RayMartyniukTotems
Registered User
- Jul 8, 2022
- 5,462
- 2,160
GDT: Seattle Kraken Free Agent Frenzy Discussion
- Thread starter The Marquis
- Start date
RayMartyniukTotems
Registered User
- Jul 8, 2022
- 5,462
- 2,160
I think the day the CHL can hold players until 20 are pretty much over especially ones that have outgrown the whole of the CHL! I know most players benefit from staying the whole 4-5 years but in the case of Wright it doesn't hold water! Like your argument and points,well said
Gniwder
Registered User
That is in the NHL-CHL transfer agreement. The entire point of the agreement is so that NHL teams can't steal CHL kids away and stick them in the AHL. Well if they're drafted before playing in the CHL, then basically the NHL team already has dibs, so to speak.
It'll hold up in US court because it's a signed contract. Here's the OHL contract if you want to read it:
Also, "right to work" law is about union membership, you're not even using it in the proper context. Not to mention how is it discriminating when a player signs a contract, and everyone is aware of the CHL/NHL transfer agreement?
Right-to-work law - Wikipedia
Last edited:
That is in the NHL-CHL transfer agreement. The entire point of the agreement is so that NHL teams can't steal CHL kids away and stick them in the AHL. Well if they're drafted before playing in the CHL, then basically the NHL team already has dibs, so to speak.
It'll hold up in US court because it's a signed contract. Here's the OHL contract if you want to read it:
Also, "right to work" law is about union membership, you're not even using it in the proper context. Not to mention how is it discriminating when a player signs a contract, and everyone is aware of the CHL/NHL transfer agreement?
Right-to-work law - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
1.) Most states and the federal government have laws that specifically state:
Minors do not have the legal capacity to enter into a binding contract.
2.) You are right, I miss-spoke, I typed it fast and meant Right to employment.
Article 15 - Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work. 1. Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.
and
Every individual shall have the right to work under equitable and satisfactory conditions, and shall receive equal pay for equal work.
CHL players as adults are not compensated for their play. They may get stipends to cover expenses if they have any, but they are not actually payed.
No US court is going to uphold the CBA's transfer agreement if brought by a U.S. adult citizen being denied employment.
3.) The discrimination is in that other CHL players are free to play pro outside of the NHL *as long as they weren't playing in the CHL LAST before being drafted".
The agreement does not depend on them playing in the CHL before being drafted, it is only based on playing in the CHL during their draft year. Brandt Clarke played some games with the Reign early last year, as a 19Y.O, but ultimately the Kings sent him back to junior because they wanted him to play bigger minutes there and felt he would have a much larger role with Barrie. Yet he played with Barrie before being drafted. The reason he is excluded from the transfer agreement is because he was playing in Slovakia his draft year.
That is discriminating against a group of players who both signed the same agreement at the age of 15/16, but some are banned from working professionally at 18, 19 and even often a good chunk of their 20th aged year based on where they played their 17 year old draft year.
Gniwder
Registered User
1) There are exceptions for entertainment and sports:
Many jurisdictions recognize an exception to this rule, where the contract is either to provide necessities for the minor (e.g., food, clothing and shelter) or where “the contract is for a purpose benefiting the minor’s employment or business” (Valencia v. White, 134 Ariz. 139, 141, 654 P.2d 287, 289 [App. 1982]). Under this rule, sports contracts might be enforceable as long as the contract is “for the benefit of the minor.” That means if the court thinks the employer/team/sponsor has taken advantage of the minor, then the contract will not be enforceable. These are judgment calls, and each case is decided on its unique facts.
Also, contracts signed by a minor can be confirmed at age either explicitly or implicitly. You can Google that yourself.
2) They are paid a stipend and also get college scholarship. I posted the OHL contract already. Plus you give up certain rights when you sign a contract. I had to sign one for a fellowship. I also signed 2 contracts because of signing bonuses, along with various NDAs, and also non-compete agreements.
3) You're not saying anything new, the transfer agreement depends on which league the player was drafted from.
Every league has a transfer agreement with other leagues, so even if a player voids the contract, where is he going to play? The only league without a current transfer agreement is the KHL. Good luck with that. The NHL will honor the transfer agreement if Wright quits the OHL, so he'll be flipping burgers at McDonalds, not playing in the AHL.
