Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Junior Hockey Exemption Rule


saucypass

Recommended Posts

As you all know, the CHL does not allow NHL prospects under 20 or players with under 4 seasons to play in the AHL. This puts a lot of our players that are too good for junior hockey but not good enough for the NHL in a tough position. They are essentially rushed into the NHL (e.g. McCann? Virtanen?) or they lose out another year of development in the CHL.

 

The rule has been put in place due to the fact that if CHL teams let their top players ago every year, theoretically speaking, they will lose revenue due to the loss of of their top talent.

Some junior players are already ready at 18 (e.g. Crosby, Lemieux) and because of that and their right to work at 18, it would be a bad idea to move the draft age eligibility back up to 20. 

 

So what I propose is that we keep the draft age eligibility at 18, and instead of picking off every top talent from the CHL, we can allow each NHL team a cap at how many prospects they promote to the AHL per two draft classes.

 

However, should they promote that certain player, that are also obligated to pay a specified sum to the respective CHL team for any projected revenue losses. The higher the draft pick, the more the sum should be, much like an ELC. 

 

At the same time, there will be more roster spots opening up for more players waiting to break out on stacked CHL teams. This would also strengthen ties between the CHL and the NHL, and would also encourage the CHL to develop players for the long run, in hopes of decreasing the chances for top prospects to peak at the junior level. 

 

What do you guys think? 

 

EDIT: I noticed a lot of people are bringing up the fact that CHL teams are going to be "crushed" or "destroyed" financially. CHL franchises are actually not as poor as many of you might think. http://www.tsn.ca/talent/chl-franchises-worth-millions-can-afford-to-pay-players-study-1.522306 

 

The second largest sum of money generated from ticket sales in 2015-2016 belongs to the Kitchener Rangers with $646,410. A minimum wage contract from the NHL alone is $575,000. An NHL team may see that as a minimum waged buy out, or a "bonus" and all of a sudden the CHL franchise almost doubles in ticket sales a season for losing just one player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RRypien37 said:

Says who?

You guys realize that rules like this could destroy CHL teams right? The rest of the teams aren't Halifax or London, who can get good players to play for them every year. Most teams need these players to push for playoffs and to build a fanbase who will support them long-term. 

 

Additionally, no prospect has suffered from playing the full two years after draft. Look at Mark Scheifele, for example; he was too good for the CHL but he still played the full two years and now he's a top-line center.  

 

This conversation happens every year and the answer will always be the same; be patient. If they aren't good enough for the NHL then let them go back to CHL and dominate. They will gain more confidence and hone their skills playing in every situation from PK to PP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, funkyfresh said:

You guys realize that rules like this could destroy CHL teams right? The rest of the teams aren't Halifax or London, who can get good players to play for them every year. Most teams need these players to push for playoffs and to build a fanbase who will support them long-term. 

 

Additionally, no prospect has suffered from playing the full two years after draft. Look at Mark Scheifele, for example; he was too good for the CHL but he still played the full two years and now he's a top-line center.  

 

This conversation happens every year and the answer will always be the same; be patient. If they aren't good enough for the NHL then let them go back to CHL and dominate. They will gain more confidence and hone their skills playing in every situation from PK to PP. 

Fair enough. I accept your reasoning and explanation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Green Building said:

People who like the staus quo, or are afraid of the CHL being immediately devoid of talent should something be changed.

 

I propose something simple: every team gets 1 exemption per 2 year window. No questions, that is it.

You take out good players from the CHL and the leagues will all suffer. Not just revenue but also development. Players improve as they play with and against better players, elevating their games to new levels. The CHL needs these players to keep quality of competition high for current and future prospects. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, funkyfresh said:

You take out good players from the CHL and the leagues will all suffer. Not just revenue but also development. Players improve as they play with and against better players, elevating their games to new levels. The CHL needs these players to keep quality of competition high for current and future prospects. 

 

Yes, they will, but if NHL teams begin to demand a developmental compromise where their picks are able to be placed in a situation that is a little more under the individual teams control then my suggestion is a starting point.

 

In no circumstance am I for the leeching of the CHL, but once a player is drafted by an NHL club I have no problem with them having some rights as to where an occasional standout player plays. 

 

1 player every 2 years isn't going to destroy the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, funkyfresh said:

You take out good players from the CHL and the leagues will all suffer. Not just revenue but also development. Players improve as they play with and against better players, elevating their games to new levels. The CHL needs these players to keep quality of competition high for current and future prospects. 

