Morgan Rielly

[BlueWhiteBlood]

There really isn't a middle ground the CHL will agree to. They're just not going to agree to a system where they lose their best players to any league other than the NHL.

It's funny, I see that point, but I also see what's best for the players development being the most important. The NHL owns that player, he's signed to an NHL deal and the CHL should lose all "rights" if the club that owns those rights sees fit to have their asset develop his game in a better league, or a more appropriate league.

He may not be suitable to go to the AHL, as I see him at an NHL level anyway, but it would be nice if the Leafs had the choice of where they want that player to best develop his skills for their club.

 

[Kin]

It's funny, I see that point, but I also see what's best for the players development being the most important. The NHL owns that player, he's signed to an NHL deal and the CHL should lose all "rights" if the club that owns those rights sees fit to have their asset develop his game in a better league, or a more appropriate league.

But as I said earlier, if your second sentence is true then what is the CHL's motivation for having any sort of co-operative relationship with the NHL? Why wouldn't they just sign 15 and 16 year olds to 5 year contracts and tell the NHL that if they wanted players available for a draft that they'd have to purchase those contracts?

 

[Corn Flake]

There really isn't a middle ground the CHL will agree to. They're just not going to agree to a system where they lose their best players to any league other than the NHL.

It's funny, I see that point, but I also see what's best for the players development being the most important. The NHL owns that player, he's signed to an NHL deal and the CHL should lose all "rights" if the club that owns those rights sees fit to have their asset develop his game in a better league, or a more appropriate league.

He may not be suitable to go to the AHL, as I see him at an NHL level anyway, but it would be nice if the Leafs had the choice of where they want that player to best develop his skills for their club.

Maybe if there wasn't this hard and fast rule that if the player is sent back, he stays there, then in the grand scheme there would be more opportunity for teams to get their players back. 

The guys who are going to stay will be here no matter what, but say if Rielly goes through a cold spell, he could go back to junior, but be recalled in a month if he improves his play or whatever the circumstances need to be. 

 

[Kin]

Maybe if there wasn't this hard and fast rule that if the player is sent back, he stays there, then in the grand scheme there would be more opportunity for teams to get their players back. 

The guys who are going to stay will be here no matter what, but say if Rielly goes through a cold spell, he could go back to junior, but be recalled in a month if he improves his play or whatever the circumstances need to be.

At that point though isn't the CHL just a farm league?

 

[ZBBM]

It seems to me the obvious choice would be to grant some players exceptional status ... or even simpler, just allow the NHL club to have the option of assigning 1st-rounders to the AHL.  Then you aren't gutting the whole junior roster -- only cherry-picking it.  8)

I don't know. Given that first rounders are typically the only guys who make it an issue in the first place it seems to me as though that "compromise" is tantamount to, you know, the NFL agreeing to not draft any high schooler provided they're under 160 pounds.

You've made my point.

And, now that you've brought it up, why should the NHL feel the need to compromise with the CHL at all?  They are just another amateur (maybe I should put that in quotes) league.  Why should they be treated differently than the NCAA, for example?

 

[ZBBM]

Maybe if there wasn't this hard and fast rule that if the player is sent back, he stays there, then in the grand scheme there would be more opportunity for teams to get their players back. 

The guys who are going to stay will be here no matter what, but say if Rielly goes through a cold spell, he could go back to junior, but be recalled in a month if he improves his play or whatever the circumstances need to be.

At that point though isn't the CHL just a farm league?

Which is what they are, de facto ... yes?  The CHL is a weird, weird deal IMO.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't see the existence of the CHL as that big of a deal.

 

[Kin]

You've made my point.

And, now that you've brought it up, why should the NHL feel the need to compromise with the CHL at all?  They are just another amateur (maybe I should put that in quotes) league.  Why should they be treated differently than the NCAA, for example?

Well, because the NCAA isn't a for-profit enterprise(technically). The CHL is a business(or collection of businesses anyway), even if they are a business who've scammed their way out of actually paying a good number of their employees.

The NHL profits greatly from not having to fund the development of players up to the age of 18 and that's based on the continued existence of the CHL. So for the NHL to look at their relationship with the CHL, where they don't fund it and they don't have to individually negotiate with teams for players, and object to the pretty minor things that work out to the CHL clubs' advantage seems to not just be pretty selfish but to be actively pulling at a thread of the far larger issue.