The reason why the player agreements are on the web is because there have been multiple lawsuits against the CHL. So far they've held their ground.
Edit: Also, at this point, Shane has a contract with the Kraken, so he has to play where he is assigned. The Kraken have no choice but to abide by the transfer agreement if the OHL does not grant an exemption. So it's not even his choice, hence the contract signed as a 15 year old doesn't matter that much.
Last edited:
1.) We are still talking about contacts signed as a minor preventing individuals from working as adults. The stipulations all revolve around the interests of the players as minors, they are not relevant to the players once they are adults because they are then legally responsible for themselves.
2.) You are missing the point here. no other transfer agreement prevents the players from playing pro anywhere. Only the CHL prevents it's players from earning a living playing hockey outside of the NHL, and it only affects those players playing there in their draft year. In fact, the players can leave the CHL and go to any other league before they are drafted and the agreement is irrelevant. But once they are drafted, they are bound by the NHLs agreement which prevents only specific players from playing pro, and not other players. Legally, there is not a court in the US that will uphold that agreement.
The CHL is an institution in Canada, and their legal system is much different than the states. Canada's Federal court of Appeal has ruled on the issue, but they only struck the case down because it was poorly presented and they said so in their ruling (the complaints were that there was collusion between all of the leagues, and not just questioning the merit of the transfer agreement). The fact that the agreement does not influence very many prospects due to the physical nature of the AHL, it is not often an issue. If the leagues continue to move toward a more open skill game and away from the heavy physical game of the past 30 years, I believe there will be a lot more prospects looking to make the AHL jump earlier and I fully expect a major shake-up with those transfer agreement rules with the next CBA in 2026.
Gniwder
Registered User
The CHL is actually considered a pro league (by NCAA standards at least), but anyways, you are completely wrong. Google IIHF transfer agreement. There are other transfer agreements between leagues as well to prevent the NHL from stealing players that are under contract. For example Sweden (SHA/NHL transfer agreement):
Examining A Key Change In The NHL's Transfer Agreement With Sweden
Earlier this month, a notable change was made in the NHL's Player Transfer Agreement with Sweden.
www.prohockeyrumors.com
You might as well be complaining that the draft is unfair because a player can't choose where to work, and Shane should go play for the Leafs since they're located closer to home. There are rules in place for fair competition in sports. This is not McDonalds vs Burger King.
Plus the whole argument is moot because the Kraken will abide by the NHL/CHL transfer agreement, that much I can 100% guarantee. (Unless Putin starts a nuclear war, then it doesn't matter anyways.)
The CHL is actually considered a pro league (by NCAA standards at least), but anyways, you are completely wrong. Google IIHF transfer agreement. There are other transfer agreements between leagues as well to prevent the NHL from stealing players that are under contract. For example Sweden (SHA/NHL transfer agreement):
Examining A Key Change In The NHL's Transfer Agreement With Sweden
Earlier this month, a notable change was made in the NHL's Player Transfer Agreement with Sweden.
You might as well be complaining that the draft is unfair because a player can't choose where to work, and Shane should go play for the Leafs since they're located closer to home. There are rules in place for fair competition in sports. This is not McDonalds vs Burger King.
Plus the whole argument is moot because the Kraken will abide by the NHL/CHL transfer agreement, that much I can 100% guarantee. (Unless Putin starts a nuclear war, then it doesn't matter anyways.)
The difference is in all other leagues and with all other transfer agreements, adult players outside of the NHL have the option to play in a pro league and GET PAID..... except for the CHL.
That is the issue.
That new Sweden transfer agreement is interesting and I was not aware it changed in the last year, but it in no way makes what I stated earlier "wrong" as you claim. Swedish players that are good enough to come over to North America are either drafted in the 1st round, which the rule would then not apply, or, if drafted later but good enough to play pro, they will be playing in the SweHL(SHL) which means they will be playing PRO and being PAID.
CHL Prospects that are too good for Junior have no pro option with the current CHL agreement.
Somehow you can not see the difference here.
Paid vs unpaid.
Avenue to earn a wage vs zero chance to earn a wage.
The CHL situation is completely unique in this regard and the prospects drafted out of those leagues can not earn money as adults.
That is the discrepancy and it is the only issue here.
Gniwder
Registered User
Read the OHL player agreement I posted before we go any further.
