Is there too much player movement in the OHL?

[ScoresFromCentre]

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:

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!)

Click to read more...

 

[jason2020]

1)Salary

Some think players should make a ton I don't but they should get some money

a)1st year player $800 per month ($5600)
b)2nd year player $1000 per month ($7000)
c)3rd/4th year players $1200 per months ($8400)

Housing

a)Players 16 and under will be housed with a family
b)Players 17 and over would have the choice live with a family or on your own and get a set amount to cover rent and food.

 

[Beast Mowed]

Well, as far as this year goes, I would have to say I am happy with the Otters' position post trade deadline. Next year & several years after, not so much, but I understand the "cycle" & will be MUCH more tolerant than the casual fan who doesn't understand HOW it works nor is willing to listen to how it works. The cycle is going to have to work for this fan for now. Not really sure how to "fix" it.

Players. The ones that were traded to Erie seemed pretty happy at the end of the night, unfortunately I would imagine the ones no longer with us may not be as happy THIS YEAR, but will probably be much happier next year after our team is more than likely decimated & probably somewhere closer to the bottom of the standings.

 

[OMG67]

1)Salary

Some think players should make a ton I don't but they should get some money

a)1st year player $800 per month ($5600)
b)2nd year player $1000 per month ($7000)
c)3rd/4th year players $1200 per months ($8400)

Housing

a)Players 16 and under will be housed with a family
b)Players 17 and over would have the choice live with a family or on your own and get a set amount to cover rent and food.

Every player gets $6000 per year played in compensation for tuition. In addition, the player gets room and board. IF the player lives at home with parents, the parents get the same monetary compensation as a billet family would. I am not sure what this amount is but it is in the neibourhood of $500 per month. On top of that they get their weekly stipend which is probably a little on the low side. I think it works out to $60 per week ($150 per week for OA's).

If the players start getting real money, the scholarships will stop because they will no longer be considered student athletes. Therefore, they would need to pay for their own education. That would be where the balance would be affected.

If you look at the ECHL as a comparison for compensation, the average player receives $600 to $1000 per week. The player covers all of their out of pocket expenses on that amount but they do get accomodations paid for as well as health insurance. The rookie maximum in the ECHL is $520 per week.

So, if we were to use the ECHL model for compensation, an average player would receive $600 per week. So in 32 weeks an average CHL player would earn $19200. There would no longer be education packages and the players would need to cover all of their own costs. This would include food and transportation.

Also, for housing in the ECHL, married players get their own apartment but single players share.

What do players actually get now in comparison and how much would it cost?

1> weekly stipend = $60 per week for 32 weeks. $1920
2> Board = $500 per month for 8 months. $4000
3> Education. $6000
4> Transportation (in town), whether gas allowance for their own vehicle or car pooling. $1600
TOTAL = 13,520

This is the amount that CHL players get that an ECHL player would not get. All other expenses covered would be the same or similar enough to not create a difference. So, that difference would be about $6000 per year give or take.

Keep in mind we are comparing the compensation for CHL players and the entry level league where players wouldn't need to work on top of playing hockey during the season.

Considering they are getting high level coaching and development, the $6000 difference isn't really all that much.

CHL ticket prices compare favourably to ECHL ticket prices; however, many of the ECHL teams have players that have salaries covered by their parent clubs. So that may skew the numbers a little. It would not be reasonable to use AHL numbers as most of their players salaries are covered by their NHL parent affiliate which lowers the cost to run those teams.

There are some monies transferred from the NHL to the CHL for development fees for draft picks but I don't know what that amount is.

 

[member 71782]

ScoresFromCentre

Thanks and I have no problem expanding on and discussing what I posted.

While this all stems from the trade deadline and how far out picks are being moved I feel the only way to improve things including, hopefully dealing with some of the perceived imbalances between the current haves and have nots. Increased opportunity for parity across the CHL. The ownership/management of each team still has to put forth the effort to make things work regardless of any changes made.

First thing I would suggest is same rules for all three leagues with a CHL commissioner as well as rules committe to oversee all three leagues. Each league would have its own commissioner to handle the day to day of each league and sub comnittees if needed for discipline etc. Simply standardize the way the three leagues are run so you have a truly unified organization under the CHL umbrella.

Same rules, same discipline standards, same schedule length/start dates/playoff formats/trade rules/drafting guidelines etc.

As far as players reporting this affects import players moreso than others since they are the only ones who can pick and choose which teams they will report to from any of the three leagues but when it comes to development it should improve the image of the CHL as a whole.

Drafts

This is where so many of the perceived imbalances stem from. Some of these can be dealt with with some of what I and others have suggested while others such as available community amenities can never be dealt with by the league without forcing teams to relocate which I would never suggest. The league cannot change what currently is be that population size, available schooling options etc, they can ensure any expansion teams or relocations meet certain requirements when it comes to future locations of teams but small market teams should not lose their teams but must also accept that limited community amenities can and will affect player decisions when it comes to reporting.

