Jordan Subban | D

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

Not sure if it's been mentioned here already, but Subban seems to be really missing Chaput.

 

1 point in his five GP since Chaput was called up.

 

11 points in the previous 9 played with Chaput in the Comets lineup.

 

Chaput with points on 7/12 Comets goals this season where Subban has hit the scoresheet (and was on the ice for 8/12).

 

So as far as WOWYs go, Subban has only scored four points this season without Chaput on-ice (one of which was when Chaput was in Vancouver).

 

If Chaput is going back down before his waiver exemption expires (in three NHL games), Jordan is probably counting the days.  

[Ghostsof1915]

Considering his size, and that we're in a division with pretty big players. I find it hard to imagine having both Stetcher and Subban on our right side. Honestly, I think the only long term solution to make this club is to convert him to wing. We can use him as a 3rd/4th line winger. He could get shots on net. Best of all, in a game if we have and injury or a defenseman is gone for the game. He can play defence at that time. What's wrong with having a fast utility guy? If he's not good enough to play defence, but can score, isn't making him a winger the best alternative? 

[Alflives]

Just now, Ghostsof1915 said:

Considering his size, and that we're in a division with pretty big players. I find it hard to imagine having both Stetcher and Subban on our right side. Honestly, I think the only long term solution to make this club is to convert him to wing. We can use him as a 3rd/4th line winger. He could get shots on net. Best of all, in a game if we have and injury or a defenseman is gone for the game. He can play defence at that time. What's wrong with having a fast utility guy. If he's not good enough to play defence, but can score, isn't making him a winger the best alternative? 

I've read here before about getting Subban to the wing.  He's got elite skills, so I don't get why not move him there?

[aGENT]

17 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Considering his size, and that we're in a division with pretty big players. I find it hard to imagine having both Stetcher and Subban on our right side. Honestly, I think the only long term solution to make this club is to convert him to wing. We can use him as a 3rd/4th line winger. He could get shots on net. Best of all, in a game if we have and injury or a defenseman is gone for the game. He can play defence at that time. What's wrong with having a fast utility guy? If he's not good enough to play defence, but can score, isn't making him a winger the best alternative? 

 

On 14/11/2016 at 7:16 PM, J.R. said:

We'll still need 7th and 8th D the next 2 years and Subban could fill that spot similar to Weber last year or Larsen this one.

 

[Phat Fingers]

On November 21, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Boudrias said:

The CHL wants the draft age moved up to 19! They don't let underagers into the AHL because it would take the stars from the CHL program and weaken the development of all junior players. I kinda agree with this. Bad enough that you would take a young kid away from home in Western Canada but it is western Canada and not a whole continent away. You can cushion all that with the right billets but still not a good situation.  

 

 

That may be a better situation for all clubs in the long run, as younger prospects get equal in physical development, it becomes easier to predict their actual draft potential.  

 

I do think that any drafted player should be allowed to go to the AHL.  The CHL teams need to realize that for a majority of their players, they will stay for the draft plus 1-2 years in junior before turning pro. The parent clubs don't want to needless burn of very valuable ELC years.  

 

That one factor means that NHL clubs tend to finacially benefit from having the junior teams 'develop' their players for a couple of years after the draft. 

 

But a player like Virtannen falls thru the cracks, and that is why I think that any drafted player should be allowed to go to the AHL. He was physically way beyond his peers, that it actually hurt his development. He also is not mature enough to play at re NHL.

 

  Many posters on this board do not think that it was good for Jake to be in NHL this year. Neither do many think Juinor was the best place for him.  To me, the AHL is where he has belonged for the past two years. I think we would all see a much different player than he appears to be at this juncture.  

 

In Junior, I could care less about the business of the league.  It needs to be about the players, first, foremost and always. These young guys are getting poverty pay, living away from home and risking serious injury to the profit of private business. In any other industry, we would be calling it a national outrage. 

 

Take another player we have drafted, Ollie Juolevi. As good as I think he is, and will be, he is exactly where he needs to be this year. Next year, it could be another story if he suddenly adds 15 pounds to the frame. But that doesn't happen, he is and should be going back to Juinor. 

 

That at is what should have happened to McCann as well. JB hurt his development by bringing him up.  

 

thats my two bits.  

 

EW. 

 

[elvis15]

15 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

...

In Junior, I could care less about the business of the league.  It needs to be about the players, first, foremost and always. These young guys are getting poverty pay, living away from home and risking serious injury to the profit of private business. In any other industry, we would be calling it a national outrage. 

...

