Should rules change for defected players?

foghorn

Registered User
Nov 4, 2017
546
266
In actual fact yes London is a top end destination for sure, but its due to how great the organization has been and become. They have produced so much NHL talent and you cant argue with that. They run everything as professional as possible and have created a winning culture. I admire the business talent that the Hunters have, but I admire that they have a great team of management behind them
and lots of money cmon now it is a factor ask former players
 

Petes1987

Registered User
Oct 13, 2013
1,066
794
They need to change the rules on how many defected players one team can trade for. They need to change it that a team can trade for one defected player, every three years. This will help control certain players only wanting to go to select teams.
 
Last edited:

Purple Phart

Registered User
Apr 4, 2016
1,125
1,279
They need to change the rules on how many defected players one team can trade for. They need to change it that a team can trade for one defected player, every three years. This will help control certain players only wanting to go to select teams.

I'm not sure that a team could rebuild their stockpile of assets/picks within a 3-year cycle to become a buyer every 3 years, in any event. If they could, a rule such as you propose would limit the number of potential buyers who could bid for the services of a defected player. The rule, as it stands, allows for the team who selected a player who refuses to report, to gain significantly from trading that player. Auctions are generally most successful, when MORE buyers are present, rather than LESS.
 

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,551
6,750
They need to change the rules on how many defected players one team can trade for. They need to change it that a team can trade for one defected player, every three years. This will help control certain players only wanting to go to select teams.

Has there been a team that has traded for a defected player more than once every three years?

2016 - Nihznikov to Barrie
2014 - Brown to Windsor
2014 - Mete to London
2011 - Domi to London
2010 - Rychel to Windsor

These are the guys I can think of. Am I missing any?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fastpace

OSA

Registered User
Jun 11, 2011
1,120
432
Has there been a team that has traded for a defected player more than once every three years?

2016 - Nihznikov to Barrie
2014 - Brown to Windsor
2014 - Mete to London
2011 - Domi to London
2010 - Rychel to Windsor

These are the guys I can think of. Am I missing any?

Rychel actually went to Mississauga. He went to Windsor at the trade deadline.

Your point stands though lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fastpace

the dog

Registered User
May 16, 2014
790
130
2015 Tortora to kit
2015 Mcleod to miss
2011 Bateman to windsor
2010 Ebert to windsor
2009 Lessio to oshawa
 

knowescape

Made you look
Jan 26, 2016
419
39
Ontario
And you'll lose more players to the NCAA than you do now.

Then we have a weaker league.

Doubtful. It's just a ploy to play where they like. The OHL is a strong product, it's a shame the league's brass feel they have to give in rather than having confidence in their own league. Play where drafted or don't play, let the affected team hold the players rights without penalty for five years. Make that a rule and the NCAA card dries up as a bargaining chip.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sec108

TcNorth

Registered User
Jan 25, 2015
2,540
431
The compensation for a defective player has gotten way out of hand. A top 10 defective pick, plus three 2nd round picks, plus three 3rd rounds picks is excessive. After reading the many comments, I found some I would like to see implemented:

1). The ability to trade 1st round picks

2). A trade of a defective player to receive no more than a defective-1st round pick the following year, 2-2nd round picks, and two-3rd round picks

3). Same team only being able to get a defective pick once every three or five years

The OHL needs to address the increasing ptoblem of players defecting to NCAA teams as opposed to not reporting because they do not want to play in that city. OHL teams are the problem also. Saginaw knew there was no way Perfetti would play in Saginaw, but they selected him anyway.
 
Last edited:

dirty12

Registered User
Mar 6, 2015
8,965
3,636
The compensation for a defective player has gotten way out of hand. A top 10 defective pick, plus three 2nd round picks, plus three 3rd rounds picks is excessive. After reading the many comments, I found some I would like to see implemented:

1). The ability to trade 1st round picks

2). A trade of a defective player to receive no more than a defective-1st round pick the following year, 2-2nd round picks, and two-3rd round picks

3). Same team only being able to get a defective pick once every three or five years

The OHL needs to address the increasing ptoblem of players defecting to NCAA teams as opposed to not reporting because they do not want to play in that city. OHL teams are the problem also. Saginaw knew there was no way Perfetti would play in Saginaw, but they selected him anyway.

Until a team that traded a defective player wins an OHL championship, the compensation as is can not be said to be too much. On the other end, London & Windsor & (Oshawa?) have won an OHL championship with the defect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthking

bcspragu

Registered User
Aug 17, 2012
1,185
669
Saginaw, MI
The OHL needs to address the increasing ptoblem of players defecting to NCAA teams as opposed to not reporting because they do not want to play in that city. OHL teams are the problem also. Saginaw knew there was no way Perfetti would play in Saginaw, but they selected him anyway.