Drafts and Trades

The areas where the finger pointing and accusations about wrong doing come about the most and regardless of what may or may not take place some of what I posted above will affect where a player will report to and there is nothing a league can do since office/community amenities will affect a families decision on where a player will report.

That being said there are ways to improve competitive balance between the teams and restore some sanity to how trades and drafts work while making the cyclical nature of the league less painful for teams and fans alike.

Cut the draft to ten rounds and make it a sixteen year old draft only. This would restore value to the picks that are being traded right now mainly as placeholders until next big trade.

Allow trading of first round picks which should reduce the number of picks being traded for high end players and ensure a potential high end player comes back in return at the draft.

Limit how far out draft picks can be traded, three or four years should be the max.

Move the draft back until after the Memorial Cup. This allows teams to focus on the playoffs if they are in. Two weeks after the Memorial Cup would be best with the trade window opening up one week after.

Allow players to be traded during this time frame as well as trades to be made during the draft. This allows teams to make more decisions that will have an immediate effect on their drafting instead of having to wait until the following drafts to recover from the fallout of a player who may not report. If a team wants to draft BPA and that player is not likely to report I would rather drop down in the draft and improve my assets then instead of waiting until later and move the players rights to a limited number teams. Any team would be able to make a deal to move up and of course their idea of BPA may not be the same as others and may not want to take a chance that who they target is available.

Non reporting players as it is now should only apply to first rounders and like now should only be tradeable during a certain time frame. What I would change is eliminate the compensation pick but require the acquiring team to move their own first rounder in the following draft as part of the deal. This means teams will still have to be cautious with how they manage their first round picks and likely expands the number of teams a player will report to. These deals should also be expanded to include other players as well so that the deals can be framed as more of a hockey trade instead of just the stockpiling of picks.

Import draft should be reduced to one round and the picks/players should be tradeable. There is a large number of picks every year because teams already have their limit of players so they have no use for the picks and the picks carry no value. I would also increase the number of imports from two to three since most imports will likely play three years in the league. Drafting one import a year allows teams to always bring in a seventeen year old player each year if they never traded any. I would also remove the import tag for OAs provided they have played a minimum of two years in the league still allows for teams to carry three other imports.

Allow goaltenders to be drafted in the import draft. You will not improve the play at the position just by keeping imports out of the league, at the same time if you want to develop the best junior league in the world you need to open it up to the best players at all positions.

The league is doing a supplemental draft this year, two rounds I believe. I would like to see this every year. First round picks cannot be traded right now to save GMs from themselves. This is where this thinking should come into play. This draft should be the picks that are not tradeable and this is the draft where you find the late bloomers that have a chance to crack a roster. This draft would be limited to seventeen year olds and older. This draft should take place right after the regular draft, same day. Anyone not drafted, over the age of seventeen would be eligible for free agency after they have passed through this second draft. I would limit FA signing to the off season. Open it the day after the draft and close it once the season begins.

OAs are allowed to play in the league as long as they have played the prior season. I would increase this to two seasons and as stated earlier I would make imports eligible as a non import player for this.

Player compensation is a big topic for players deciding to come into the league. Everything from stipends to education packages makes the league a semi pro league to many since they are businesses and not educational institutions. Make it worth it for players to report yet make it so that the have not teams can compete without having to be fearful of not being able to afford it.

Most of these ownership groups are making decent money from these teams and most have a fair amount of money when you consider the cost of a franchise just to become an owner. The mom and pop days are long gone regardless of where a team is located.

The players are the product and should be compensated for their services.

I would start with a signing bonus based on the round they are picked in, $1,000 for a first rounder and drop it $100 by round based on a ten round draft.

Increase the stipend based on years played or age of players. That could be made dependent on contract negotiations but $100 - $300/week from first year sixteen year olds to OAs etc.

Improve the education package, eliminate the number of gold packages each team can carry and make each team responsible for a proportionate amount of the package in line with the time spent on any teams they play for. A five year player that spends three years on one team and two with another would see each team cover the costs associated with the time the player spent with them, 60/40 split in this example.

Finally trading of players drafted should not be restricted to first round picks only in their first year. Either make them all tradeable or none of them tradeable. Restrict the times, change the deadline or whatever works but they should all be given the same opportunities to be moved or not.

IMO these types of changes would improve the on ice product, lessen the differences between the haves and have nots and provide a better environment for the players.

A better product on the ice provides a better fan experience which in turn translates into a better return for the owners. A better return for the owners allows for a greater investment in the development of the players which in turn attracts and develops better players as well as individuals off the ice.

A win for all who have a stake in the league.