Should rules change for defected players?

[4 Bobby ORR]

With a possibly of 2 or 3 players that may defect this year, the number of 2nds & 3rds that will be traded to acquire these players is getting out of hand. I think the rules need to change. I would suggest a modification to the non-trading of 1st round picks- can only be traded in transactions that involve defected players. This would eliminated the number 2nd & 3rds being traded and the team 1st round pick essentially becomes the compensatory pick (no extra pick from the league).

When trading for such players might look like:
-the following year's 1st plus 2nd or 3rd pick.
-the 1st pick 2 years away, a 2nd and a 3rd should that team already acquired a defected player the previous year.

Your thoughts or alternative changes to the rules???

Click to read more...

 

[SSMHoundsFan]

My suggestion is players play where they are drafted to play and if they don't, they sit their whiney asses at home all season

 

[4 Bobby ORR]

My suggestion is players play where they are drafted to play and if they don't they sit their whiney asses at home all season

That would be nice but not likely to happen. Branch will not lose these top players to the NCAA.

 

[LDN]

My suggestion is players play where they are drafted to play and if they don't, they sit their whiney asses at home all season

As a London fan. I would not appreciate this.

 

[Kingpin794]

My suggestion is players play where they are drafted to play and if they don't, they sit their whiney asses at home all season

Darn children are ruining everything amirite?

Telling a kid he has to go to whoever drafts him or not at all is pointless. You do realize it wouldn't suddenly make players show up to certain teams right? Sit at home? Lmao. Yeah because this is the ONLY league that exists. Sounds like a great thing to impliement. Alienate some of the high end talent AND make sure that teams who can't ever get these guys to report can't get other forms of compensation to midigate the talent gap.

Show then yougins what for. Yep, pick that hill to die on.

 

[bobber]

As a London fan. I would not appreciate this.

You forgot your smiley LDN

 

[LDN]

You forgot your smiley LDN

haha its been fixed

 

[SSMHoundsFan]

players should feel privileged to play in the OHL, not be entitled to play in whatever city they so choose to play in...undermines the idea of the draft and alienates some teams that have difficulties attracting top talent...just my two cents

 

[OMG67]

This rule, as it stands now, helps to compensate the teams for drafting best available players that choose to not report. If the compensation isn't over the top, teams will then go back to drafting best one that will guarantee signed. That means the top teams will get a top 5 pick at pick #18 furthuring the imbalance.

It is time for the geniuses to stop trying to fix stuff.

 

[EvenSteven]

I have no issue with the compensation goes to teams who perennially can't get players to report. If teams want to pay the steep prices for these defective players, they'll pay them. If they don't, they won't. Nobody is forcing their hands.

The more you reduce the compensation to these teams, the least competitive they'll be in this league. That was the whole point in changing the rule in the first place.

I go back to the 2002 draft when Bert Templeton, then Sudbury's coach, was quoted in an article regarding the issue. He complained that every year the team gets a stack of letters from high end prospects saying they will not report to his club so don't bother drafting them.

One year, Sudbury's first round pick was actually ranked in the second round. I believe they drafted at number five overall that year. As a Ranger fan, I will always remember his quote, "I'm picking at number five. You mean to tell me I won't take Evan McGrath at number five? Of course I would. But I got a letter from him saying he will not report to my club. So what do I do?" This in response to the criticism he was getting for his draft selection.

I am a Ranger fan and everybody knows Kitchener is a market many players would love to play in. But I also feel for the clubs out there that have a hell of a time getting quality prospects to report.

I'd like this league to be the strongest it can be. That means all its members need to be strong as possible. I'm not a big Dave Branch fan, but I do think he hit a homerun formulating the rules regarding defective players.

 

[EvenSteven]

players should feel privileged to play in the OHL, not be entitled to play in whatever city they so choose to play in...undermines the idea of the draft and alienates some teams that have difficulties attracting top talent...just my two cents

In a perfect world? Sure. But this isn't a perfect world.

 

[itsahemi]

With a possibly of 2 or 3 players that may defect this year, the number of 2nds & 3rds that will be traded to acquire these players is getting out of hand. I think the rules need to change. I would suggest a modification to the non-trading of 1st round picks- can only be traded in transactions that involve defected players. This would eliminated the number 2nd & 3rds being traded and the team 1st round pick essentially becomes the compensatory pick (no extra pick from the league).

When trading for such players might look like:
-the following year's 1st plus 2nd or 3rd pick.
-the 1st pick 2 years away, a 2nd and a 3rd should that team already acquired a defected player the previous year.

What if an exceptional player had done this? Would this be adequate compensation for Tavares, Ekblad, McDavid, or Day?

 

[bobber]

I see this issue as two choices for any franchise in the first round. You either draft a player that says he will report or you call the bluff of the one that won't and draft them. You either get the a player that will report or take a chance on one that won't and if he is defective you still benefit when he is traded plus and extra first rounder. Personally you have to give credit to the top kids that will go to the team that drafts them and leaves the politics out. The league would be better for it IMO but it is what it is. Kids have choices and the franchises with decent records of development and have more to offer will benefit from this. When you look at the Hounds and Owen Sound two smaller centres they have done well mostly getting kids to report which says a lot about their franchises. I really don't see any rule you could make up other than what they have in place to make this situation and better.