 

[Kin]

Which is what they are, de facto ... yes?  The CHL is a weird, weird deal IMO.

Well, sure, but it's sort of the way that, realistically, the smaller English soccer clubs are farms for the larger ones. Which is to say it's true in terms of the ways that players move throughout the various leagues but at the very least in those situations when a smaller English club develops a really good player, the larger clubs have to, you know, pay to acquire his contract based on his value. The current system sees the NHL avoid that, where they don't have to run the financial risk of having their various clubs bidding tens of millions of dollars to Rimouski for Sid Crosby, but in return there has to be a give and take because otherwise...why would the CHL exist?

I mean, trust me, I'm not arguing from the position of, you know, "The CHL is a grand old institution and must be preserved at all costs" but almost the polar opposite where I think the entire structure of the way players are developed and their "rights" acquired is an anti-competitive anachronism. The difference, I suppose, is that I don't feel that the changes that should be made are the ones that see the NHL advantage more from anti-competitive behaviour.

 

[bustaheims]

And, now that you've brought it up, why should the NHL feel the need to compromise with the CHL at all?  They are just another amateur (maybe I should put that in quotes) league.  Why should they be treated differently than the NCAA, for example?

Well, the NCAA is different in that they don't allow players who have signed professional contracts to play in their league anymore. The CHL does. That alone is a pretty significant difference between the two. The league doesn't really have the option to treat the NCAA the same way they treat the CHL.

Really, abandoning the agreement with the CHL puts the league in a similar position to where they were without a transfer agreement with the various European leagues. CHL players are under contract to their teams, and, without the transfer agreement, the individual teams would have to negotiate individually for every individual player drafted out of the CHL that they wanted to play in the NHL or AHL before they lost their junior eligibility or face major lawsuits. The agreement and compromise they've made with the CHL has made the process much smoother, uniform and free of potential litigation.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

But as I said earlier, if your second sentence is true then what is the CHL's motivation for having any sort of co-operative relationship with the NHL? Why wouldn't they just sign 15 and 16 year olds to 5 year contracts and tell the NHL that if they wanted players available for a draft that they'd have to purchase those contracts?

Well, for one, the CHL isn't where the money is, so I'm sure players wouldn't lock themselves into contracts with CHL teams, when they know they would miss out on the big money.

The CHL isn't going to take business away from the NHL. So, I see them as having to cooperate with the NHL, even if it's for the players that don't play at Rielly's level at his age.

At any rate, I agree with those that say there should be a rule for exceptional circumstances; example Rielly, who I believe to be to "good" for junior and maybe in a spot that he could use the development of an AHL type league, as not to be thrown to the wolves as the only option other than the CHL.

 

[Kin]

Well, for one, the CHL isn't where the money is, so I'm sure players wouldn't lock themselves into contracts with CHL teams, when they know they would miss out on the big money.

But they're 15 or 16 at the time. If their option is staying in high school and missing out on what's perceived to be the best developmental league in the world with the most exposure then I think most players, or rather their parents, would choose the CHL even if it meant delaying the big money until they were 20 or 21 which is really no different than what happens to, say, football or basketball players in the states.

 

[ZBBM]

You've made my point.

And, now that you've brought it up, why should the NHL feel the need to compromise with the CHL at all?  They are just another amateur (maybe I should put that in quotes) league.  Why should they be treated differently than the NCAA, for example?

Well, because the NCAA isn't a for-profit enterprise(technically). The CHL is a business(or collection of businesses anyway), even if they are a business who've scammed their way out of actually paying a good number of their employees.

The NHL profits greatly from not having to fund the development of players up to the age of 18 and that's based on the continued existence of the CHL. So for the NHL to look at their relationship with the CHL, where they don't fund it and they don't have to individually negotiate with teams for players, and object to the pretty minor things that work out to the CHL clubs' advantage seems to not just be pretty selfish but to be actively pulling at a thread of the far larger issue.

Nah.  The NHL could tell the CHL to go float, or more radically the CHL could disappear tomorrow, and it wouldn't affect player development one whit.  All those kids who dream of an NHL career would go sign up to play NCAA or USHL or whatever.  Like you said, the CHL is more than a little bit of a scam, making (in some cases) pretty good dough on the backs of indentured servants.  I know some have called for CHLers to get paid some kind of stipend at a mnimum.

