Player Commitment to League Is it time for Change

[AttackSound]

As a longtime fan of the league, I've pondered this simple question for years, When will the league change there player commitment to even the playing field for all teams.

As this is the time frame for most teams to see player commitments happen or not happen.

I started this thread for others to see if this simple change to not stop by change commitments from on the fence players who may or may not report to certain cities.

As we all know players will always have the option to commit to the city that picks them. But is it time for the league to adjust the rules to even the playing field for all, my simple way of getting the fairest draft commitments is easy.

First off it's time to see players commit to playing in the league where they're drafted I would personally like to see players and teams to have to commit to the team that you're drafted by instead of having the players dictate where they will go. This would mean that any player who was picked would have to commit to that city.

Secondly for as much as it's pains me to say this it's time to players and agents more accountable for themselves. This could be easily accomplished by putting in a commitment clause in all first round selections to abolish the compensation selection.

Third, it's time for the league to get a better handle on the draft pick rulings better than what's in place.

I think it's time for the league to really consider a limitation to the extension of the current draft pick rule that would see top player moved for top player instead of picks. This would see player commitments change in a big way I believe that to limit and end all the craziness deals that see one player for multiple pick returns end.

In its place the league really has to change the ruling to where if you select a 1st round selection who fails to commit to your club instead of getting a compansation selection that the team who the player will commit for has to surrender their own 1st round selection in the same draft year regardless.

This of course would change how teams would approach the draft each year as well as the players as it would make teams surrender top guy for top guy.

What are posters thoughts on this???

Click to read more...

 

[HockeyPops]

The league wants to attract the top talent. They are competing against other leagues primarily ncaa. The rules are in place to appease top players that would otherwise play ncaa.

The compensation is an attempt to make it fairer but the league will never vote to effectively turn players away. And i feel your suggestion might make it harder for teams to trade the non reporting players which is like turning players away.

Lets face it, if an elite player only wants to play for London or go ncaa, the league wants them to play for London.

 

[aresknights]

Ill keep my response simple to these suggested changes.

No. Not a chance. Never. For soooo many reasons.

 

[OHLTG]

I'm trying to figure one thing out... regarding one of the last ideas. Are you saying...

Windsor picks Player A in the first round. He refuses to report so they deal him to London. Are you saying that London should automatically have to deal their 1st rounder to Windsor (ie. Player B)?

You can't make players report to the team that picked them, either. There are so many factors for players that it's just not going to happen.

One thing that would be nice, though very difficult to control, is the idea of players saying "NCAA or bust!", then going to one of the same usual teams in the OHL.

 

[member 71782]

While there are so many things the league can do to "even" the playing field forcing kids to commit to the league will never be one of them without having a detrimental effect on the overall level of talent in the league.

Cut the draft to 10 rounds from the current 15.

Eliminate the compensation from the league for defected players except if the player never plays in the league. It's one thing to draft a player then deal his rights to a team that he will report to but another for the whole league to pay the compensation. Let the two teams work out a deal between them including dealing players and/or first round picks in future drafts. If a player won't report to the league then a compensation pick at the end of the first round can be awarded by the league. If that player is willing to report as a free agent at a later date then the team he will report to must forfeit their first round pick in the following year's draft.

Open up the U18 draft to all players in their second year of eligibility and then open free agent signings to second year eligible kids who were not drafted in their first year of eligibility or their U18 eligibility. Keep the draft to 3 rounds with no extra picks for goaltenders. Keep the priority selection limited to first year eligible players only. Combined with the priority selection being reduced to 10 rounds the few late round gems get the chance to develop that extra year be it in midget/JR B/C/Tier II etc and create more opportunities for themselves while at the same time creating value from the draft itself as potential free agents from across all leagues now become potential draft targets for all teams limiting the ability of certain teams having the edge in signing free agents while creating value for the other teams who either manage to pick a player or simply have a pick that can be moved for other assets of value to them.

