Junior Hockey Exemption Rule

[on the cycle]

I think more players should go the college or pro league route. The CHL doesn't pay you (Same with college, but less rights); Matthews went to Switzerland and made $0.5M at 18 and got to develop faster playing against men.

 

I am not really a fan of how the CHL operates, I hope leagues like the BCHL get bigger and better so players aren't restricted as heavily as the CHL. I firmly believe that if you're entertaining paying people, you should get paid. Why should the CHL have the right to stop you from going to the AHL and make money before you turn 20?

[elvis15]

2 hours ago, suitup said:

I think a player every two years is a good middle ground from an NHL standpoint as well as a CHL standpoint. For every two drafts, there's at least one prospect that an NHL team would want to promote from juniors. Personally, if you look at the last few drafts, there are less and less players drafted from the CHL. I think this rule would incentivize players to play in the CHL, and all of a sudden you're looking at an influx of talent in the CHL. 

...

But that's my point, there are probably only one or two prospects this would truly benefit but it would open things up to have 5 or 10 teams take advantage each year. It'd be creating a window when all you really need is a peephole. The suggestion of something similar to the CHL draft exceptional status determination is probably better and teams could still be compensated. It could even be held back to draft+2 players only, which is part of the proposal to move the draft to age 19, and would keep top players that would otherwise leave after the draft in the CHL to draw crowds and improve development one more year.

 

If a prospect isn't choosing to go into the CHL at 15 or 16 because they think they'll be good enough to move on from junior but not good enough yet for the NHL, then that's a pretty specific projection. I don't think that's holding any players back from joining the CHL, when Junior A might not give them as much development until they join college and then they'd be delaying earning potential once they do go to the NCAA.

[saucypass]

12 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

But that's my point, there are probably only one or two prospects this would truly benefit but it would open things up to have 5 or 10 teams take advantage each year. It'd be creating a window when all you really need is a peephole.

 

If a prospect isn't choosing to go into the CHL at 15 or 16 because they think they'll be good enough to move on from junior but not good enough yet for the NHL, then that's a pretty specific projection. I don't think that's holding any players back from joining the CHL, when Junior A might not give them as much development until they join college and then they'd be delaying earning potential once they do go to the NCAA.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that part of the reason why Matthews played in the NLA in his draft year? There are definitely other players who feel that they benefit from playing against men or have the option to play in the AHL after getting drafted. Some thrive on the challenge, and some don't. It's also about going pro early and being able to cash in. As for the NCAA, sure they delay earning potential, but it's a long term investment that still sees them making money after hockey. In the end, going the NCAA is still a financial investment for a lot of players. 

 

Right, but this IS a peephole. The option is there if you would want it, if you don't then you don't have to do anything about it. I don't see how giving teams this option, "window," or "peephole," or whatever you want to call it is a bad thing. If a few prospects truly benefit from it every year, then why not look at implementing this rule? We might even find out how maybe sometimes players actually CAN overstay in junior hockey, and start to learn bad habits. 

[Boudrias]

2 hours ago, on the cycle said:

I think more players should go the college or pro league route. The CHL doesn't pay you (Same with college, but less rights); Matthews went to Switzerland and made $0.5M at 18 and got to develop faster playing against men.

 

I am not really a fan of how the CHL operates, I hope leagues like the BCHL get bigger and better so players aren't restricted as heavily as the CHL. I firmly believe that if you're entertaining paying people, you should get paid. Why should the CHL have the right to stop you from going to the AHL and make money before you turn 20?

You make some good points, especially about the 'right to work'. My concern is the long term deterioration of the CHL and the level of play that benefits a lot of hockey players. Hockey Canada puts money into training coaches all the way back to Minor Hockey. So, yes CHL players do not get paid but in return they are provided a system and structure that can help them either make a pro career or play at the collegiate level through the CHL payment program.  

[on the cycle]

9 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

You make some good points, especially about the 'right to work'. My concern is the long term deterioration of the CHL and the level of play that benefits a lot of hockey players. Hockey Canada puts money into training coaches all the way back to Minor Hockey. So, yes CHL players do not get paid but in return they are provided a system and structure that can help them either make a pro career or play at the collegiate level through the CHL payment program.  

I just find the Junior leagues to have such as communist view of how to run things like "Hey, you wanna play? you wanna get drafted? Well you gotta play for free and stay here for 4 years".

 

I Just think that if they tore up the agreement, what can the CHL do?

The CHL has no power, I don't get why the NHL gives in. The AHL would be a more entertaining league with more actual prospects instead of journeyman players. The CHL has a bad business model that relies almost entirely off their NHL agreement.

 

The CHL essentially has a Monopoly on major junior hockey, which is why I advocate that kids go play in a highschool or college league before they turn 18 and then go play in Europe.