 

[GangGreen]

What if an exceptional player had done this? Would this be adequate compensation for Tavares, Ekblad, McDavid, or Day?

One of the stipulations for exceptional status is reporting to the team that drafts you.
Simple way to fix it. Allow trading of first round picks. That way the team trading the defected player doesn’t have to wait a year for compensation.
For example, Peterborough trades their first to London for their first, 2nd and 4th.
I would also amend the rule to not allow any first year player to be dealt mid-season.
So instead of trading Connor McMichael for example, Hamilton would have traded their first rounder from this draft instead.

 

[Truthking]

With a possibly of 2 or 3 players that may defect this year, the number of 2nds & 3rds that will be traded to acquire these players is getting out of hand. I think the rules need to change. I would suggest a modification to the non-trading of 1st round picks- can only be traded in transactions that involve defected players. This would eliminated the number 2nd & 3rds being traded and the team 1st round pick essentially becomes the compensatory pick (no extra pick from the league).

When trading for such players might look like:
-the following year's 1st plus 2nd or 3rd pick.
-the 1st pick 2 years away, a 2nd and a 3rd should that team already acquired a defected player the previous year.

Your thoughts or alternative changes to the rules???

You make it seem like those teams have to trade for those guys. If they don’t like the price then don’t trade for them. It’s bad enough teams take advantage of a flawed system, you think they should change the rules to make it even easier on those teams? Give your head a shake.

 

[SWScout]

If you don’t report to drafting team, there should be a two year penalty from playing in the league. Many players use the NCAA card, and if that is the case, hold them to it. This will backfire on many kids due to marks, drop off in play, etc. Yes the league may lose some players but the overall health would improve.

 

[Savard18]

My suggestion is players play where they are drafted to play and if they don't, they sit their whiney asses at home all season

That's a nobody wins situation. Not the team that drafted him, not the player, not the fans and not the OHL. The NCAA has come leaps and bounds forward as has the USHL. I wanna see the OHL strike back and turn the tide back in their favor. That's not the way to do it. I'm a fan of a "have not" team and I'm MOSTLY ok with the rules as they are. I do think the ability to trade 1st round picks would help. A team could trade down in round one, get the player that WOULD report and get a little compensation. I'm sure that level of compensation would escalate to a degree. I don't mind the idea of not being able to trade first year players either but they do come with a no-trade clause anyway right? They could always refuse to be traded and I wouldn't want to restrict a kid from being traded if he sees it as a better opportunity for himself. The comp pick also helps when a kid isn't "playing" the NCAA card and is just legitimately considering that route and isn't trying to steer his way to a certain club(s).

 

[NOA]

I go back to the 2002 draft when Bert Templeton, then Sudbury's coach, was quoted in an article regarding the issue. He complained that every year the team gets a stack of letters from high end prospects saying they will not report to his club so don't bother drafting them.

One year, Sudbury's first round pick was actually ranked in the second round. I believe they drafted at number five overall that year. As a Ranger fan, I will always remember his quote, "I'm picking at number five. You mean to tell me I won't take Evan McGrath at number five? Of course I would. But I got a letter from him saying he will not report to my club. So what do I do?" This in response to the criticism he was getting for his draft selection.

I am a Ranger fan and everybody knows Kitchener is a market many players would love to play in. But I also feel for the clubs out there that have a hell of a time getting quality prospects to report.

I'd like this league to be the strongest it can be. That means all its members need to be strong as possible. I'm not a big Dave Branch fan, but I do think he hit a homerun formulating the rules regarding defective players.

I remember Erie having to do this with Greg McKegg and OReilly. I’m sure other players too. It’s why I never understood why some outsiders bashed Erie/Bassin. What were they supposed to do? You need players first and foremost who will show up and play.

I think you are better off in today’s age in the early picks to take the top tier guy like the Petes. Drysdale was also saying no to Petes and more than likely a few others. So they went with Cuylle. Force his hand. If he really doesn’t want to report then you get a top compensation. If he forces you to trade him you get compensated AND 4-6 high end picks. Sure it delays you a year but I respect teams doing it rather than seeing guys like Perfetti or Cuylle just slip to whoever they want. Force teams to pay!

The later in the draft you go, basically past the top 10, the more you have 10-20 guys who you could “justify” in picking from. And generally at least 1 of those guys will report to whoever. It’s only the top 5-10 picks that we should be worried about. Sure there are players later in the draft that have only a short list of teams they will attend but ther are 20 other players with similar talent to pick from. Like once we get further in the draft there is less of a gap and more people in each talent grouping to pick from. So a team can simply pick and find a similar player in terms of talent that they know or feel will report.