You keep saying that, but fail to realize the business of the league is the players. The players are also qualifying for free college education if they want it, and the business end allowing for better conditions, training, and quality of players to develop alongside and against. The CHL would be a lesser version of itself without the ability to keep the tweener players to draw in crowds.

 

But yeah, Subban.

On 11/22/2016 at 1:59 AM, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned here already, but Subban seems to be really missing Chaput.

 

1 point in his five GP since Chaput was called up.

 

11 points in the previous 9 played with Chaput in the Comets lineup.

 

Chaput with points on 7/12 Comets goals this season where Subban has hit the scoresheet (and was on the ice for 8/12).

 

So as far as WOWYs go, Subban has only scored four points this season without Chaput on-ice (one of which was when Chaput was in Vancouver).

 

If Chaput is going back down before his waiver exemption expires (in three NHL games), Jordan is probably counting the days.  

Interesting. It's a smaller sample size and they'd perhaps be well suited to each other, but it could also be that the replacements that work with Subban aren't finishing or helping setup plays. Subban could be suffering himself as well, but hard to say with a small sample size on a team that's struggling.

[Phat Fingers]

18 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

You keep saying that, but fail to realize the business of the league is the players. The players are also qualifying for free college education if they want it, and the business end allowing for better conditions, training, and quality of players to develop alongside and against. The CHL would be a lesser version of itself without the ability to keep the tweener players to draw in crowds.

 

But yeah, Subban.

Interesting. It's a smaller sample size and they'd perhaps be well suited to each other, but it could also be that the replacements that work with Subban aren't finishing or helping setup plays. Subban could be suffering himself as well, but hard to say with a small sample size on a team that's struggling.

 

The CHL is a business that gets to profit on the hope dreams of hockey players, most of which won't play professional, making a ton of cash while doing so.

 

It's not the NCAA of exploitation, but it is a business model that depends on nearly free labour and can indenture its employee's (players) by restricting where and whom they can play with.  

 

So the CHL should be about the players. The clubs are making money and most are owned by millionaires. 

 

So any other business would be vilified with this business model. If the CHL gets slightly diminished by allowing the few players who find themselves in Jakes situation to play in the AHL, then so be it. The consumer won't truly know the difference and games will still get played. If anything the CHL can allow the teams that may lose a player early a compensation draft pick somehow. 

 

 

[Ray_Cathode]

On 22/11/2016 at 6:17 AM, Ghostsof1915 said:

Considering his size, and that we're in a division with pretty big players. I find it hard to imagine having both Stetcher and Subban on our right side. Honestly, I think the only long term solution to make this club is to convert him to wing. We can use him as a 3rd/4th line winger. He could get shots on net. Best of all, in a game if we have and injury or a defenseman is gone for the game. He can play defence at that time. What's wrong with having a fast utility guy? If he's not good enough to play defence, but can score, isn't making him a winger the best alternative? 

I remember Scotty Walker was a terrific offensive defenceman in the OHL, but ended up playing forward in the NHL. -  Same  with Wendell Clark - of course both of those guys were also undersized tough guys.

[Phat Fingers]

Brent Burns also was a converted forward for part of his NHL career. Can't believe that the Wild traded him for Heatley.  

 

 

[Dickie]

Subban with his 5th goal of the year tonight, on the powerplay. Has 4 PPG so far.

[Dickie]

Subban with a primary assist this afternoon on the Comet's goal in a 4-1 loss to the Marlies.

[elvis15]

On 11/23/2016 at 9:53 PM, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

 

The CHL is a business that gets to profit on the hope dreams of hockey players, most of which won't play professional, making a ton of cash while doing so.

 

It's not the NCAA of exploitation, but it is a business model that depends on nearly free labour and can indenture its employee's (players) by restricting where and whom they can play with.  

 

So the CHL should be about the players. The clubs are making money and most are owned by millionaires. 

 

So any other business would be vilified with this business model. If the CHL gets slightly diminished by allowing the few players who find themselves in Jakes situation to play in the AHL, then so be it. The consumer won't truly know the difference and games will still get played. If anything the CHL can allow the teams that may lose a player early a compensation draft pick somehow. 

I've never disagreed the players are pretty much free labour, but they do get benefit. My point being it wouldn't be the developmental league it is now without the rule in place.

 

And you've already mentioned another business that gets away with it, the NCAA. It is what it is. If you want to fight for player salaries, so be it, but the point that development needs support of some things like the CHL/NHL agreement to work shouldn't be overlooked.