 

I take issue with the draft itself, that you can draft someone and hold their rights for up to 5 years before they become an RFA and then all they have to do is qualify any offer made from another team. Then you don't become a UFA until you're 27 or play in the league for seven years, so that's 7-9 years that you can't control where you go. 

 

I think the whole system is too restrictive. I suppose you could ask for a trade but that doesn't always end well. I am a proponent of, if you have 2 players that are the same but one plays in the CHL and the other plays in Europe pick the European so that he can play in the AHL. 

 

If I'm a player I'm either going to go play in Europe or in College. If I play in college I just play until I want to leave and then sign with whomever I want whether that's the team that drafted me or one who didn't. If I play in Europe I have less control than college but at least I'm making money before I'm 20 and can sign in any league other than the NHL or AHL. I just don't see a lot of incentive to play in the CHL other than exposure, and with today's access to media you can get noticed wherever you play.

 

[elvis15]

The NHL benefits from the CHL being an excellent development league, that's why they 'give in'. It's in their best interests to have a strong product so they've accepted this agreement to give the CHL some power over star prospects, since we've of course seen how NHL GM's can't control themselves (typically with outrageous contracts).

 

7 hours ago, suitup said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that part of the reason why Matthews played in the NLA in his draft year? There are definitely other players who feel that they benefit from playing against men or have the option to play in the AHL after getting drafted. Some thrive on the challenge, and some don't. It's also about going pro early and being able to cash in. As for the NCAA, sure they delay earning potential, but it's a long term investment that still sees them making money after hockey. In the end, going the NCAA is still a financial investment for a lot of players. 

 

Right, but this IS a peephole. The option is there if you would want it, if you don't then you don't have to do anything about it. I don't see how giving teams this option, "window," or "peephole," or whatever you want to call it is a bad thing. If a few prospects truly benefit from it every year, then why not look at implementing this rule? We might even find out how maybe sometimes players actually CAN overstay in junior hockey, and start to learn bad habits. 

Because only a few prospects would truly benefit from it but teams would be able to use it for more players because they can. The 19 year old draft with 20 year old AHL eligibility (or the exceptional player status panel style to decide who could be exempt) is a better solution than giving a blanket solution for players who've just been drafted to head to the AHL.

[saucypass]

Just now, elvis15 said:

The NHL benefits from the CHL being an excellent development league, that's why they 'give in'. It's in their best interests to have a strong product so they've accepted this agreement to give the CHL some power over star prospects, since we've of course seen how NHL GM's can't control themselves (typically with outrageous contracts).

 

Because only a few prospects would truly benefit from it but teams would be able to use it for more players because they can. The 19 year old draft with 20 year old AHL eligibility (or the exceptional player status panel style to decide who could be exempt) is a better solution than giving a blanket solution for players who've just been drafted to head to the AHL.

Right, but if a few prospects would benefit from it, where is the harm? CHL teams aren't drained from all their top talent, and they get paid when they do. Why do you think it's a blanket solution? GM's aren't going to blindly throw their top prospects into the AHL if they aren't ready. There will still be an assessment made on the prospects ready to make the jump.

[Jägermeister]

10 hours ago, stawns said:

there are quite a few who stay in the NHL rather than go back to their Jr clubs.......most of those kids would be better off in the AHL

Which 18/19 year olds currently playing in the NHL do you think would be in the AHL if the rule was different?

[elvis15]

21 hours ago, suitup said:

Right, but if a few prospects would benefit from it, where is the harm? CHL teams aren't drained from all their top talent, and they get paid when they do. Why do you think it's a blanket solution? GM's aren't going to blindly throw their top prospects into the AHL if they aren't ready. There will still be an assessment made on the prospects ready to make the jump.

You're missing my point. It's that teams will take advantage of the rule so that more than just the one or two prospects will be made exempt each year. Teams will want more control over their prospects if they don't like the junior team, have a prospect that's physically capable, or actually be a player who's just a bit too good for junior. Sure, there's compensation, but too many teams would take advantage.

[saucypass]

Just now, elvis15 said:

You're missing my point. It's that teams will take advantage of the rule so that more than just the one or two prospects will be made exempt each year. Teams will want more control over their prospects if they don't like the junior team, have a prospect that's physically capable, or actually be a player who's just a bit too good for junior. Sure, there's compensation, but too many teams would take advantage.

I'm sure teams already do this with bringing their players up to the NHL. Draisaitl only went back to juniors after his rights were traded, Edmonton held him out for half a year in the NHL.

[elvis15]

And they did that because they wanted to force Prince Albert to trade him, otherwise they would have sent him back earlier. They waited, and they got a trade to the Kelowna Rockets. They would have just exempted him to the AHL in this case, and more would take advantage even if their prospect isn't really a fit for this exemption.