The OHL Should Crack Down on Two-Part Trades
- Thread starter ScoresFromCentre
- Start date
Ward Cornell
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2007
- 6,389
- 2,598
I'm of the mind that these trades aren't really a problem but the idea of trades in general is an issue when fighting the NCAA for players!
Great, well written article.
I may come off as a bitter Otters fan, but I have no bitterness about the Memorial Cup. It's simply my honest opinion that I agree with you here completely, these trades need to end. It allows teams that have been managed poorly to load up and dodge the rules.
I also think the timeline within which draft picks can be traded should be capped. As in, I don't think you should be able to trade picks further than 5 or 6 years out. So this season, teams can't trade picks further away than the 2023 or 2024 draft.
I wouldn't mind seeing a rule in place that blocks trading of 16 year olds completely, so drafted players will complete stability for their entire first season. It may help with recruiting kids. In exchange the OHL could open up trading future 1st round picks. The WHL and QMJHL both do it. I would like to see import picks move-able again as well. Making the players themselves untradeable for a year was probably a smart move but picking the picks untradeable really just hurts the teams that struggle with recruiting more.
I may come off as a bitter Otters fan, but I have no bitterness about the Memorial Cup. It's simply my honest opinion that I agree with you here completely, these trades need to end. It allows teams that have been managed poorly to load up and dodge the rules.
I also think the timeline within which draft picks can be traded should be capped. As in, I don't think you should be able to trade picks further than 5 or 6 years out. So this season, teams can't trade picks further away than the 2023 or 2024 draft.
I wouldn't mind seeing a rule in place that blocks trading of 16 year olds completely, so drafted players will complete stability for their entire first season. It may help with recruiting kids. In exchange the OHL could open up trading future 1st round picks. The WHL and QMJHL both do it. I would like to see import picks move-able again as well. Making the players themselves untradeable for a year was probably a smart move but picking the picks untradeable really just hurts the teams that struggle with recruiting more.
Generalsupdates
@GeneralsUpdates on Twitter
- Sep 4, 2017
- 7,301
- 4,369
There isn't a rule stopping this and I see no reason why it should stop now. I need some compelling reasons why it should stop and I haven't seen it yet. EON how did you come to the conclusion about it opening up ways for poorly run organizations to make trades? In the past well run organizations like London/Erie/Oshawa have done it. There is no written rule about prohibiting such avenues of trading.
Thanks, EON. Great points all around. I think if the league were to allow the trading of first-round picks, we'd see a lot less trading of picks years down the line anyway. That kind of thing almost never happens in the Q and the W, for the simple reason that first-round picks are worth so much more than seconds. The league's argument is that struggling franchises need those first-rounders to sell hope, but is Sudbury, say, better for having Owen Lalonde demand a trade after a year instead? I don't think so.
Did you read the article? I thought I laid out the case fairly well. You're right that there's no rule on the books at the moment, but there's no meaningful distinction between Kitchener sending its own picks in 2024 and 2025 for Stanley than Windsor's picks in 2024 and 2025, which would violate that rule. Why not enforce the Kadri Rule in spirit, not just in word?
ohloutsider
Registered User
Good article - I'm a Windsor fan so my view is likely a little slanted that way -see no issues with these trades - 2 teams agreeing on a deal - no issue with that.
I would say though your article does seem to lean toward Windsor as the "bad" team in this deal - takes 2 to tango and there is a trend here - Kitchener was involved with both deals. Having said that good on them to make deals that improve your team - other teams can and should as well, no harm in trying to improve your team. It is up to other teams to be creative as well.
I would say though your article does seem to lean toward Windsor as the "bad" team in this deal - takes 2 to tango and there is a trend here - Kitchener was involved with both deals. Having said that good on them to make deals that improve your team - other teams can and should as well, no harm in trying to improve your team. It is up to other teams to be creative as well.
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,708
- 6,892
Personally, I think it is all hogwash. They are two separate deals that are made at two separate points in time. Each team is making a "buyer" move. Windsor dealt for Bracco and Kitchener dealt for Stanley. Why does it really matter?
Junior players age out of the league, not perform out of the league. Therefore, teams run in tight cycles. As such, teams are always peaking and bottoming at different intervals. It makes perfect sense that a team going all in this year is selling the following year and vice versa.