Allow trading of players and/or picks leading up to the draft. This would require moving the draft back to post Memorial Cup. Allow trading of first round picks and allow trading of picks on draft day as well. This gives teams a chance to maximize the value in trades and provides a sense of value to players drafted if a team moves up to acquire a certain player thus increasing their perceived or personal value to the teams drafting them.

One rule for all in terms of trading defected players/first year players. Either they are all tradeable or none of them are. The league wants to eliminate the idea of players simply being bargaining chips yet the most valuable players in terms of perceived skill are the ones who are tradeable. Protecting less skilled kids while making it open season on the most highly skilled kids is a strange message and at the same time a kid who may get lost in the depth chart of some teams and never likely to get a real chance because of this cannot be dealt to a better opportunity in their first year. This maximizes value for the teams and opportunities for the players while providing the same protections or opportunities for all players.

Attracting kids requires a concerted effort from the entire CHL. Start setting up organized camps for kids at 13/14 across the US. It has to be done in a way that does not create NCAA eligibility issues otherwise there will be no interest but starting to provide development opportunities at a younger age gives the kids and their parents a chance to gain first hand knowledge of the league(s) and time to see how the development helps their kids out at a younger age. Making the league more familiar to them in an interactive way builds trust.

Change the 16 year old signing rules so that a team can sign any 4 of their 16 year olds and potentially look at increasing the limit from 4 to 5 or 6.

Increase the number of imports from 2 to 3 for each team while eliminating the import tag from any potential OA import players but cut the draft back from 2 rounds to a single round.

Make picks from each draft tradeable assets again regardless of if they are priority selection, U18 or import picks. If a team sees no value in a pick because they don't think they can get a player to report at whatever position in whatever draft it becomes an asset that has no value. If a team has the max imports while another team will be graduating all their import players the value to one team is lost while the value to another team's picks have been artificially inflated. No point being involved in a draft if you have nothing to gain from it.

Limiting the number of positions in the draft adds value to the draft itself forcing teams to be more diligent in their scouting and use of picks. Fewer spots also likely increases the level of talent and with fewer/limited opportunities to be drafted the league becomes more enticing as the overall level of talent likely increases. Adding an extra import slot to each team while reducing the rounds in that draft also increases the potential talent making fewer slots more enticing, again increasing the overall level of talent. Opening the U18 draft to all U18 players across North America again makes the draft relevant to strat while increasing the chances for more teams to actually attract players who would have simply been free agents on a limited number of teams. It also opens the door for US born players who may have not seen their NCAA ambitions go as they thought they would so a second chance going into their draft year becomes more enticing.

One thing again that will never work is limiting a player's choices by saying commit or never have a chance since that will simply bring down the level of talent in the league. The only thing that makes the league more enticing to higher skilled kids is finding a way to bring the level of talent up, not down. The only way to level the playing field for all teams is to improve the skill level across the board and that can only be done by increasing the value of draft picks by limiting the number available and allowing teams to get full value if they look to deal them. If a team can get a proven player on draft day that improves their team by dealing a pick that they either will be using on a lower ranked player or picking someone who won't report that opportunity needs to be there.

 

[LR8]

There is no perfect solution. It is a free market. The OHL model is about as good as it gets right now, and any change brings on new problems. It appears to be working pretty well currently. The recent changes to how far into the future you can trade picks are still working there way into the system and also appear to be a good step. Give the League credit - it is working about as well as could be expected.

 

[BadgerBruce]

The United States Hockey League uses a fairly effective hybrid system that is (more or less) a combination of player tendering and player drafting (Phase I and Phase II).

Like a letter of intent, a tender is a agreement that a future player will play for his chosen USHL team, and the USHL team will effectively promise the player a spot.

The benefit of signing a tender is that the player knows which team he will play with instead of rolling the dice in the draft. Conversely, the USHL team gets the player they covet.

Tenders in the USHL are selectively awarded—when a team signs a player to a tender, they must give up their first-round draft pick the next year and they must guarantee the player will play. Not every team uses their tenders every year.

To my mind, the OHL would be wise to consider some version of this hybrid draft/tender system. The benefits to the league and the young men are numerous, if one carefully thinks through the possibilities.