With the college/American type of kids, that’s just going to happen. Can’t control behind the scenes stuff from happening. Mostly though the Americans are firm and true to their commitment. Most wont ever show up to play here, not even for London. The Canadian college commits are a bit tricky but hopefully most kids are not using and abusing not just the OHL system but also the college system by verbally committing with other intentions. I do like the above theory about forcing these kids to maybe sign something with the OHL before the draft that indicates their college intention. And if they do sign, they can not play in the OHL for 1-2 years. If they don’t sign the college intention form then it’s more exposed about what they are potentially doing in terms of forcing their way to Team A. Would make things more transparent and teams could clearly see the kids that are college all the way or maybe unsure/abusing the system. Maybe it would help a little with “fake commitments”

The best way to start getting top talent to report is to start grinding and building your teams through the later parts in the draft. SSM and Erie in particular are finding late round gems and developing them. These aren’t the college commits that London gets. No, these are true lower rated picks that they are spotting and realizing their potential. Smaller markets have to be able to do that to have any chance to compete with top programs

 

[bobber]

I think not letting teams trade away first round picks is to protect some franchises from completely damaging their future. Some crafty GM's would take advantage of the green horn or inexperienced GM's. As a "hypothetical" example. What if Dale Hunter sucked in Sudbury and the Knights get Byfield? There would be riots in the streets. These boards be on fire!

 

[EON]

I like the system they have now. Without the compensation, smaller teams wouldn't even bother taking risks on high end guys and just let them fall to bigger market teams. Now small market teams can pick a high end guy and try to convince him to join their program or force the larger market team to pay the appropriate price to acquire that player.

 

[OSA]

I think the CHL and CIS need to do a much better job of promoting University hockey in Canada.

As I’ve said before, unless it’s an Ivy League school we’re talking about, there is very little difference in the educational value between post-secondary institutions in Canada and the US. A degree from, say, McGill is of similar value to a degree from, say, Michigan.

So, if it’s not ultimately about post-secondary education quality for these players, then what is it?

I must admit, thanks to the media and entertainment, the lifestyle and “good times” factor seems quite high for post secondary students in the US; especially for athletes. But really, do students at North Dakota have that much more fun than the students at Western? I doubt it.

In the end, the only thing I can think of that, from a 16 year old hockey player’s perspective is consequential, is the fact that Unversity sports in the US are a much bigger deal than they are in Canada. A Boston College game will have a much better attendance and atmosphere than a game for the University of Alberta. If the CIS and CHL were able to enhance to perception of CIS hockey similar to that of the US then I think there would be a lot fewer Canadians contemplating the US College route over the CHL than there are currently.

 

[EvenSteven]

If you don’t report to drafting team, there should be a two year penalty from playing in the league. Many players use the NCAA card, and if that is the case, hold them to it. This will backfire on many kids due to marks, drop off in play, etc. Yes the league may lose some players but the overall health would improve.

And you'll lose more players to the NCAA than you do now.

Then we have a weaker league.

 

[OMG67]

I think the CHL and CIS need to do a much better job of promoting University hockey in Canada.

As I’ve said before, unless it’s an Ivy League school we’re talking about, there is very little difference in the educational value between post-secondary institutions in Canada and the US. A degree from, say, McGill is of similar value to a degree from, say, Michigan.

So, if it’s not ultimately about post-secondary education quality for these players, then what is it?

I must admit, thanks to the media and entertainment, the lifestyle and “good times” factor seems quite high for post secondary students in the US; especially for athletes. But really, do students at North Dakota have that much more fun than the students at Western? I doubt it.

In the end, the only thing I can think of that, from a 16 year old hockey player’s perspective is consequential, is the fact that Unversity sports in the US are a much bigger deal than they are in Canada. A Boston College game will have a much better attendance and atmosphere than a game for the University of Alberta. If the CIS and CHL were able to enhance to perception of CIS hockey similar to that of the US then I think there would be a lot fewer Canadians contemplating the US College route over the CHL than there are currently.

Nice idea but not practical.

REASON: The CHL is the Non-NHL profile product in Canada. NCAA is the Non-professional profile product int he USA. Raising the profile of CIS in Canada would take away from the CHL.

There are so many other examples in other sports that have the same profile. NCAA vs B League NBA. NCAA vs Minor League Baseball.

I agree that CIS sport, in general, doesn’t garner any support and it probably should. It is a great product across all sports. I just think it is a lot to ask to raise the profile of CIS sport in an effort to keep an extra dozen or so kids that would make a difference each year in the OHL. The problem isn’t big enough...yet...

 

[Section7fan]

And you'll lose more players to the NCAA than you do now.

Then we have a weaker league.

Or we potentially get a better balance in the league without the London's and Windsor's getting stacked by the spoiled kids dictating the draft.

 

[Ward Cornell]

In a perfect world? Sure. But this isn't a perfect world.

or how about a team getting a "defected player" can only trade for one every 5 yrs!
A team drafting a defected player can only trade him once every 3 yrs!