[Phat Fingers]

7 hours ago, elvis15 said:

I've never disagreed the players are pretty much free labour, but they do get benefit. My point being it wouldn't be the developmental league it is now without the rule in place.

 

And you've already mentioned another business that gets away with it, the NCAA. It is what it is. If you want to fight for player salaries, so be it, but the point that development needs support of some things like the CHL/NHL agreement to work shouldn't be overlooked.

 

Again, this is about the players that are caught in the middle. They are physically beyond the CHL and are not yet developed enough for the NHL. This is about 2-4 players per year max. That vast majority of players will play to the full draft plus 2-3 years before turning. Pro. 

 

The players rights are what is not being considered and their future development is also being put at risk. Jake was rushed it the NHL, IMO the club felt that his development was being hurt by his Juinor team.

 

That's the exact rare situation that calls for an exemption. Edmonton lost a year of Driasitl's ELC, to essentially force a trade in the CHL (if I recall things properly).  

 

As I stated the CHL needs to be a players focused league. When you realize how much money the CHL makes off of free labour, well, they can afford to take a hit now and then. Jakes case is rare and he and Driasitl would have been the only people in their respective draft to fall into this category.  

 

The only player from this draft that I would have though could benefit in the same manor is Jacob Chycrun, but we will see how his 1st year in the NHL goes. 

 

The vast majority will not be applicable.  The exemption needs to be done in a case by case setting with the full and absolute support of the player and their draft club.  This would only apply to the draft year plus one.  These players would have had to play at least one full season in the CHL after being drafted.  The CHL team losing a player would get a compensation pick in the CHL draft.  

 

The Parent club would be the ones who initiate the appeal and the process would take place prior to the CHL draft. The compensation pick would fall between the 1st and 2nd round.  

 

As the NHL teams do benefit from keeping their players in the CHL, the risk is quite minimal.  I would imagine that this might be like a offer sheet. Used rarely. 

 

EW. 

 

[Boudrias]

5 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

 

Again, this is about the players that are caught in the middle. They are physically beyond the CHL and are not yet developed enough for the NHL. This is about 2-4 players per year max. That vast majority of players will play to the full draft plus 2-3 years before turning. Pro. 

 

The players rights are what is not being considered and their future development is also being put at risk. Jake was rushed it the NHL, IMO the club felt that his development was being hurt by his Juinor team.

 

That's the exact rare situation that calls for an exemption. Edmonton lost a year of Driasitl's ELC, to essentially force a trade in the CHL (if I recall things properly).  

 

As I stated the CHL needs to be a players focused league. When you realize how much money the CHL makes off of free labour, well, they can afford to take a hit now and then. Jakes case is rare and he and Driasitl would have been the only people in their respective draft to fall into this category.  

 

The only player from this draft that I would have though could benefit in the same manor is Jacob Chycrun, but we will see how his 1st year in the NHL goes. 

 

The vast majority will not be applicable.  The exemption needs to be done in a case by case setting with the full and absolute support of the player and their draft club.  This would only apply to the draft year plus one.  These players would have had to play at least one full season in the CHL after being drafted.  The CHL team losing a player would get a compensation pick in the CHL draft.  

 

The Parent club would be the ones who initiate the appeal and the process would take place prior to the CHL draft. The compensation pick would fall between the 1st and 2nd round.  

 

As the NHL teams do benefit from keeping their players in the CHL, the risk is quite minimal.  I would imagine that this might be like a offer sheet. Used rarely. 

 

EW. 

 

Your idea of CHL teams making big money from free labour is a joke, at least in the WHL. Most teams spend all their revenue on operations and still depend on community donations to keep going. IMO the strength of Canadian hockey is in the CHL. It funds skills development through coaching programs. Major junior provides an environment where most players can develop their talents to a level where a pro career can be an option. No not all players are good enough. CHL has post secondary funding for players who do not go pro.

 

Cherry picking quality players to the pros would be a NHL team decision under your scheme. Not only would this undercut the base for the CHL but it would put undue pressure for 18 year olds to move up faster than needed. More goes into the equation than skills. I would suggest physical and emotional maturity trumps skills.  

[Alflives]

13 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Your idea of CHL teams making big money from free labour is a joke, at least in the WHL. Most teams spend all their revenue on operations and still depend on community donations to keep going. IMO the strength of Canadian hockey is in the CHL. It funds skills development through coaching programs. Major junior provides an environment where most players can develop their talents to a level where a pro career can be an option. No not all players are good enough. CHL has post secondary funding for players who do not go pro.