 

[AttackSound]

I'm trying to figure one thing out... regarding one of the last ideas. Are you saying...

Windsor picks Player A in the first round. He refuses to report so they deal him to London. Are you saying that London should automatically have to deal their 1st rounder to Windsor (ie. Player B)?

You can't make players report to the team that picked them, either. There are so many factors for players that it's just not going to happen.

One thing that would be nice, though very difficult to control, is the idea of players saying "NCAA or bust!", then going to one of the same usual teams in the OHL.

What I am saying is that now with the compansation selection rule and the recent changes to the draft trading draft picks the CHL is on the front of yet again another league changing ruling on commitments of players.

What the league really needs is similar ruling to what the NCAA has, especially for the smaller market teams. My point here is to say that it's time for the CHL to rethink how it allows players who are on the fence to make a more solidified decision before the draft.

This of course would still be in the players hands to where they would like to go but would ensure the smaller markets of commitment to the league or team they get selected by. As of right now in the league compansation picks are used as a stopgap measure to prevent teams from falling behind on others but has a major loophole in the system right now.

This loophole is how the league compensates for the failure of 1st rounders to commit to the league by awarding them a compansation 1st rounder in the following season. Which is all fine and dandy but where the problem lies is that the NCAA commits who say they're committed to college then change there minds either partway through or the following season.

Yes I understand that the league wants the best players in the league at any given time which is fine but how many times have we seen in recent years that top players say they won't report then report 2-3 weeks after the draft.


What I'm saying about players who are picked and get rights traded is instead of compassionation picks for the defective player(s) is put a ruling in that says if you choose to defect from the team that picks you and you trade the rights to another team you get back their player or rights in the same draft year and round along with the rights instead of a draft pick the following year. This would mean player A who says he won't report to your team would have to report to where you trade him but in return you get their team's player they drafted in the same round back instead of a 1st round pick the following year.

 

[Kingpin794]

The NCAA is an equally viable path for high end prospects. As long as the NCAA exists, you can put whatever silly rule you want in to put on a facade of "fairness", you won't able to enforce it in a way that is actually beneficial to the teams that some feel are getting the short end of the stick.

What's in place now is about as good as it's going to get outside of letting team's actually trade 1st's (like the Q) so they can get something along with moving down in a draft to get a player that is more willing to report.

 

[OHLTG]

What I'm saying about players who are picked and get rights traded is instead of compassionation picks for the defective player(s) is put a ruling in that says if you choose to defect from the team that picks you and you trade the rights to another team you get back their player or rights in the same draft year and round along with the rights instead of a draft pick the following year. This would mean player A who says he won't report to your team would have to report to where you trade him but in return you get their team's player they drafted in the same round back instead of a 1st round pick the following year.

I'm not sure forcing a team to give up their first round pick just because a player wants to report to them and not someone else is the best option. "Hi, Kingston? Windsor's player won't report, but wants to play for you. So, you have to give up your first round pick in a deal." Kingston laughs and hangs up the phone.

At this age, the players have plenty of options and the goal should be making the OHL the "obvious choice", if you will, not "play or sit!"

 

[dirty12]

What I am saying is that now with the compansation selection rule and the recent changes to the draft trading draft picks the CHL is on the front of yet again another league changing ruling on commitments of players.

What the league really needs is similar ruling to what the NCAA has, especially for the smaller market teams. My point here is to say that it's time for the CHL to rethink how it allows players who are on the fence to make a more solidified decision before the draft.

This of course would still be in the players hands to where they would like to go but would ensure the smaller markets of commitment to the league or team they get selected by. As of right now in the league compansation picks are used as a stopgap measure to prevent teams from falling behind on others but has a major loophole in the system right now.

This loophole is how the league compensates for the failure of 1st rounders to commit to the league by awarding them a compansation 1st rounder in the following season. Which is all fine and dandy but where the problem lies is that the NCAA commits who say they're committed to college then change there minds either partway through or the following season.