Kind of like McLeod in Flint no?

I don't think the rules for defected players should change. Compensation isn't to much for teams and should be used in their advantage. Literally every small market team should be taking these kids every other year and moving them to who they will report too. Let these KIDS go where they feel comfortale. Yet small market teams can and should use this process to bleed the teams dry of picks in the future and not let them replenish picks down the road when they move their left overs back out of town.

Take the Pu deal this season. If smaller market teams werent funneling good picks back to London along with great young players they wouldn't have the picks to make these deals year after year.
 

TcNorth

Registered User
Jan 25, 2015
2,540
431
Kind of like McLeod in Flint no?

I don't think the rules for defected players should change. Compensation isn't to much for teams and should be used in their advantage. Literally every small market team should be taking these kids every other year and moving them to who they will report too. Let these KIDS go where they feel comfortale. Yet small market teams can and should use this process to bleed the teams dry of picks in the future and not let them replenish picks down the road when they move their left overs back out of town.

Take the Pu deal this season. If smaller market teams werent funneling good picks back to London along with great young players they wouldn't have the picks to make these deals year after year.
Exactly like Flint. We should not have received that bounty either. Flint tried their hardest to get McLeod to commit and he did not have a NCAA commitment. Saginaw playing the system just like everybody else. Saginaw has taken a number of picks the last 3-4 years who they never expected to report. However you did get one to report who wasn’t getting the same ice time in Plymouth. If you take enough of those kind of pick, you are bound to get one to report. The whole system needs to be looked at.
 
Last edited:

bcspragu

Registered User
Aug 17, 2012
1,185
669
Saginaw, MI
Exactly like Flint. We should not have received that bounty either. Flint tried their hardest to get McLeod to commit and he did not have a NCAA commitment. Saginaw playing the system just like everybody else. Saginaw has taken a number of picks the last 3-4 years who they never expected to report. However you did get one to report who wasn’t getting the same ice time in Plymouth. If you take enough of those kind of pick, you are bound to get one to report. The whole system needs to be looked at.

Not sure you know what you are talking about. Jenkins was coming to Saginaw long before he didn't get enough playing time in Plymouth. He was coming to Saginaw as soon as he was contractually allowed after they selected him. He attended Saginaw rookie camp right after draft but couldn't participate in on ice because of his USDTP 1 year deal he signed pre draft, presumably to avoid a certain team that was picking before Saginaw that season who told him they were picking him. Turns out they didnt end up picking before Saginaw after all.

Regardless of Jenkins, Saginaw is playing the game with Perfetti sure. But nothing is wrong with that. They are doing what is in the best interest of thier club under the rules of the league. Those rules were set up to help teams like Saginaw and Flint so they can pick bpa and get value from them. If not they are forced to reach for later projected talent and the top "committed" kids fall to Londons and the likes. Is that what you want?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finster8

cupcrazyman

Stupid Sexy Flanders
Aug 14, 2006
16,404
1,469
Leafland
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.

Compensation should equal the players draft ranking.
 

TcNorth

Registered User
Jan 25, 2015
2,540
431
Not sure you know what you are talking about. Jenkins was coming to Saginaw long before he didn't get enough playing time in Plymouth. He was coming to Saginaw as soon as he was contractually allowed after they selected him. He attended Saginaw rookie camp right after draft but couldn't participate in on ice because of his USDTP 1 year deal he signed pre draft, presumably to avoid a certain team that was picking before Saginaw that season who told him they were picking him. Turns out they didnt end up picking before Saginaw after all.

Regardless of Jenkins, Saginaw is playing the game with Perfetti sure. But nothing is wrong with that. They are doing what is in the best interest of thier club under the rules of the league. Those rules were set up to help teams like Saginaw and Flint so they can pick bpa and get value from them. If not they are forced to reach for later projected talent and the top "committed" kids fall to Londons and the likes. Is that what you want?
I disagree with you nearly completely. However, that is okay. We do not need to agree on everything.
 

EvenSteven

Registered User
Sep 3, 2009
7,321
6,071
Forget it... scrap the draft entirely. Create geographic regions based on the franchise. Limit of 3 import players per team. An import is a player from outside the geographic territory. All imports must sign a release from the franchise in the region in which they reside.

Problem solved... you're welcome

And you'll have a handful of super teams, a group of decent teams, and the same perennial bad teams every year. pretty much the same as now.

Not a good idea.
 

bcspragu

Registered User
Aug 17, 2012
1,185
669
Saginaw, MI
I disagree with you nearly completely. However, that is okay. We do not need to agree on everything.