 

Cherry picking quality players to the pros would be a NHL team decision under your scheme. Not only would this undercut the base for the CHL but it would put undue pressure for 18 year olds to move up faster than needed. More goes into the equation than skills. I would suggest physical and emotional maturity trumps skills.  

The NHL draft should actually move to 20 year olds.  Let the kids finish junior, and grow up a bit.  

[elvis15]

8 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Your idea of CHL teams making big money from free labour is a joke, at least in the WHL. Most teams spend all their revenue on operations and still depend on community donations to keep going. IMO the strength of Canadian hockey is in the CHL. It funds skills development through coaching programs. Major junior provides an environment where most players can develop their talents to a level where a pro career can be an option. No not all players are good enough. CHL has post secondary funding for players who do not go pro.

 

Cherry picking quality players to the pros would be a NHL team decision under your scheme. Not only would this undercut the base for the CHL but it would put undue pressure for 18 year olds to move up faster than needed. More goes into the equation than skills. I would suggest physical and emotional maturity trumps skills.  

^ This.

 

The rule in place covers 99.9% of the players now (those who aren't good enough and those who are for the NHL). We don't need to put in an exemption that will allow for more junior players than the exemption was even meant to cover going to the AHL each year. Not every team will take advantage, but more than 2-4 will and that means the CHL teams get less players back that help them keep the product competitive and the fans continuing to help the profit margin.

 

8 hours ago, Alflives said:

The NHL draft should actually move to 20 year olds.  Let the kids finish junior, and grow up a bit.  

But then you'd have players who are ready for the NHL sooner sitting for two years in juniors. I can see 19 being better apart from usually only a couple of cases each year, but 20 is overkill and also limits the earning potential of the players. Unless that somehow allows the CHL to be even more competitive and then transition enhanced revenue over to the players, there's no way 20 is ever agreed to.

[elvis15]

14 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

 

Again, this is about the players that are caught in the middle. They are physically beyond the CHL and are not yet developed enough for the NHL. This is about 2-4 players per year max. That vast majority of players will play to the full draft plus 2-3 years before turning. Pro. 

 

The players rights are what is not being considered and their future development is also being put at risk. Jake was rushed it the NHL, IMO the club felt that his development was being hurt by his Juinor team.

 

That's the exact rare situation that calls for an exemption. Edmonton lost a year of Driasitl's ELC, to essentially force a trade in the CHL (if I recall things properly).  

 

As I stated the CHL needs to be a players focused league. When you realize how much money the CHL makes off of free labour, well, they can afford to take a hit now and then. Jakes case is rare and he and Driasitl would have been the only people in their respective draft to fall into this category.  

 

The only player from this draft that I would have though could benefit in the same manor is Jacob Chycrun, but we will see how his 1st year in the NHL goes. 

 

The vast majority will not be applicable.  The exemption needs to be done in a case by case setting with the full and absolute support of the player and their draft club.  This would only apply to the draft year plus one.  These players would have had to play at least one full season in the CHL after being drafted.  The CHL team losing a player would get a compensation pick in the CHL draft.  

 

The Parent club would be the ones who initiate the appeal and the process would take place prior to the CHL draft. The compensation pick would fall between the 1st and 2nd round.  

 

As the NHL teams do benefit from keeping their players in the CHL, the risk is quite minimal.  I would imagine that this might be like a offer sheet. Used rarely. 

 

EW. 

So why make a rule that affects so few players? There's 60 CHL teams, and even undercounting to say 20 player per team that puts the total number of players at 1200 players. At even 5 players a year affected by no exemption, that's 0.42% of the players you're making a rule for. It's probably more accurate to say 1400 total players and maybe 2 or 3 that would benefit and the percentage gets even worse.

 

But allow an exemption across all 60 CHL teams that could see a player moved to the AHL, and even if only 10 NHL teams take advantage (say, for players with the physical size/strength/speed capable of playing in pro, there are a few of those each year) to help speed development, then there's more potential for impact on the CHL than there is with the current model. Before you say it wouldn't be 10, in Virtanen's draft year it could have been used for Reinhart, Draisaitl, Bennett, Virtanen, Ehlers, Fleury, Ritchie, Perlini, Honka, Sanheim, Fabbri and certainly McCann if not others.

 

Then there's the proposed solution. How does the draft pick work and where does it fall without it affecting other CHL teams and their order while still being enough compensation? Applying it to players who already have one season played in the CHL post draft means it'd be better to look at the 19 year old draft age suggestion instead, which has rumour of the CHL losing their agreement to have 20 year olds sent back for their final year if they don't make the NHL.