They get one year tuition, books, and fees for every season they play. That is their "pay". If they don't like their "pay" then they shouldn't sign the contract. There are pros and cons of playing in any junior league in any country, once they decide on a path, they need to fulfill their obligations. I say that as someone who has actually signed employment contracts, which will happen any time you get a signing bonus.
The only "unfair" part of the deal with Shane is the COVID cancelled season. The OHL decided to cancel, whereas the Q and WHL played. If an employer signed me to a contract then laid me off for a year, I'd demand pay and have the time count towards the contract or have them terminate the contract.
BTW, I've been following hockey long enough to remember the draft age being 20, and even when they changed it in 1980 there were restrictions to the first 3 rounds. So this whole thing about the CHL agreement being unfair just means you don't know the history. I also remember the NBA changing their draft age. For the NFL a player needs to be out of high school for 3 years, Shane wouldn't even be eligible for the draft yet.
Last edited:
We are talking about a situation that is unequivocally unfair to a select group of workers in a field.
Being paid
is different than
Not being paid
You can argue how awesome the CHL deal is for the prospects, I am sure the 19 year old Junior player who got married and has a child on the way is ecstatic he's gonna get his tuition covered and free books in a country who's federal government subsidizes college(if he ever chooses to go to college). I am sure he is saying, "Thank goodness I am banking that 5-10k per year college money instead of actually getting the 30K+ other prospects are getting that I could use to support my family."
The facts stand that the system is violating a certain group of individuals rights to be fairly compensated.
Telling me that the idea that "there is a current unfair discrepancy between prospects in different leagues" is invalid because "there were different rules regulating all players 50 years ago, and therefore I must not know the history" is so ridiculous, that I am not even going to bother responding to it.
Feel free to post more on how great the CHL agreement is for the prospects, but that is not the discussion, and I've wasted enough time responding to all of these strawman arguments.
Gniwder
Registered User
Talk about a freakin strawman, lol. I didn't say it was great, I said the players signed a contract. Absolutely nobody is forced them to sign with the CHL, so I obviously don't see YOUR point. They can always play for the USHL or Junior B for no pay and have the freedom to choose where they go after the draft. Or play in Europe if it's that much better.
I'm guessing you've never signed an employment contract, so you'll never get it.
And speaking of strawman, name one AHL or NHL player that got married at 19 and had a child, that was absolutely HILARIOUS. Not to mention if they sign an ELC, they get the signing bonus for that year even in the CHL.
Fact of the matter is, the Kraken gets to decide if he's on the roster or not, then the OHL gets to decide if he plays in the AHL or OHL. Even if Shane was married and had 12 kids (lol), that doesn't change and neither will arguing with me with the absolute most ridiculous strawman attempt ever.
You make a lot of assumptions.
I never once said the CBA transfer agreement was a bad thing or that Wright was not going back to junior.
I was only making points about how the CHL agreement would not survive a US court challenge. I originally said that it would be in the CHLs best interest to release Wright due to the questionable nature of the agreement.
Personally, I think Canada and the CHL have done their best to address the issue of the thousands of Canadian kids that pass through major juniors but realistically have zero chance of playing pro hockey. From a societal standpoint, they have it set up with the longterm best interest of he players in mind.
Back to the point. which was always that the CHL is the only league that does not allow it's players to play pro and get paid outside of the NHL. Every argument not addressing that was irrelevant to the discussion.
Your Sweden example did not address the unavailability for the players to play pro, therefore irrelevant, but I responded anyhow. Your next post you told me to read the OHL contract, which also is irrelevant, but I humored you and responded. If you want to call my responding to your strawman a strawman, well I guess you technically can since all of these tangents lead us farther away from the point.
Which is:
If an American player sued in the states over the right to receive compensation as an adult, and the defense rests on the validity of a contract signed by a minor, the player would likely win... even if he had a drunken monkey for an attorney.
The Marquis
Moderator
Gniwder
Registered User
Transfer agreement is not part of the CBA. 2 different things.
Every point you make is moot. Like you said, Shane isn't suing, and neither is anyone else. NOBODY IS TAKING THE TRANSFER AGREEMENT TO COURT. Wanna know why? Because those players want to play in the NHL, you only sue when you're career is done, not when you're trying to start one.
