OHL - Defected Players

[may know]

By sending the team's first round pick, you are effectively allowing the trading of 1st round picks. This league doesn't allow that and rightfully so.

Also, there is a reason that when dealing with situations like the defective player and trades for that player, that only picks be allowed to change hands in those deals. I'm sure the reason is that the league doesn't want to uproot players just because a certain player won't report to a certain team.

Sure, we allow the trading of players in this league, but I'd assume the league prefers to not promote the trading of players.

The bolded part.

 

[Friendly Fan]

The League Officials are to blame for this problem.

If the Team who trades for the defected player, has to lose their first round pick the next year as a supplemental pick to go to the team that lost the defective player, than all these games will stop.

The only losers in this are the teams that don't participate in the transaction as they see an extra first round pick added to the first round the next year, and some of those teams draft position may drop down 1 spot.

The team that trades for a first round defective player, should anti up a first round pick the next year to the team losing the defective player. Bottom Line.

 

[Beast Mowed]

The League Officials are to blame for this problem.

If the Team who trades for the defected player, has to lose their first round pick the next year as a supplemental pick to go to the team that lost the defective player, than all these games will stop.

The only losers in this are the teams that don't participate in the transaction as they see an extra first round pick added to the first round the next year, and some of those teams draft position may drop down 1 spot.

The team that trades for a first round defective player, should anti up a first round pick the next year to the team losing the defective player. Bottom Line.

Spot on, Hey Branch, wake up!

 

[Otto]

The League Officials are to blame for this problem.

If the Team who trades for the defected player, has to lose their first round pick the next year as a supplemental pick to go to the team that lost the defective player, than all these games will stop.

The only losers in this are the teams that don't participate in the transaction as they see an extra first round pick added to the first round the next year, and some of those teams draft position may drop down 1 spot.

The team that trades for a first round defective player, should anti up a first round pick the next year to the team losing the defective player. Bottom Line.

And then you won't see teams trading for these players
And then you won't see top players play in the OHL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GibiNy4d4gc

 

[EvenSteven]

And then you won't see teams trading for these players
And then you won't see top players play in the OHL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GibiNy4d4gc

....and this is why you'll never see 1st rounders go the other way in these deals. Branch does everything possible to get the best players possible playing in this league. Anything that keeps high end players out just won't happen.

Sure it sucks being bumped down a slot or two in the first round on draft day but at the end of the day, the better the team, the more likely you can afford to be knocked down a slot or two and the more likely you will be knocked down a slot or two. I would say the worse your finish, the least chance you have of having your pick bumped.

 

[GangGreen]

Why don't they just allow the trading of first rounders again? You want a first round defected player, give up your first next year. The Dub and Q both allow it, not sure why the O feels the need to protect the teams from themselves?

 

[knowescape]

The League Officials are to blame for this problem.

If the Team who trades for the defected player, has to lose their first round pick the next year as a supplemental pick to go to the team that lost the defective player, than all these games will stop.

The only losers in this are the teams that don't participate in the transaction as they see an extra first round pick added to the first round the next year, and some of those teams draft position may drop down 1 spot.

The team that trades for a first round defective player, should anti up a first round pick the next year to the team losing the defective player. Bottom Line.

And bottom line, the teams that are able to take advantage of this loophole either by gaining a defected player or gaining an extra first round pick are going to continue to frustrate the rest of the league.

 

[dirty12]

Just play within the rules. Take the best player available. If they show great, if not better; trade the player for 3(2nds)&3(3rds) & a comp 1st. Can't lose, both teams make out well. And, fans won't cry about London getting a Blacker in the 2nd & top 10 ranked us players in 3rd & 4th every year.

 

[dirty12]

And bottom line, the teams that are able to take advantage of this loophole either by gaining a defected player or gaining an extra first round pick are going to continue to frustrate the rest of the league.

Marty Williams may have frustrated a few GMs by drafting Riechel & Brown; but, the rest of the league should be happy those players didn't fall further and go for just one pick.
I don't think any one was frustrated that McCleod didn't fall to Miss. Flint was inconvenienced; but, they made Miss pay a reasonable price and received a windfall of picks in return. I'm pretty sure McCleod won't add up to the comp fifth pick, a comp 2nd rnd pick, plus 3(2nds) & 3 (3rds).
Bode Wilde should be sitting there @#2 Sudbury. The rule was made to compensate the teams in the league that are considered less desirable.

 

[Medway Bear]

I have no problem with a team taking the best player available and getting what ever they can in trade and an extra 1st rounder the next season. My problem is that there are now 21 1st round picks and everyone shuffling down one place. I think the team trading for the player has to include their 1st round pick in the trade and the trading team does not get the pick one place lower than where they drafted the player. Unlikely to happen as teams like to get these players on the cheap.

 

[dirty12]

I have no problem with a team taking the best player available and getting what ever they can in trade and an extra 1st rounder the next season. My problem is that there are now 21 1st round picks and everyone shuffling down one place. I think the team trading for the player has to include their 1st round pick in the trade and the trading team does not get the pick one place lower than where they drafted the player. Unlikely to happen as teams like to get these players on the cheap.

