Kin
New member
BlueWhiteBlood said:I see these points, but then shouldn't age and pro status come into it. I get that the CHL wants a bunch of men playing against boys in their junior leagues, so those teams can have a competitive advantage, but we're talking about a man here, not a 15-18 year old. The NHL doesn't have the rights to any player under 18, so why does the junior leagues have certain limited rights to adult hockey players? Maybe pro status is the bigger issue.
But I think the thing you're missing is that the current relationship between the NHL and CHL is one that benefits both parties to an extent. It's actually to the NHL's advantage that they don't have the right to players before the age of 18. The further developed a player is, the better handle the scouts have on his pro potential and the draft will be more effective at distributing talent. So the CHL develops players until they're 18, which the NHL benefits tremendously from, then they let the NHL draft the players they have under contract without individual negotiations. That's a huge benefit to the NHL. The only real concession the CHL gets for that is that the NHL has agreed not to turn the AHL into the CHL's competitor by putting the best 18-19 year olds in the world there.
What you're doing is looking at a situation where one person takes 19 slices of pizza, leaves someone else with only one and then, when the person with 19 complains about wanting some of the last remaining slice, saying "They really should work out a compromise".
BlueWhiteBlood said:There is always lots of talk about "what's best for the player", but what's the use of saying that, if they're not going to do it.
But as Busta says, "what's best for the player" is a nebulous concept and always runs secondary to the interests of the two leagues. It would be "best" for the players if the CHL paid them. It would be "best" for the players if, in place of a draft, the players got to field offers from NHL teams as free agents. I don't think it needs to be said that "what is best for the player", in the NHL and CHL's minds, are really secondary to what's best for them.
BlueWhiteBlood said:I just think there should be some middle ground so that everybody wins here.
But, again, this is the middle ground. The CHL has to have some benefit from their relationship with the NHL. They're not a charity. They don't exist for the NHL's convenience. If the NHL wants a farm system the way Baseball has one where they get to choose where to send players at all times then they should do what baseball does and pay for an actual farm system. If they want players to arrive at 18 with the best possible coaching and development that can only exist in a professional setting they should do what soccer clubs do and pay for that development themselves.
But if the NHL wants a pro-style development like the CHL provides and they don't want to pay for it, the NHL can't throw a tantrum over the one concession the CHL gets out of the arrangement even if they think it would be better for the development of the players.