I'm under the assumption you've never signed an employment contract or ever been to court, and you're certainly not a lawyer, so I'm done. We're going in circles. (I'm not a lawyer either, but I've worked closely with lawyers at a couple of companies on contract negotiations and cancellations)
RainyCityHockey
Registered User
I don't know who would win in court. I think the reason you don't see a top prospect challenging the CHL in court is because the NHL agrees to respect those CHL contracts. It's NHL policy too. At least it's often spoken of that way - that the NHL is in agreement with the CHL on this set of rules because it wants to help protect the CHL, the top feeder league for NHL prospects.
Gniwder
Registered User
There is a transfer agreement between the NHL and CHL. It's basically a contract between the 2 leagues. It's signed by the NHL as well as the CHL. So basically, taking the transfer agreement to court means taking the NHL to court. Mind you, the transfer agreement allows a prospect to play in the NHL, so the kid would be suing the NHL to play in the AHL, after getting a signing bonus from a NHL team, How dumb would that be?
Bettman has already shown a willingness to blacklist players though for more egregious reasons (Mitchell Miller). He won't take well to getting sued.
Not to mention that a lawsuit would take longer than a year to resolve, at which point he'd be eligible to play in the AHL anyways. The whole notion of going to court is always brought up by people who have never been to court at least regarding contract terminations, there is a reason why the vast majority of contract issues get resolved out of court.... well probably many reasons.
Transfer agreements are set by the board of governors, along with league rules and team salary caps, among other things. The NHLPA represents every player that signs an NHL contract, including all of the kids in the CHL who are bound to the rules of the transfer agreements. When the league and the players association collectively bargain, they both make concessions on issues that are important to their side. The NHLPA can bring transfer agreements into the discussion if they feel that changes would be in the best interest of their members.
What I think may happen is that there is a push for a monetary compensation to allow a select number of CHL players to make the AHL jump every certain number of years per team (this is not my idea, it has been bandied around by talking heads around the league for several years now.)
There is obviously a problem and the current situation is hurting the development of some of the high-end talent in the CHL. We are starting to see a lot of potential first-round talent level prospects skip Major Juniors and go to the USHL and then move on to the NCAA, or guys that may have been drafted into the CHL but playing Junior-A spurn the move to Majors to play in the NCAA their draft year. (Including some of the premier talent - Makar, Power, Fantili, Clebrini ).
The CHL is a Canadian institution, and no Canadian wants to see it's demise, so everyone is treading lightly around the transfer agreement subject, but the truth of the matter is that the Canadian junior system is extremely talent diluted with 60 teams in Major and 130+ in Junior A, the system is unhealthy economically and as a development tool it is fairly subpar the way it is currently constructed.
A major shake-up may actually be beneficial and needed for the the junior leagues' longterm sustainability, imo. Modifying the transfer agreement would likely force some changes.
Some of my Canadian hockey friends believe that the NHL likes the system as it is because having so many junior teams dilutes the concentration of fan bases around the country, and having 5 of the 6 AHL teams (located in 5 of the 7 NHL markets and then having junior teams often sharing proximity with one another in smaller markets is a huge barrier to entry for any competing pro-league due to fan-base dillution. A secondary pro league might have a legitimate marketable business model if Major junior and junior A were both condensed and the majority of teams were in more regional leagues like Junior B, which probably is how the system should be made for both the development of the prospects and the economic feasibility of the Junior leagues.
Yes, it is a conspiracy theory but I think there may be some merit to it. I can not deny that keeping the current system intact is most definitely in the NHLs best interest in that regard.
Gniwder
Registered User
There are obviously some tie in between the 2 documents because they both impact future NHL players, but fact of the matter is they are 2 separate documents signed by different parties. The NHLPA has always shown a willingness to make concessions that are disadvantageous to future players, look at the ELC.
Also they are NOT "set by the board of governors", they are negotiated with the other party at hand (NHLPA/NHL and CHL/NHL). Quit trying to sound like you know what you are talking about when you clearly don't. A CBA is a "collective bargaining agreement" for an union. That is standard labor terminology. HAVE YOU READ THE CBA AT ALL? I have, I've quoted it here on this forum a few times, so you are trying to BS the wrong person.