 

I suggest you revisit the OP. To address the money issue, CHL teams will be compensated by NHL teams. That way they will still have money from projected revenue losses from star players.

As for player development, players also develop by playing in bigger roles. More importantly not all star players in the CHL will be taken away, only a few per year as every NHL team has a cap on how many players they can promote in every TWO draft years. This will make teams think twice before promoting their NHL prospects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, suitup said:

So what I propose is that we keep the draft age eligibility at 18, and instead of picking off every top talent from the CHL, we can allow each NHL team a cap at how many prospects they promote to the AHL per two draft classes.

Sorry @suitup, I conveniently missed this one paragraph in your OP before responding with the exact same suggestion to another poster. I agree, and I suggest 1 every 2 draft classes, maybe 3 if the CHL plays hardball. Either way, there could easily be some leeway given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, suitup said:

I suggest you revisit the OP. To address the money issue, CHL teams will be compensated by NHL teams. That way they will still have money from projected revenue losses from star players.

As for player development, players also develop by playing in bigger roles. More importantly not all star players in the CHL will be taken away, only a few per year as every NHL team has a cap on how many players they can promote in every TWO draft years. This will make teams think twice before promoting their NHL prospects.

That's why I said it's not just about revenue. How are these teams supposed to make playoffs or build a fanbase if they lose their star players? The compensation won't fill empty seats. And how are they even going to figure out what is proper compensation?

 

Just as an example, let's assume the rule is already in place. A team like Windsor Spitfires will lose Sergachev, Brown, Stanley. All of the sudden they are not even close to competing . And of course, after the draft, they will lose Vilardi. That team just got gutted and will probably have to trade remaining decent players for picks and prospects and rebuild. Do you not see any problem with this?

 

What's funny is that the OP uses Virtanen and McCann as examples of guys who were too good for CHL. That's one of the silliest statements and shows that this has nothing to do with getting good players better opportunities, it's just about fans who have no patience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, funkyfresh said:

it's just about fans who have no patience. 

Like hell it is. It's about fans who think  that if a franchise believes a player shouldn't be in the CHL or the NHL there is this other league in between them both that would suffice. 

 

For the sake of argument, let's assume you are arguing on behalf of the CHL and have no choice but to negotiate. The NHL hypothetically says it's time to revisit this and says each franchise is to be given 1 exemption every 2 years, and may be willing to deny NHL clubs from removing CHL players from teams that would result in CHL clubs losing 3 exempted players over the course of 2 seasons, but maybe not.

 

What would your terms be? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, funkyfresh said:

That's why I said it's not just about revenue. How are these teams supposed to make playoffs or build a fanbase if they lose their star players? The compensation won't fill empty seats. And how are they even going to figure out what is proper compensation?

 

Just as an example, let's assume the rule is already in place. A team like Windsor Spitfires will lose Sergachev, Brown, Stanley. All of the sudden they are not even close to competing . And of course, after the draft, they will lose Vilardi. That team just got gutted and will probably have to trade remaining decent players for picks and prospects and rebuild. Do you not see any problem with this?

 

What's funny is that the OP uses Virtanen and McCann as examples of guys who were too good for CHL. That's one of the silliest statements and shows that this has nothing to do with getting good players better opportunities, it's just about fans who have no patience. 

That's not necessarily true. As the OP mentioned, there will be a cap on every few drafts. NHL teams who feel that maybe perhaps this may not apply to certain prospects and would allow them to stay another year or two in junior. Also know that this means that this would be year 1 of their pro status on prospect ELC's. Teams who compete like the Caps will need to spend to the cap, and promoting a prospect just to put them through to the AHL would think twice about doing so.

 

There are teams that might draft more than one player in the first round, thus putting more top talent with one NHL team. Take 2013 Calgary Flames for example, they drafted Klimchuk, Monahan, and Poirier. All three are CHL players. Assuming the rule was put in place, and the Flames decided the AHL was the best route for Monahan, they would've sent Klimchuk and Poirier back to the CHL. Furthermore, they would also have to keep in mind that they only have a certain amount of promotions per draft. In 2014, this would mean they would not have been able to promote Bennett to the AHL. 

 

In your example with Sergachev, Brown, and Stanley, I don't think losing all three players is necessarily true. Again, there is a cap on players picked every two drafts, could even be more if it works better that way. In 2015, the Senators drafted Chabot and White, with White going to play in the NCAA, perhaps the Senators would be inclined to send Chabot to the AHL. After making that move, this would mean Brown would not be eligible for promotion the year after. If Montreal promoted Juulsen that very same year, the Spitfires would only theoretically lose Stanley as the Jets picked from the NCAA twice the year after. 