Kitchener was a seller last year and they sold Bracco. Windsor is a clear seller this year so they sold Stanley. Is it an issue that no other teams had a crack at getting Stanley? I don't think so. Either way, Logan Stanley was getting traded so who cares?
Now, if Team A were to trade Team B FIVE IMPACT PLAYERS for ten draft picks and then the following year they traded FIVEE IMPACT PLAYERS back for 10 draft picks and the two teams were owned by brothers (Laval and Granby) then I'd look at it a little differently. But, one player moving between the two teams shouldn't be an issue.
Crease Master
Registered User
- Dec 17, 2016
- 700
- 417
Yes, you do come off as bitter. I think it's the part where you suggest Windsor is poorly managed and loaded up against the rules. You lost fair and square buddy. I don't think an organization with 3 memorial cups in the last 10 years is poorly managed. How many does the excellently managed Erie have again?
All fair points. I tried to make clear towards the end of the article that I wasn't trying to criticize the teams. (That said, I've been pretty hard on Kitchener at times in the Kitchener topic here.) Team management absolutely should do the most they can to bend the rules in their favour. If it's a problem (and I get the feeling that if these trades became more commonplace again, it might be), then it's the league who has to fix it.
Do you really think Windsor couldn't have gotten a better deal from another team for Stanley? The first pick they got was in 2020. The Bracco deal was a little more defensible as you could argue that the Rangers got squeezed at the deadline, but the fact that these two teams with skilled management teams made parallel bad deals with each other in line with their contention windows is pretty solid proof that this was one trade with two parts.
I get that it's just one trade and one impact player going each way, but as I said in the article, the player in question may have won Windsor a Cup. Again, good on Windsor for finding a way to make the economics work for them, but is this really good for the league?
I don't want to get off topic, but Windsor was sanctioned for recruiting violations shortly after their 2009 and 2010 Memorial Cup wins. I want those victories to be as "fair and square" as anybody else, but, sadly, I don't think we can give the team the benefit of the doubt.
bobber
Registered User
I don't really think any of this has to do with the Kadri Rule. First Bracco who was an extremely valuable asset to Kitchener and would have been gone at the seasons end. Rangers who were going no where placed him on the market as they should have. He had a NTC and would only go to Windsor which guaranteed him a spot in the Mem Cup. This put the Rangers in a bind as far as getting a decent return because Windsor really had nothing but scraps to offer. Once you place a player on the market you basically have to deal him or have a disgruntled player. If the Rangers and Spits broke a rule the league would have dealt with it. It had to be approved. To say they did is rubbish.On a side note: If the league allowed trading first picks would it just be the following season's first or would that question involve a teams next two ot three firsts? If it was the latter it would get them into the same situation as trading seconds into the future would it not?
I think it allows teams that have mismanaged their draft pick situation to load up and essentially circumvent the Kadri rule. I'd feel the same way if Erie did it, but they decided to pay the price and give up McShane. Although Windsor probably would have done something similar if not for the lack of a 2016 1st rounder.
I also think enforcing this rule (and limiting how far off 2nd rounders can be traded) would possibly help limit this trend towards superteams we're seeing ever since London in 2005. I'm not sure it's healthy for the league.
Agreed. If the QMJHL and WHL can do it, why doesn't the OHL? I wish this three leagues were governed under the same set of rules across the board.
AttackSound
Junior Hockey Fan Since Birth
I think a two party deal is something that can go either way IMO if the deal involves something like draft picks is one thing that I can see being used in a deal then it would make sense but I'd think it would be a long time before you see the League grant trading 1st round picks away like their 2nds.
The only way I can see the league saying that GM's can trade 1st round picks away is if you're trading up in a certain draft year to get a higher selection for example if you had the 20th pick and traded it for say the 15th or 16th in the same year is something that I can see happening in the future but the league would have to put a lot of restrictions into something like that like how many times you can trade up or down in a single draft year with 1st round picks and how many years ahead you can trade
Until the league works out the bugs in that idea I can't see the league adding any sort of 1st round draft pick trade rule
If it was a player that was unhappy in one system tho that's a different story entirely if you have a player that requests a trade and is given the option to choose 2-3 clubs to play for and the player wants to be moved to a specific market then I can see two party deals working in some capacity but once again there's a whole debate about how many teams would actually go for something like that and what the return would be.