While allowing some CHL players to play in the AHL might help those players, it diminishes the overall level of competition for the league, which impacts other prospects. The reason why USHL and colleges have become a more popular route is because the level of competition has improved significantly in the past 3 decades. Go back to the '92 draft (because I graduated that year lol) and you see only one USHL pick in the first round and that was the last pick of the round. As you scroll through to this past draft, the numbers steadily increase to 7 in 2023. Back in those days, the CHL was seen as the better development path to the NHL. So decreasing the competitiveness of the league will not help them at all, it might actually push more elite prospects to college where they play against older players.
The CHL is an institution in Canada, neither the NHL or the NHLPA will do anything to undermine the league. Whether or not a year of college scholarship per season is "fair" pay or not, 1500 kids are earning their way to college every season. Not to mention it's not in the best interest of the NHL to bankrupt the league, where would they all go?
As for your conspiracy theory, it's just that. The NHL has the major population areas covered except Quebec/Nova Scotia. There are no viable markets for a pro team outside of that, just look at the population map. Besides, it seems like any time someone starts any new sports league, it just gets swallowed up anyways like LIV.
If you're going to continue to try to BS me, then read the CBA first. Here's the link:
Collective Bargaining Agreement
Also, if the board of governor gets to "set" the CBA, then tell me why there was a strike and a lockout?
Last edited:
So the CBA had zero influence on transfer agreements in one post, but then in a reply, it does, but the focus of your argument is my choice of using the word "set by", where i obviously was implying they are "set up by with the other leagues", and this is your new strawman to pursue in this discussion?
For the love of god.
You inability to have a discussion without misconstruing words or phrases to try to change topics is absolutely exhausting. Reading your replies is like entering the Twilight Zone as they are always off the rails in terms of staying on topic. Responding to them just leads to another round of tangents leading further from discussion points.
The replies honestly get funnier in each round, but I feel there is no end to this insanity, so I am stepping out. It's been dizzying, if not terribly entertaining.
Gniwder
Registered User
LOL, for the love of god yourself. Learn how to read, I said they are 2 separate documents SIGNED BY DIFFERENT PARTIES. WHICH PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Geez, if you can't even understand that why are you arguing?
Still haven't read the CBA, have you? You don't even understand what a CBA is, so it will do you some good.
There's obviously tie in because the transfer agreement impacts ELCs, the draft, rights retention (which depends on where the player was drafted from), etc. Duh.
All you did was backtrack your own argument to say that the league is involved in agreements that impact the league, lol. Then accused me of creating a strawman. That's hilarious.
Last edited:
GrungeHockey
Registered User
- Sep 14, 2021
- 506
- 336
Ah, the wonderful hazy days of summer arguments for people with no hockey to watch..................
brewski420
Registered User
Well the Kraken HF board is slowly (very slowly thankfully) becoming a little more like other teams boards. 
Gniwder
Registered User
BTW, you named 4 players who have never played in the AHL as a reason why the CHL should allow players to play in the AHL, lol.
Maybe college hockey is just getting that much better where it's now become a way for prospects to bypass the AHL? Matty skipped the AHL as well, and Makar actually stayed a second year rather than play in the AHL.
The only thing we have to discuss at this point is where Wright gets to play. Maybe Kartye as well.
Other than that, the roster is pretty much set. The only free agents left are Dumba, Tatar, and Suter none of which the Kraken need.
So here we are....
Last edited:
And here I thought we were done with you misrepresenting my posts out of context to create disingenuous arguments. but you are going to keep proving my point I guess.
That paragraph you quoted, I labelled those players as "premier talent" The context of the quote was that the CHL is missing out on some of the best Canadian prospects. It had nothing to do with the AHL, but once again you are taking words out of context and trying to create a false narrative within the discussion.
Every aspect of this discussion has revolved around opinions, but and you continually misrepresent what I have posted to frame a narrative so you can throw out irrelevant facts to try to disprove something that cannot otherwise be disproven. I believe you are trying to manipulate the situation and it is not a case where your reading comprehension is just really inadequate, so I do not have much patience for the behavior.
This board is a discussions board, it is not a debate board, so you don't have to manipulate the discussion to "win". Arguing with bad faith and misrepresenting what others post to win arguments is not in the spirit of this place.
Please do not respond to any of my posts ever again and I will refrain from interacting with yours. Feel free to put me on ignore if you feel you can not help yourself to keep trying to "win".