 

I don't see any pro to the CHL to go with the exemption route. You just don't make a change to affect less than 1% of a player base.

[Dickie]

3 hours ago, elvis15 said:

So why make a rule that affects so few players? There's 60 CHL teams, and even undercounting to say 20 player per team that puts the total number of players at 1200 players. At even 5 players a year affected by no exemption, that's 0.42% of the players you're making a rule for. It's probably more accurate to say 1400 total players and maybe 2 or 3 that would benefit and the percentage gets even worse.

 

But allow an exemption across all 60 CHL teams that could see a player moved to the AHL, and even if only 10 NHL teams take advantage (say, for players with the physical size/strength/speed capable of playing in pro, there are a few of those each year) to help speed development, then there's more potential for impact on the CHL than there is with the current model. Before you say it wouldn't be 10, in Virtanen's draft year it could have been used for Reinhart, Draisaitl, Bennett, Virtanen, Ehlers, Fleury, Ritchie, Perlini, Honka, Sanheim, Fabbri and certainly McCann if not others.

 

Then there's the proposed solution. How does the draft pick work and where does it fall without it affecting other CHL teams and their order while still being enough compensation? Applying it to players who already have one season played in the CHL post draft means it'd be better to look at the 19 year old draft age suggestion instead, which has rumour of the CHL losing their agreement to have 20 year olds sent back for their final year if they don't make the NHL.

 

I don't see any pro to the CHL to go with the exemption route. You just don't make a change to affect less than 1% of a player base.

 

Would it not be simpler to maybe have an agreement with the CHL where any player chosen in the top 10 of the draft out of the CHL would be exempt? I feel like that would be a simpler solution, and not every team in the league would be able to move their first rounder to the AHL.

[Bruce Boudreau]

On 11/21/2016 at 3:31 PM, Boudrias said:

The CHL wants the draft age moved up to 19! They don't let underagers into the AHL because it would take the stars from the CHL program and weaken the development of all junior players. I kinda agree with this. Bad enough that you would take a young kid away from home in Western Canada but it is western Canada and not a whole continent away. You can cushion all that with the right billets but still not a good situation.  

 

I'd prefer 20 but I'll take 19 as a compromise.

 

I much prefer the NCAA system of development since they play on the weekends usually only there is more time for practicing and skill development plus getting stronger and faster doing training then there is playing a pro like schedule in the CHL.

 

We have seen how much better ready 22 year olds like Hutton and Stecher were making the immediate jump from college without any AHL seasoning compared to their junior aged counterparts who are 19-21 years old still in the minors or juniors trying to figure it out.

 

Look at Jimmy Vesey too. It seems the NCAA is better development league for young players because they get to play against 23 plus year olds vs the CHL where it is 15-20 year olds and only 3 "over agers" per team.

[elvis15]

1 hour ago, Dickie said:

Would it not be simpler to maybe have an agreement with the CHL where any player chosen in the top 10 of the draft out of the CHL would be exempt? I feel like that would be a simpler solution, and not every team in the league would be able to move their first rounder to the AHL.

You're still looking at exemptions for an extremely small number of players. And it singles out the best talent in each draft year, for which more teams would take advantage than you think. Those names I listed? Count how many of those were in the top 10 whose teams might have enjoyed the option to bring them to the AHL early.

 

1 hour ago, Chip Kelly said:

I'd prefer 20 but I'll take 19 as a compromise.

 

I much prefer the NCAA system of development since they play on the weekends usually only there is more time for practicing and skill development plus getting stronger and faster doing training then there is playing a pro like schedule in the CHL.

 

We have seen how much better ready 22 year olds like Hutton and Stecher were making the immediate jump from college without any AHL seasoning compared to their junior aged counterparts who are 19-21 years old still in the minors or juniors trying to figure it out.

 

Look at Jimmy Vesey too. It seems the NCAA is better development league for young players because they get to play against 23 plus year olds vs the CHL where it is 15-20 year olds and only 3 "over agers" per team.

Picking out a couple of names that have been success stories doesn't mean they're a better development league. Don't forget names like Jordan Schroeder or Patrick McNally.

 

Lots of players use the NCAA as a means to build a future in case hockey doesn't work out, and for many it doesn't. I can keep using that draft as an example. Lots of players from the 1st round doing things in the NHL already after two years. Not many that went the NCAA route either.

 

Maybe it helps those players not quite ready yet who might fall out of the early picks, but it doesn't have to be particularly more successful than the CHL/AHL route when all of those players wouldn't even be in the discussion of an early exemption to the AHL anyway.