My question is why do you feel the 1st round comp pick given by the league is excessive or a bad idea in the first place? That is the only thing the league has control of and they implemented it so teams don't get screwed and lose a high value selection if they take a risk drafting the best player available who wont show to certain teams (or show to the league at all). This was done to even the playing field between the top clubs and the bottom clubs. All the trading of first round picks between teams wont matter if a player picked in the first round refuses to report to the league at all. (Although to be fair, I do think future 1st round picks should be allowed to be traded. Both for normal player trades as well as for defected players. But comp picks are still needed)

The amount of additional picks traded on top of the comp first is determined between the two clubs based on how they value the player. Hell I'd even argue that the additional picks the teams are getting in these defective player trades are too low in value based on the CURRENT league trade values.

For example:

Saginaw traded former captain Mitchell Stephens to London

In return Saginaw received:

2018 2nd round pick (Ottawa)
2018 2nd round pick (Kingston)
2019 2nd round pick (Owen Sound)
2020 2nd round pick (Sudbury)
2017 3rd round pick (London)
2019 3rd round pick (London)

A solid number of picks, but was slammed in some hockey circles for Saginaw not getting a player back in the deal.

That was for 43 games from a rental player.

Now say take a consensus top 5-10 player in a draft who you are going to get a MINIMUM of 2 seasons from with the high possibility of 3 seasons and a small chance of 4 or 5 seasons. Value should be way higher than that.
 

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,551
6,750
Compensation should equal the players draft ranking.

Compensation is based on market value. Market value dictates a players worth when that player is sold on that open market.

If the team holding the defected player only gets the compensation pick for the player not reporting, what happens to the player? Where does he go? What team would get him and when?

Why would a team pick a player knowing there is only a 10% chance he would report? No team will. That means guys like Gagner will fall to the 4th round and bepicked by the team he wanted to go to and that team gets the player for a 4th round pick instead of paying market value int he two 2nds and three 3rds range. How is that fair and equatable? How does that solve the proposed problem?

At least with this system, players that are first round calibre get picked in the first round and end up mostly playing in the league.
 

Savard18

Registered User
Feb 10, 2015
4,245
3,353
Flint, MI
My question is why do you feel the 1st round comp pick given by the league is excessive or a bad idea in the first place? That is the only thing the league has control of and they implemented it so teams don't get screwed and lose a high value selection if they take a risk drafting the best player available who wont show to certain teams (or show to the league at all). This was done to even the playing field between the top clubs and the bottom clubs. All the trading of first round picks between teams wont matter if a player picked in the first round refuses to report to the league at all. (Although to be fair, I do think future 1st round picks should be allowed to be traded. Both for normal player trades as well as for defected players. But comp picks are still needed)

The amount of additional picks traded on top of the comp first is determined between the two clubs based on how they value the player. Hell I'd even argue that the additional picks the teams are getting in these defective player trades are too low in value based on the CURRENT league trade values.

For example:

Saginaw traded former captain Mitchell Stephens to London

In return Saginaw received:

2018 2nd round pick (Ottawa)
2018 2nd round pick (Kingston)
2019 2nd round pick (Owen Sound)
2020 2nd round pick (Sudbury)
2017 3rd round pick (London)
2019 3rd round pick (London)

A solid number of picks, but was slammed in some hockey circles for Saginaw not getting a player back in the deal.

That was for 43 games from a rental player.

Now say take a consensus top 5-10 player in a draft who you are going to get a MINIMUM of 2 seasons from with the high possibility of 3 seasons and a small chance of 4 or 5 seasons. Value should be way higher than that.
Good example. The league only gives a compensation pick one year later and allows the player to be traded. Any additional value received via trade is determined by OHL GM's willing to give assets they deem worth the player. That's not something I think should be controlled by the league. If TCFlint was against this when Flint was doing it with McLeod I sure don't remember the posts. There's no reason to complain that Saginaw is doing it now. I'm not sure it was the right move for Saginaw looking at their timeframe and it shows a bit of lack of faith in their scouting/and or ability to get kids to report in my opinion though. I think they're going to try and trade their way to playoff success by moving picks for established talent rather than trying to draft and develop it. They haven't had any success with the latter but I'm not certain the former is good for long term franchise success and stability.
 

ETA 2000 Fan

Registered User
Apr 16, 2015
583
185
Forget it... scrap the draft entirely. Create geographic regions based on the franchise. Limit of 3 import players per team. An import is a player from outside the geographic territory. All imports must sign a release from the franchise in the region in which they reside.

Problem solved... you're welcome

That doesn't work in minor hockey and the cheating (fake moves/divorces, private schools) is rampant so it would only be worse with higher stakes.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->