If the players where selected in the same round no matter what draft year then I could see something like that playing a factor in working but once again how far would the league allow them to go before the league allowed teams to trade 1-2 year olds in the way of draft picks in 1st round currency
The only way I can see the league saying that GM's can trade 1st round picks away is if you're trading up in a certain draft year to get a higher selection for example if you had the 20th pick and traded it for say the 15th or 16th in the same year is something that I can see happening in the future but the league would have to put a lot of restrictions into something like that like how many times you can trade up or down in a single draft year with 1st round picks and how many years ahead you can trade
Until the league works out the bugs in that idea I can't see the league adding any sort of 1st round draft pick trade rule
If it was a player that was unhappy in one system tho that's a different story entirely if you have a player that requests a trade and is given the option to choose 2-3 clubs to play for and the player wants to be moved to a specific market then I can see two party deals working in some capacity but once again there's a whole debate about how many teams would actually go for something like that and what the return would be.
If the players where selected in the same round no matter what draft year then I could see something like that playing a factor in working but once again how far would the league allow them to go before the league allowed teams to trade 1-2 year olds in the way of draft picks in 1st round currency
Last edited:
I've seen multiple 1sts dealt away in one deadline deal in both the Q &W leagues.
Struggling teams that have difficulty attracting the top players have the defective player rule to abuse. It's beneficial.
Lalonde opting out definitely set the wolves back. I don't see how that supports your argument though, in any way. He reported happily. He became disgruntled later.
Still, the original question was should 2 part deals be allowed. No, it is completely unfair. Under no circumstance should Stanley who was part of a memorial cup be compensation for Bracco a season later
Last edited by a moderator:
Spits
Actually it's 3 in the last 9 years.
Erie couldn't get it down with a generational player Macdavid, while Windsor won it twice with a generational player Taylor Hall.
Actually it's 3 in the last 9 years.
Erie couldn't get it down with a generational player Macdavid, while Windsor won it twice with a generational player Taylor Hall.
RoyalCitySlicker
Registered User
- Sep 6, 2013
- 2,123
- 848
The last thing this league needs is more trading restrictions.
Fans love player movement...it keeps things interesting and exciting.
No team is at a disadvantage under the current rules as enforced so I see no reason to change. Any team has the ability to do this, and should do so when it's beneficial.
As for the trading of far off picks....who really cares? It will all even out in the long run - teams trading away picks in 2025 now in order to make a run will just recoup those picks in a year or two whenever some other team is loading up. The only thing it makes is a crazy draft order (after Rd 1 of course) as some of those picks will have been traded multiple times over multiple years.
The league has tons of other issues to worry about before worrying about this, IMO.
I think that for this rule to be changed, something would have to happen to lead to it being changed - fan opinion is not one of those things.
Fans love player movement...it keeps things interesting and exciting.
No team is at a disadvantage under the current rules as enforced so I see no reason to change. Any team has the ability to do this, and should do so when it's beneficial.
As for the trading of far off picks....who really cares? It will all even out in the long run - teams trading away picks in 2025 now in order to make a run will just recoup those picks in a year or two whenever some other team is loading up. The only thing it makes is a crazy draft order (after Rd 1 of course) as some of those picks will have been traded multiple times over multiple years.
The league has tons of other issues to worry about before worrying about this, IMO.
I think that for this rule to be changed, something would have to happen to lead to it being changed - fan opinion is not one of those things.
bobber
Registered User
Again the league saw the Stanley/Bracco thing as legit. Its only unfair because the Wolves never made the deal? Bracco has far more talent than Stanley as a player. Rangers never really came out on top in this situation unless you think Stanley is the second coming of Bobby Orr
My point was more that restricting the trading of first-round picks doesn't really "protect teams from themselves" as the league likes to suggest. But I agree that the defected player rule complicates matters. (I actually have an article on it planned.) As for the Q and the W, my point was that they just don't trade picks far in advance. No 2020 pick changed hands last season in the Q, while teams in the O were dealing 2027 picks. That's a massive disparity.
Again the league saw the Stanley/Bracco thing as legit. Its only unfair because the Wolves never made the deal? Bracco has far more talent than Stanley as a player. Rangers never really came out on top in this situation unless you think Stanley is the second coming of Bobby Orr
Like you said, the Rangers did not get fair value last season; so, the Spits made up for it. 2 part deal that Winndsor benefitted from in a shady way. Or maybe, Windsor felt bad that the Kitchener got squeezed by Bracco, so they eased their conscience by shipping Stanley for less than he was worth (to the wolves?).