Yes I understand that the league wants the best players in the league at any given time which is fine but how many times have we seen in recent years that top players say they won't report then report 2-3 weeks after the draft.


What I'm saying about players who are picked and get rights traded is instead of compassionation picks for the defective player(s) is put a ruling in that says if you choose to defect from the team that picks you and you trade the rights to another team you get back their player or rights in the same draft year and round along with the rights instead of a draft pick the following year. This would mean player A who says he won't report to your team would have to report to where you trade him but in return you get their team's player they drafted in the same round back instead of a 1st round pick the following year.

So London gets a top 5 pick every year; and, one of the best NCAA threats in the 2nd?

 

[PensFan101]

What I am saying is that now with the compansation selection rule and the recent changes to the draft trading draft picks the CHL is on the front of yet again another league changing ruling on commitments of players.

What the league really needs is similar ruling to what the NCAA has, especially for the smaller market teams. My point here is to say that it's time for the CHL to rethink how it allows players who are on the fence to make a more solidified decision before the draft.

This of course would still be in the players hands to where they would like to go but would ensure the smaller markets of commitment to the league or team they get selected by. As of right now in the league compansation picks are used as a stopgap measure to prevent teams from falling behind on others but has a major loophole in the system right now.

This loophole is how the league compensates for the failure of 1st rounders to commit to the league by awarding them a compansation 1st rounder in the following season. Which is all fine and dandy but where the problem lies is that the NCAA commits who say they're committed to college then change there minds either partway through or the following season.

Yes I understand that the league wants the best players in the league at any given time which is fine but how many times have we seen in recent years that top players say they won't report then report 2-3 weeks after the draft.


What I'm saying about players who are picked and get rights traded is instead of compassionation picks for the defective player(s) is put a ruling in that says if you choose to defect from the team that picks you and you trade the rights to another team you get back their player or rights in the same draft year and round along with the rights instead of a draft pick the following year. This would mean player A who says he won't report to your team would have to report to where you trade him but in return you get their team's player they drafted in the same round back instead of a 1st round pick the following year.

I don't know why you would want to change a system that makes it harder for Owen Sound to recruit players, and simultaneously eliminate a rule that the team has benefitted massively from in the past.

The Mete trade is exactly why the current system can work.

The only change I'd like to see is underage players being tradeable beyond first round picks (or impose a deadline by which their rights can be traded at the start of the season, say midnight before Game 1 of the season). While I wouldn't add compensation to defected or traded players beyond the first round, as it would defeat the purpose of recruiting the best talent, trades generally would also allow daring smaller teams to grab cooked players. The immediate example is Stranges to London this year.

 

[bcspragu]

The NCAA is an equally viable path for high end prospects. As long as the NCAA exists, you can put whatever silly rule you want in to put on a facade of "fairness", you won't able to enforce it in a way that is actually beneficial to the teams that some feel are getting the short end of the stick.

What's in place now is about as good as it's going to get outside of letting team's actually trade 1st's (like the Q) so they can get something along with moving down in a draft to get a player that is more willing to report.

These big name teams are going to run out of draft picks eventually. Allow for the trading of 1st round picks before the draft along with more small market teams taking risks on defected players. Once big teams run out of picks, the kids wont be able to play the only report to certain team game because the teams they desire wont have the ammo to trade for them. Then its all about the small market teams actually putting the work in needed to get these kids to commit. That's on the teams not the players.

 

[RoyalCitySlicker]

The well run teams don't run out of picks.

When they need to, they trade the players squeezed out of the roster to help restock, not to mention making the necessary trades in "non-contending" years.

Just because most teams are poorly managed (paying too much attention to the super short term), it doesn't mean the system can't work.

Just means teams (management) needs to be better. It can be done. London doesn't win a championship every year, in fact, more often than not they don't win.