 

[ZBBM]

Well, for one, the CHL isn't where the money is, so I'm sure players wouldn't lock themselves into contracts with CHL teams, when they know they would miss out on the big money.

But they're 15 or 16 at the time. If their option is staying in high school and missing out on what's perceived to be the best developmental league in the world with the most exposure then I think most players, or rather their parents, would choose the CHL even if it meant delaying the big money until they were 20 or 21 which is really no different than what happens to, say, football or basketball players in the states.

You are right to draw the parallel between the CHL and big-money NCAA sports.  The NCAA is also more than a little of a scam, and people have also suggested giving NCAA FB & BB players at least a stipend.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Well, for one, the CHL isn't where the money is, so I'm sure players wouldn't lock themselves into contracts with CHL teams, when they know they would miss out on the big money.

But they're 15 or 16 at the time. If their option is staying in high school and missing out on what's perceived to be the best developmental league in the world with the most exposure then I think most players, or rather their parents, would choose the CHL even if it meant delaying the big money until they were 20 or 21 which is really no different than what happens to, say, football or basketball players in the states.

So they sign a 2-3 year deal and their agent, if he's a good one, will advise the player of that. Money is always going to rule out, unfortunately.

EDIT: The NCAA is only an option if the player values education over the money/ profession, if that is an option for the more talented players. But that still pushes back to what is best for the players development. The stage of development still should be the ruling force for these types of decisions in a perfect world, which is how this conversation got started really.

 

[Kin]

Nah.  The NHL could tell the CHL to go float, or more radically the CHL could disappear tomorrow, and it wouldn't affect player development one whit.  All those kids who dream of an NHL career would go sign up to play NCAA or USHL or whatever.  Like you said, the CHL is more than a little bit of a scam, making (in some cases) pretty good dough on the backs of indentured servants.  I know some have called for CHLers to get paid some kind of stipend at a mnimum.

But the NCAA is almost in an identical situation where they're, realistically, looking at major changes to their own model soon which could very well push them out of the developmental business. Once that happens then you really are looking into a completely alternate model(I don't know a ton about the USHL but either they're an independant league whose contracts would have to be respected or they're not and either way the same issue exists).

Not to mention that if the CHL disappeared tomorrow the NHL would then be missing their typical avenue for developing 18 and 19 year olds. Now, you can say that they would just switch to putting everyone in the AHL and that might be so but then they would be paying for development they don't typically.

So it's fine if that's the attitude they take but there's a very good reason why the NHL doesn't want to cut ties with the CHL and it's not because they care deeply about hockey in Moose Jaw.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

We can go back and forth about this all we want, but if there was any way to get 19-year olds in the AHL, whether it be by simply altering the CHL-NHL agreement or getting rid of the CHL altogether, it would have happened already. NHL GM's have voiced their displeasure about the rule in the past and nothing has been done about it.

 

[Kin]

So they sign a 2-3 year deal and their agent, if he's a good one, will advise the player of that. Money is always going to rule out, unfortunately.

But that's where the CHL would hold the cards. If their business model could only sustain themselves by a method where they control players for 5 years then they could just implement a 5 year contract-only policy at which point players and their agents couldn't negotiate anything on that basis.

I mean, you're right, money will win out but that will drive the CHL just as much as anyone. They're not going to develop players for the NHL out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

So they sign a 2-3 year deal and their agent, if he's a good one, will advise the player of that. Money is always going to rule out, unfortunately.

But that's where the CHL would hold the cards. If their business model could only sustain themselves by a method where they control players for 5 years then they could just implement a 5 year contract-only policy at which point players and their agents couldn't negotiate anything on that basis.

I mean, you're right, money will win out but that will drive the CHL just as much as anyone. They're not going to develop players for the NHL out of the goodness of their hearts.

I still think having an "exceptional status" rule in place would be the smartest route to take, because this has happened before and it will continue to happen.

See CTB's post above, which is the bottom line here I think.

 

[Kin]

I still think having an "exceptional status" rule in place would be the smartest route to take, because this has happened before and it will continue to happen.

But I'm not disputing that that sort of thing would be the best thing for the NHL. I'm just saying that whatever arrangement that the NHL and CHL have it's not going to be one where the NHL gets everything they want and the CHL learns to deal with it.