 

Teams can still create a fanbase and make the playoffs by developing more players in their pipeline. This encourages them to do that, and would increase the value of prospects from the CHL. You need to look at it league-wide, you're speaking as if the Spitfires for example, would be the only team in the entire CHL to lose players. Every team in the CHL will lose top talent here and there from time to time, and it might even be better as it would level the playing field. 

 

Virtanen and McCann were just examples to make this thread more relatable to Canucks prospects. There are obviously much better examples like Brule. Also, this is most definitely about giving players the best opportunity to develop and I'm not sure why you would say otherwise. Nor do I really know why this is about fans being impatient? If anything, this is about being patient for trying to find a solution to allow players who are good enough to play in a league where they can develop instead of forcing them to make the NHL or go back to junior hockey. 

 

Also, figuring out how much compensation should be isn't too hard. When a player gets promoted to the NHL early, or to the AHL when it's time, how much money does a team lose out because that certain player? It's not like it's the first time a CHL team has lost it's star player. If I recall correctly, Crosby is currently playing on an NHL team and not for Rimouski. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, suitup said:

I suggest you revisit the OP. To address the money issue, CHL teams will be compensated by NHL teams. That way they will still have money from projected revenue losses from star players.

As for player development, players also develop by playing in bigger roles. More importantly not all star players in the CHL will be taken away, only a few per year as every NHL team has a cap on how many players they can promote in every TWO draft years. This will make teams think twice before promoting their NHL prospects.

It would be like a CHL buyout  allowing the player to go to the AHL and increased competition and better coaching and speed up development of the player (Virt/McCann) ie how to balance the needs of the CHL team and the top pick players. AHL games make them closer to NHL style play. I see the buyout being a good thing and yes a cap of  1 player for every 2 years.

This is only for elite players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hairy Kneel said:

It would be like a CHL buyout  allowing the player to go to the AHL and increased competition and better coaching and speed up development of the player (Virt/McCann) ie how to balance the needs of the CHL team and the top pick players. AHL games make them closer to NHL style play. I see the buyout being a good thing and yes a cap of  1 player for every 2 years.

This is only for elite players. 

Yep, exactly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Green Building said:

Sorry @suitup, I conveniently missed this one paragraph in your OP before responding with the exact same suggestion to another poster. I agree, and I suggest 1 every 2 draft classes, maybe 3 if the CHL plays hardball. Either way, there could easily be some leeway given.

No problem, glad we're on the same page!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, suitup said:

As you all know, the CHL does not allow NHL prospects under 20 or players with under 4 seasons to play in the AHL. This puts a lot of our players that are too good for junior hockey but not good enough for the NHL in a tough position. They are essentially rushed into the NHL (e.g. McCann? Virtanen?) or they lose out another year of development in the CHL.

 

The rule has been put in place due to the fact that if CHL teams let their top players ago every year, theoretically speaking, they will lose revenue due to the loss of of their top talent.

Some junior players are already ready at 18 (e.g. Crosby, Lemieux) and because of that and their right to work at 18, it would be a bad idea to move the draft age eligibility back up to 20. 

 

So what I propose is that we keep the draft age eligibility at 18, and instead of picking off every top talent from the CHL, we can allow each NHL team a cap at how many prospects they promote to the AHL per two draft classes.

 

However, should they promote that certain player, that are also obligated to pay a specified sum to the respective CHL team for any projected revenue losses. The higher the draft pick, the more the sum should be, much like an ELC. 

 

At the same time, there will be more roster spots opening up for more players waiting to break out on stacked CHL teams. This would also strengthen ties between the CHL and the NHL, and would also encourage the CHL to develop players for the long run, in hopes of decreasing the chances for top prospects to peak at the junior level. 

 

What do you guys think? 

I am for it. The rule as it is, hurts players in unique situations. Jake, McCann and now OJ would all ideally be in the AHL in their draft year +2. Then you have the euro's like Nylander able to find a loophole and it helped his development. 

 

It's too big a jump for most players to go from the CHL to the NHL. Most need some time in the AHL to adjust and get pro coaching. 

 

I my mind, rules the hinder the development and restrict the movement of players on contracts that pay below minimum wage should be illegal.  Something that fairly allows a player to turn pro one year after drafted is fair. 

 

Plus to the OP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...