Every team shuffling down for comp picks happens in pro football & baseball too.
Giving the affected team the 21st pick is of no benefit. That team may as well take next best player that will report-defeating the purpose. Penalizing the destined team a first makes it too costly. That way you risk the player not reporting to the ohl immediately or just risk allowing (London - sorry) take the top ranked player threatening college in round two and the top ranked American committed to US development in the 3rd & 4th rounds.
The current rule can work if teams like (Sudbury-sorry) just use it.

 

[PEPSIHEAD]

Every team shuffling down for comp picks happens in pro football & baseball too.
Giving the affected team the 21st pick is of no benefit. That team may as well take next best player that will report-defeating the purpose. Penalizing the destined team a first makes it too costly. That way you risk the player not reporting to the ohl immediately or just risk allowing (London - sorry) take the top ranked player threatening college in round two and the top ranked American committed to US development in the 3rd & 4th rounds.
The current rule can work if teams like (Sudbury-sorry) just use it.

If a team loses a player due to not reporting, they should not get two back to back first round picks the following year. It is not the fault of the other 19 teams that team A didn't do their homework. If the OHL wants to give them an additional first round pick, it should come at the end of the first round, not the beginning. That is unfair to the other 19 teams. I don't understand why you punish 95% to appease 5%.

Just does not make sense to me.

 

[dirty12]

'punishing' all teams equally by moving all picks back one, including the affected team is not at all severe. The compensation pick as it stands compensates the disadvantaged as designed. It really does offer teams protection against agents/parents/players that choose to control their own destiny.
It doesn't just benefit 5%. In every case two teams got two 1st round picks in one year. The fact that teams acquiring these players had to give up several picks rather than just a very late 1st or 2nd benefits the rest of the league. Specifically, London trading for Domi rather than drafting him at 16-20 & Windsor having to trade for Riechel (20th pick was ridiculous)

 

[PEPSIHEAD]

We will have to agree to disagree I suppose.

 

[FireBird71]

If a team loses a player due to not reporting, they should not get two back to back first round picks the following year. It is not the fault of the other 19 teams that team A didn't do their homework. If the OHL wants to give them an additional first round pick, it should come at the end of the first round, not the beginning. That is unfair to the other 19 teams. I don't understand why you punish 95% to appease 5%.

Just does not make sense to me.

So the team gets dicked because someone didn't want to report? If it's a top 5 pick they get moved to the end of the round? Never gonna happen

 

[PEPSIHEAD]

So the team gets dicked because someone didn't want to report? If it's a top 5 pick they get moved to the end of the round? Never gonna happen

Yes, their supplemental pick would go to the end of the round. They would still pick where they would based on where they finished in the standings. Why should 19 other teams suffer because one team didn't do its homework?

So if you had the 20th pick (you finished first overall) and two teams had a defected player, the 20th pick now should essentially be a second round pick? How is that reasonable?

Now, if the two teams affected were both at the very bottom, they would pick 1 and 2 respectively, and 21 and 22 respectively.

You took a flier on the pick, and it didn't pan out, so everyone else should move down a spot because of someone else's ineptitude?

Tell me what the other 18 teams did wrong?

 

[twinsdad]

If a team loses a player due to not reporting, they should not get two back to back first round picks the following year. It is not the fault of the other 19 teams that team A didn't do their homework. If the OHL wants to give them an additional first round pick, it should come at the end of the first round, not the beginning. That is unfair to the other 19 teams. I don't understand why you punish 95% to appease 5%.

Just does not make sense to me.

You lost me at "...team A didn't do their homework". Is this to imply that a team should only select a player that will be sure to report when it is their turn to pick?

 

[FireBird71]

You lost me at "...team A didn't do their homework". Is this to imply that a team should only select a player that will be sure to report when it is their turn to pick?

Sounds like it to me

 

[FireBird71]

Yes, their supplemental pick would go to the end of the round. They would still pick where they would based on where they finished in the standings. Why should 19 other teams suffer because one team didn't do its homework?

So if you had the 20th pick (you finished first overall) and two teams had a defected player, the 20th pick now should essentially be a second round pick? How is that reasonable?

Now, if the two teams affected were both at the very bottom, they would pick 1 and 2 respectively, and 21 and 22 respectively.

You took a flier on the pick, and it didn't pan out, so everyone else should move down a spot because of someone else's ineptitude?

Tell me what the other 18 teams did wrong?

Fine the way it is...and it's not changing anytime soon

 

[knowescape]

You lost me at "...team A didn't do their homework". Is this to imply that a team should only select a player that will be sure to report when it is their turn to pick?

If that team is trying to jumpstart a rebuild, it sounds like they DID do their homework. Hate the game not the player

 

[knowescape]

Any predictions for 2016-17 as to which player will defect to play for a higher ranked club?