What does that trade or this thread have to do with the wolves?
Last edited:
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,708
- 6,892
I guess I simply don't understand the point of this topic.
Bracco was traded for a package of picks that suited his perceived value. Stanley was traded for a package of picks that matched his perceived value. Regardless of whether they discussed this at the last deadline is meaningless to me.
A two part deal is a deal where a player is transfered to the opposing team post season and no other compensation is given in return. This did not happen here.
What is the OHL supposed to do? Only allow a team to participate in a seller-buyer deal between the same two teams once every three seasons? That is the only solution to stop it. From where I sit, this was two separate deals with compensation packages that were fair returns under today's structure of buyer-seller trades, especially when you take into consideration the time of year.
Bracco was traded for a package of picks that suited his perceived value. Stanley was traded for a package of picks that matched his perceived value. Regardless of whether they discussed this at the last deadline is meaningless to me.
A two part deal is a deal where a player is transfered to the opposing team post season and no other compensation is given in return. This did not happen here.
What is the OHL supposed to do? Only allow a team to participate in a seller-buyer deal between the same two teams once every three seasons? That is the only solution to stop it. From where I sit, this was two separate deals with compensation packages that were fair returns under today's structure of buyer-seller trades, especially when you take into consideration the time of year.
Very good post, I read the article and there weren't any real solutions to this problem. Do you sanction teams that participate in said deal when there isn't even any evidence of a two part deal. These GM's are grown men doing this for a living they aren't children.
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,708
- 6,892
Let's hypothetically assume that this Is a two part deal.
Even under those circumstances, I still have no issue with it because the teams had to make two exchanges of fair value to make it happen.
To me, if I had to wager my house I would agree this was discussed and agreed on at the last deadline but I don't care. I see zero issue.
Stanley was rumoured to be going to the Rangers for months. The Rangers sent picks in 2024 and 2025 to the Spitfires, even though the Spitfires desperately need picks immediately (historically desperately--I don't believe any team's cupboard has ever been this barren before). Those picks fall in the same drafts as the picks the Spitfires gave up. Virtually everyone in the OHL community agreed that the price for Bracco was light--just look what Stephens and Cirelli went for. And, for what it's worth, virtually everyone in the community seems to agree it was a two-part trade. With all due respect, I just don't think it's reasonable to conclude that this wasn't a two-part deal. You seem to be presupposing a fair value exchange because the teams made the deals, but the whole idea behind a two-part trade is that the individual deals aren't fair, but the two together are.
In the article, I suggested the league could retain veto rights if teams engage in mirror-image lopsided deals over a short timeframe, or there are elements of the deal that don't track with typical trade behaviour. (Trading picks eight years out when you have plenty of earlier ones to deal is a big red flag.) Enough trading goes on in the OHL that player values are generally established. No sanctions necessary--just a polite invitation for the teams to rework the deal. I admit it's not a perfect solution, but there are lots of smart people at the league office. If they wanted to rein this kind of stuff in, they could.
A few people suggested that the league doesn't need more rules, and I'm sympathetic to that sentiment, but to me, the damage caused by having yet another new rule is pretty negligible. If you think think the league is hurt by two-part trades, making a new rule is an easy decision, I think. I think the Sean Avery screening the goalie caper is a decent analogy. No one had thought of doing it before he did, so there wasn't a rule about it. But it was ridiculous, and while every team could reasonably adopt Avery's strategy, making it a fair one, the NHL didn't want a sport where agitators waved their arms in front of the goaltender for half the game. So they made a rule, the behaviour stopped, and that was that. There's no reason the OHL couldn't do the same thing here.
bobber
Registered User
bobber
Registered User
SFC we really have no idea of how these deals being discussed went down. It's obvious that both teams took into consideration the Kadri rule and avoided it at all cost especially after Windsor was sanctioned so heavily the first time. It is apparent that these teams made two separate deals over a period of time and avoided any repercussions and the league deemed these trades as legitimate or they would not have been allowed. I am sure it was discussed with the league officials.We all know there are ways to circumvent rules and teams take advantage of all the loop holes. When highly skilled players coming in fail to report and will only go to certain teams other teams know this but draft them regardless and benefit greatly. It just the way it is.
