Does Owen Sound have 2 1st rounders in 2015?
- Thread starter BoCanucksBo
- Start date
Owen Sound received the 9th pick this year for Mete not reporting, not the 10th pick. He was picked 8th overall last year and you get one pick later the next season when a player is declared defective. They also own their original 1st round pick which is 14th overall. Niagara received the 7th pick this year for Logan Brown not reporting as well.
Draft order is as follows.
1. Sudbury
2. Windsor
3. Flint
4. Mississauga
5. Peterborough
6. Saginaw
7. Niagara*
8. Belleville
9. Owen Sound*
10. Sarnia
11. Kingston
12. Kitchener
13. Niagara
14. Owen Sound
15. Guelph
16. Ottawa
17. London
18. North Bay
19. Barrie
20. Erie
21. Oshawa
22. Sault Ste. Marie
Draft order is as follows.
1. Sudbury
2. Windsor
3. Flint
4. Mississauga
5. Peterborough
6. Saginaw
7. Niagara*
8. Belleville
9. Owen Sound*
10. Sarnia
11. Kingston
12. Kitchener
13. Niagara
14. Owen Sound
15. Guelph
16. Ottawa
17. London
18. North Bay
19. Barrie
20. Erie
21. Oshawa
22. Sault Ste. Marie
GoKnightsGo44
Registered User
- Aug 31, 2006
- 1,269
- 843
Its such a stupid rule. If you get a boat load of picks for the rights of your first round pick you should forfeit the compensatory pick. It should only be granted if the rights can't be traded and that player should then be banned to play for any other team.
I agree 100%. Its plain ridiculous, not to mention other teams suffer from this idiotic rule as well being pushed down in the draft. Can't believe they haven't reviewed this rule.
Its a teriffic rule; more teams should take advantage of it. You can't stop a player from dictating where he goes; but, you can compensate a team that is unable to take the best player available, and 'charge' a team getting top five talent in the 15-20 spot. Did London not get two first rounders last season?
One problem with it..if a team that knows they are going to be competing for the championship, and know they are going to be loading up on drafted players in big trades, and therefore won't have spots for young players..they can draft a player they know won't report and who they don't want to report so they can trade him for three 2nds and 3rds to make big trades while also getting another first rounder the next year when they likely start their rebuild
Maybe that's not a problem and just good strategy, I don't know
London did not have 2 1st round selections last year. No team had 2 1st rounders last year as Plymouth did not declare Greenway defective after the 2013 draft and he was the only 2013 first rounder not to report.
London could have had 2 1sts this year but did not declare Max Jones defective and he more than likely will report to them for next season.
London could have had 2 1sts this year but did not declare Max Jones defective and he more than likely will report to them for next season.
Naughty Dog,
That is genius strategy if a team can pull it off. However, most teams that are contending for a title aren't the teams that players are refusing to report to. Unless it is a full NCAA committed player but then they wouldnt be reporting to anyone and the drafting team wouldnt get the picks in a trade.
That is genius strategy if a team can pull it off. However, most teams that are contending for a title aren't the teams that players are refusing to report to. Unless it is a full NCAA committed player but then they wouldnt be reporting to anyone and the drafting team wouldnt get the picks in a trade.
I think he meant that last year London got two first rounders - Mete and Jones. Just like Windsor got two first rounders - Brown and Stanley.
BoCanucksBo
YourDrouinItWrong
Sorry I thought the Attack were picking 9th and 10th when Degray said they were picking 9th on an Attack game broadcast. 9th and 14th sounds good to me!
PhlyerPhanatic31
Love is Love
I'll amp the fora.
London got 3 1st rounders last season
Max Jones
Victor Mete
Cliff Pu
MisterDB
Registered User
- Apr 5, 2012
- 405
- 45
The original intent of the rule was to put in place a system to allow any team to draft the best available player even though a player has indicated they are going the NCAA route. If the player went NCAA or refused to sign then a 1st rd pick was added for the next draft in the original picking position from the previous year. Now it has morphed into something that should be changed. A team can now trade the drafted played (is Max Domi by Kingston) receive a boat load of picks (first round picks cannot be trade, that is why one sees 2nd rd picks because only picks may be traded in this case) and continue to get a first round pick in the next years draft. This leaves room for some questionable backroom deals. In Domi's case everyone knew he was going to London one way or another before the draft even occurred.
So what's the alternative then? Just left Max Domi fall to the Knights? Or risk drafting him and then be forced to trade him for inadequate compensation? 3 2nd round picks hardly seems like fair compensation for 4 years of Max Domi. I think most teams will acknowledge that the system in place is not perfect, however, in the grand scheme of things, the majority of teams in the league would prefer that a team like Owen Sound receives a greater benefit out of the draft rather than London and Windsor.
Maybe a middle ground solution would be to either take the 1st round compensatory pick (but no trade) OR take what you can get in a trade plus say a compensatory pick in the 2nd round.
I would remove draft pick compensation and open up the trading of 1st round picks. That way you take whomever you want and if he doesn't want to play for you can recoup a lot better picks. Plus it will lead to less of these games when teams like London won't pay the high price for these kids. Then it's you play for your drafted team or no OHL
I think what they have now is perfect. What motivation would teams have to take a guy that wouldn't report if all they get is either a few 2nds OR a comp. pick next season? If that was the case we'd sit here and watch as London scooped up all of the USA talent for free and I'm sure everyone would complain about that. The rule as it stands now motivates teams to take these guys and make the big boys pay for the top talent. I also think it helps in the OHL's recruiting battle with the NCAA over this top talent.
In your first scenario, what happends to the player? Is he a free agent? Does he go back in the draft? He can't play in the OHL that year? The league won't want to lose first rounders to other leagues, so I don't think that that is a good solution
I dunno, What happens now? Seriously, honest question. The Brown's/Mete's/Domi's all get moved before it comes up. But what if they didn't, doesn't the team just take the comp pick and retain the player's services? or does the player go back into the draft?..either way, why would lowering the comp pick to a 2nd rounder (if the player's rights are traded) change much? So instead of 3 2nd and a 1st round comp pick (Sam Bennett) for Domi, Kingston would have got 4 2nd rounders instead.
Honestly, I agree with most on here, I think it's fine now...but we seem complacent to whine sometimes on this board without offering up potential solutions to debate - so that was just one I thought of quickly.
MisterDB
Registered User
- Apr 5, 2012
- 405
- 45
If the player does not report and the team pick a comp pick, I am pretty sure his rights are not retained by the his original draft club. If the club trades the not reporting pick then they should forfeit their comp pick or the league should say this pick cannot be traded, only reason is to stop some of the dubious shenanigans from the past.
obviously, the current cost of defective players is not too high. If the price was too great, London and Windsor would not encourage players to continue dictating where they will play by their willingness to trade for them.
And, it does not bother me one bit that London and Windsor entice players to the OHL. I'm happy I get to watch these players.
London with 3 '98 first round picks is awesome management, and OS, and Oshawa got good compensation.
London with 3 '98 first round picks is awesome management, and OS, and Oshawa got good compensation.
aresknights
Registered User
Agreed.
London's used it twice I think (Domi/Mete) ? And both times it was a calculated move buy the seller. Both times London paid the going rate. A rate that seemingly keeps going up. Is the rule perfect? I don't think so, but it's up to teams, to be deligent with asset management with current rules.
On average is it one player a year, one deal?
Both sides can benefit if done right.
Perhaps if the pick is traded the compensatory pick should fall at the end of the round, and only follows the current pattern if the player is not traded and does not report.
how is it management? a kid's agent or parents decide the kid is playing in London. more like luck.