 

[MatthewsMoustache]

haven’t read enough of the replies to see if these have been brought up yet.

first of all, I did see USHL tenders brought up. My idea would be that all players wishing to enter the OHL draft must declare for it, and must sign off that they will report to the team they are selected by.

second, for free agents, I would propose a waiver-style selection process. If a guy decides he wants to come to the OHL out of the NCAA, USDP or USHL (or others that would be determined), they have a priority list based off of one year’s standings or whatever. every team gets the chance to pick guys up in order of the priority list, top to bottom, and if you get a guy you go back to the bottom of the priority list.

here’s what I’m stuck on for the 2nd change. option 1) the player doesn’t have to report to the team that picks him, but he is ineligible to play in the OHL. option 2) the player must declare that he will play for the team that picks him

I’m opting towards #1 as it doesn’t “force” anyone to be somewhere

 

[Kingpin794]

My idea would be that all players wishing to enter the OHL draft must declare for it, and must sign off that they will report to the team they are selected by.

The OHL does not exist in a vacuum. You cannot make a mandate requiring players to only go to who selects them if they don't want to go.
This is a very poorly thought out idea. Please people, stop suggesting it.

 

[EvenSteven]

Out of curiosity, just how many division one NCAA hockey programs are there? The reason I ask is that for the most part, I assume these are the NCAA programs that the vast majority of players are drafted to the NHL out of. If there aren't a whole lot, then it stands to reason that division one hockey programs aren't watered down very much compared to the CHL.

Currently, there are 60 CHL teams. That's gone up quite a bit over the last few decades. The rise in the number of CHL teams means an amount of watering down of the product. Sure, the CHL has helped curb that watering down by increasing the number of OA's per team and allowing import players.

The reason that I bring this up is that if I'm an elite prospect who has designs on a pro career, the NCAA option as an avenue towards making it to the show is a lot better than it was 10, 20 and 30 years ago.

One reason for this could be the watering down of the CHL which means strength of competition within the league. (Consider this: the OHL doubled from 10 teams in the 70's to 20 teams by the mid 90's. Imagine reducing the number of teams today from 20 to 10. Can you imagine the quality of player that would fill the roster's of those 10 teams?)

Another is the fact many more US born players go the NCAA route than ever before making division one hockey much more competitive.

With all this in mind, does Division one NCAA hockey have an edge over the CHL in the recruitment of players?

And does this post even belong in this thread?

 

[NorthernVoice]

One reason for this could be the watering down of the CHL which means strength of competition within the league. (Consider this: the OHL doubled from 10 teams in the 70's to 20 teams by the mid 90's. Imagine reducing the number of teams today from 20 to 10. Can you imagine the quality of player that would fill the roster's of those 10 teams?)

Another is the fact many more US born players go the NCAA route than ever before making division one hockey much more competitive.

I disagree with most of this. There are more kids than ever playing hockey and they are getting more training at younger ages than ever. The quality of player now is much much better than in the 70s.

And again, if we're going to compare to the 70s, or even the 90s, there are way more Americans playing hockey in general and way more playing in the OHL partially because of the expansion booms (OHL and NHL) of the 90s.

The strength of competition is fine. There have always been have and have not teams. In the past it was dictated by smart management, drafting, etc... and it is to an extent still but it's undeniable that now larger markets, which equate to more $$$ and everything that goes with that (arenas, equipment, side deals, etc...) get the benefit of players who might go to a US college otherwise.

So often I see people in here say the teams at the lower end should just make their program better or more appealing but if they don't have the money for a state of the art arena and they don't have access to the best players, either at the top of the draft (when they won't report) or in the middle rounds (kids with college options who also won't report) that the top end teams have, how exactly are they supposed to do that?

 

[EvenSteven]

So often I see people in here say the teams at the lower end should just make their program better or more appealing but if they don't have the money for a state of the art arena and they don't have access to the best players, either at the top of the draft (when they won't report) or in the middle rounds (US kids with college options who also won't report) that the top end teams have, how exactly are they supposed to do that?

Teams at the lower end can't change geography either. A major issue many players have is where a team is located.

I know the parents of two players who were drafted into the OHL years ago off the same team. Both players parents had a major issue with geography.

