allow for the ability for players to negotiate a better education package.
Eliminate the restrictions on the number of "gold" level education packages.
There are a lot of ideas here I agree with: moving the draft to after the Memorial Cup, for example, would remove an unnecessary distraction from the league championship and do away with the somewhat awkward reality in which some teams are still active during the draft while others aren't. (This is quite uncommon in professional sports leagues, as far as I can see.) I also like the idea of increasing the OA eligibility requirements from one year in the league (the "Mike Van Ryn Rule") to two, though I'm not sure how many players this would necessarily affect. (Dakota Mermis would be one.)
The import draft changes are intriguing, but I'm not sure how teams would populate themselves with imports in that case--would it be made legal for teams to sign import free agents? (Or is that currently allowed?) cfaub, I think we'd all appreciate it if you explored a number of these proposals in more detail if you have the time. I for one don't know what the stipend is for OHLers or how many gold packages each team has available.
The last thing I wanted to do in this post was respond to some of OMG67's rather stinging criticisms of the topic:
Personally, I don't think it is an interesting discussion at all. The league already has rules in place to safeguard against most of what was pointed out.
There are automatic NTC's in contracts for high school players. Many of these players have invoked that clause over the last couple years.
Teams that trade draft picks well into the future participate in the new "cycle model" where the following year after going all in they then trade off other assets the following year to replenish their draft picks. We have seen Oshawa do this most recently. Their draft pick cupboard was bare after their run to the Memorial Cup a couple years ago and after two seasons of selling players at the deadline (while still being competitive), they now have more draft picks than three quarters of the league.
I think way too much has been made of this topic. The kids that decide to go the CHL route sign up for the way the CHL is run. There are no delusions. If the kids want to be more stable then play JrA and then graduate to NCAA or pony up their own cash and play CIS and not play high level competitive hockey.
I'm so tired of people whining about this topic and stating something NEEDS to be done about it. Nothing NEEDS to be done about it. Why is it that a handful of hockey fans feel it is their RIGHT to criticize how franchises choose to run their teams and do it by dangling "what's best for the players" as their means to making their point? IT is hogwash. If we really cared about the players the WHL wouldn't exist with their 10-14 game road trips, the leagues would play two games per week on weekends, there would be no out of conference games, no teams would exist unless there was a full service University in that town etc.... This topic is so garbage.
With all due respect, I don't think this is an effective rebuttal to any of my earlier points. The fact that some players have used NTCs to block trades doesn't absolve the fact that many players have waived NTCs to accept trades. As I said previously, I believe GMs often pressure these young people into waiving these clauses. It's certainly not difficult to imagine how those discussions might play out, and I remember Steve Spott in Kitchener complaining to the press about a specific player (Ben Thomson) failing to waive a no-trade clause. Certainly we've seen posters on here express frustration with said players, for what that's worth.
You mention the cyclical model of the OHL as proof that the current model of trading draft picks works, but no one is disputing this mode's existence; we're disputing its efficacy. Does this cyclical model maximize fan engagement, the welfare of these young people, and their success as hockey players? You're right to raise Oshawa as an example of a team that seems to be working the cyclical model well, but even they just finished unloading their top assets in a year in which they're leading their conference and a team in the opposite conference is hosting the Memorial Cup. Sure, Windsor is far from a sure thing to get out of the west, and Oshawa isn't success-starved the way, say, Peterborough might be, and can afford to mortgage a decent shot this year for a better shot next year. But, again, is this an outcome we want? Do we want a conference's top teams to be throwing in the towel halfway through a surprisingly successful season? Maybe Oshawa fans can weigh on this.
You claim that "kids" sign up for the CHL route knowing it has its drawbacks. This is a very weak argument. First, these young people are making these decisions at fifteen or sixteen. If you don't think young people have "delusions" at that age, well... we'll have to agree to disagree, I suppose. More important, just because the OHL/CHL are reasonably functional systems doesn't mean they can't be improved. You go on to cite some of the disadvantages of going the NCAA or CIS routes--shouldn't those be evidence why the OHL/CHL should endeavour to improve the experience for their players? They could potentially attract more talent and provide a better future for literally hundreds of young people. Your argument here amounts to "the other options are worse; why improve?", which I feel is extremely shortsighted.
As for your final paragraph: it's simply unfair. No one in the other topic was "whining" about anything. I found the discussion thoughtful and engaging, between people who really know this league (and a whole lot better than I do). I don't even think anyone was being particularly critical of the league or its teams, as you suggest. I think most people realize that the league operates the way it does for a reason, and is generally successful. But that doesn't mean it can't improve, and it's hardly hubris for some of a league's most ardent, knowledgeable fans and paying customers to attempt to make a few constructive suggestions as to how it could be better run. The list of further grievances you cite, as evidence that these purported "whiners" don't really care about player welfare, are all potential causes for concern as well, in my book, but as you quite rightly point out, the league in order to exist has to draw the line somewhere. All I'm looking to do with this topic is explore where that line is drawn.
With that long digression aside, I'd love to hear people's further thoughts on this (if any still remain), but with the caveat that this topic not turn into a referendum on whether the London Knights are good for the OHL. (Though of course we can't not talk about London--thanks, Dale and Mark!)