They didn't want their sons drafted by teams too far away from home. They were blue collar families and therefore, weren't "made of money" so to speak and wanted them playing close enough to home (KW area) for it to be economical to see their kids play their home games.

One player, who was high end, had the cache to dictate that he wouldn't report to the various teams that were too far from home (far reaches of the league). He was taken in the first round by St Mike's. The parents were happy.

The other player did not have that kind of pull and therefore, couldn't control his destination and wound up getting picked in the mid rounds by Sudbury. He reported and had a long OHL career. But the parents were pissed because they didn't get to see anywhere near the games they would have liked.

They say CHL hockey is the best time of these players lives. It's also huge for he parents as well. I can understand why.

It's amazing the lengths some parents will go to, to see their kids play at this level live. I know one parent who's son was put on waivers after two years in the O. The kid was picked up by a team in the Q and went on to play out his eligibility in Nova Scotia.

The dad, another blue collar worker, put himself off on workman's compensation to get out of work (without losing pay) in order to spend the majority of the season out east to watch his son play. He told me he didn't care. "I'll only get to see my son play at this high a level once".

 

[OHLTG]

They say CHL hockey is the best time of these players lives. It's also huge for he parents as well. I can understand why.

It's amazing the lengths some parents will go to, to see their kids play at this level live. I know one parent who's son was put on waivers after two years in the O. The kid was picked up by a team in the Q and went on to play out his eligibility in Nova Scotia.

The dad, another blue collar worker, put himself off on workman's compensation to get out of work (without losing pay) in order to spend the majority of the season out east to watch his son play. He told me he didn't care. "I'll only get to see my son play at this high a level once".

Over the last decade, I've been fortunate enough to know several players' families and the amount of dedication you see from them is incredibly impressive. Parents who have come from the GTA nearly every game; some even went on the road as much as possible. You ask them what brings them into Windsor on any given game night. "It's Thursday. Where else would I be?"

Having lived in Ontario all my life, I give a second-glance to those who think SSM or Sudbury, or even NB now, are too far away. I realize that every situation is different and every player is different, but those three markets would be an absolute blast if you're into hockey markets. They're basically Canadiana.

 

[dirty12]

These big name teams are going to run out of draft picks eventually. Allow for the trading of 1st round picks before the draft along with more small market teams taking risks on defected players. Once big teams run out of picks, the kids wont be able to play the only report to certain team game because the teams they desire wont have the ammo to trade for them. Then its all about the small market teams actually putting the work in needed to get these kids to commit. That's on the teams not the players.

Yeah, the knight & rangers are nearly out of picks!?

 

[bcspragu]

Yeah, the knight & rangers are nearly out of picks!?

I mean not currently. I am talking in a scenario where small market teams would actually take the best player available, not best player who will report, and then move them where they want to go. They will get low on picks eventually or wont be able to make trades with a 7 gold package limit. If the league allowed for the trading of 1st round picks it would be even better for these small market teams as they can get the most value out of thier selection.

Example: 19 other teams (Realistically 16 I think Sudbury, Saginaw and Erie made good picks themselves last year) could have drafted Stranges and held out for multiple picks (or a future 1st in my rule change scenario) plus gained a comp 1st, but instead let London have him for a single 2nd when hes a top 5 talent in the draft. That's just poor asset management from other teams and people wonder why London has so many picks left.

 

[EON]

The tender idea is a good one and the best possible solution imo. Forcing players to sign letters of intent before the draft is a terrible idea and the league will just hemorrhage talent to the NCAA.

 

[HockeyPops]

How does tendering help with league parity? To me, it just skews the talent away from the "have not" teams even moreso than the current system.

 

[EON]

How does tendering help with league parity? To me, it just skews the talent away from the "have not" teams even moreso than the current system.

I think the idea there is that because in a tender system, you have to give up next year's first round pick to sign the guy. Team gets the player they want, player goes to the team they want, but they have to give up something for it. Might help to re-balance things a bit where a top end team has to pay a 1st to land a top player instead of snagging them in a later round and reducing their cost.