why do drafted players wait until they are 20 to start in ahl?

[fanaticV3.0]

So you're arguing that despite the fact that the system is in place because the league wants it that way, that teams (i.e., the league) should be able to do what they want. Despite the fact that the current system is what they want. Else it presumably would not be the current system.

 

The problem is that you and others arguing against it are approaching it from the wrong angle. The teams aren't being treated unfairly here, they created the system. Franchises are granted by the league so the teams abide by what the league says and this stuff is all worked out in the CBA.

 

The people who are being treated unfairly (if you want to make an argument) are the players. The 18 year old kid who wants to play in the AHL, not the CHL. And you know what? If some 18 year old playing for Windsor decided to challenge the system, he might even win. He'd have to take it to the Supreme Court of course, and the SC has made it clear that they prefer not to get involved in the affairs of professional sports leagues, but they have in the past and the kid might have case under federal anti-trust laws. Pretty unlikely to happen though, imo.

 

Since when do people do what's best for them? This is the same league that once wanted a glow puck, resolves their games based on a skills competition (and so help me God is actually toying with the idea of making it worse), thought this was a good idea, and thought Billy Idol was still cool and dug him up from whatever graveyard he was buried in.

 

It's not an either/or situation to me. I'm not on anyone's side, but common sense. Team's can't decided to do what they want with their employee. This could impact both the individual and the team he works for. They're all being short-changed. There should be no restrictions and you should put the player where he deserves to be (or at least you believe him to be based on what he's shown).

[JackStraw]

Since when do people do what's best for them?

 

Are you comparing NHL teams to drug addicts? Ok, I can see that.

[radoran]

Are you comparing NHL teams to drug addicts? Ok, I can see that.

 

People won't do what's best for themselves, therefore we need to explain to them what's best for them to do so they will do it.

 

My irony meter is on overload.

[TedZep]

@fanaticV3.0
"You should be able to do what you want with your employee."

@King Knut
"How do you "poach"  your own draftee?"

 

Ah, I see a fundamental flaw in your understanding of the issue, each of you.  Drafted players are not under contract to the teams that drafted them.  The drafting club holds zero sway over the prospect (who apparently doesn't even have to declare himself available, he just is, according to certain rules agreed to by the NHL, the CHL, the NCAA, various foreign official bodies, etc)

 

Teams merely hold the rights to get first crack at signing the prospect to a contract, a contract that is written under certain controls and clauses in the CBA, which every club and the players' representatives agreed to.  Apparently the signatoried thought it wise not to plunder the very source of most of their talent, and it seems to be working pretty well so far.

 

Once the player - and the club - sign that initial contract, they are bound to uphold the rules they agreed to, including not "poaching" young players from the developmental leagues.

[fanaticV3.0]

Are you comparing NHL teams to drug addicts? Ok, I can see that.

 

Drug addicts? LMFAO, what?!    Yeah, junkies are the only people who make bad decisions. Good call.

[fanaticV3.0]

@fanaticV3.0

"You should be able to do what you want with your employee."

@King Knut

"How do you "poach"  your own draftee?"

 

Ah, I see a fundamental flaw in your understanding of the issue, each of you.  Drafted players are not under contract to the teams that drafted them.  The drafting club holds zero sway over the prospect (who apparently doesn't even have to declare himself available, he just is, according to certain rules agreed to by the NHL, the CHL, the NCAA, various foreign official bodies, etc)

 

Teams merely hold the rights to get first crack at signing the prospect to a contract, a contract that is written under certain controls and clauses in the CBA, which every club and the players' representatives agreed to.  Apparently the signatoried thought it wise not to plunder the very source of most of their talent, and it seems to be working pretty well so far.

 

Once the player - and the club - sign that initial contract, they are bound to uphold the rules they agreed to, including not "poaching" young players from the developmental leagues

 

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing? I'm talking specifically about the kids who are actually called up to the bigs, play the permitted amount of games, and get to that point where the team has to decided what to do with them next - send them back down to jrs. or keep them. If you're not considered an employee of the team at that point, that's f-cking dumb. I'm not talking about kids who haven't played any NHL games.

[radoran]

I'm not talking about kids who haven't played any NHL games.

 

But, in practice, isn't that exactly what we're talking about?

 

Your solution to the rule is that if they have played "X" number of games in the NHL they can be sent to the AHL instead of the CHL?

 

Aside from that not being all that all powerful different from "you have to be X age to play in the AHL" - why is that at all an important distinction?

 

Under your scenario to this point, player has signed a SPC and is "an employee" of the team so the team should be able to "do what it wants with them."

 

"Shouldn't" they "be able" to assign "their property" wherever they want to regardless of whether or not they have played in the NHL yet?

 

In which case, you are obviously talking about taking large numbers of players out of the CHL system.

 

And you are conversely affecting the careers of a large number of career AHLers.

 

Starting to see where the system has balanced itself out for a workable compromise for all parties - NHL, AHL, CHL, NHLPA - involved?

[fanaticV3.0]

But, in practice, isn't that exactly what we're talking about?

 

Your solution to the rule is that if they have played "X" number of games in the NHL they can be sent to the AHL instead of the CHL?

 

Aside from that not being all that all powerful different from "you have to be X age to play in the AHL" - why is that at all an important distinction?

 

Under your scenario to this point, player has signed a SPC and is "an employee" of the team so the team should be able to "do what it wants with them."

 

"Shouldn't" they "be able" to assign "their property" wherever they want to regardless of whether or not they have played in the NHL yet?

 

In which case, you are obviously talking about taking large numbers of players out of the CHL system.

 

And you are conversely affecting the careers of a large number of career AHLers.

 

Starting to see where the system has balanced itself out for a workable compromise for all parties - NHL, AHL, CHL, NHLPA - involved?

 

We talkin' about practice? I'm not talkin' about practice. I'm not sure what practice has to do with the conversation to be totally honest.

 

No, not instead of. I didn't say that. Send them wherever you, as their employer, see fit. Once you sign them of course.

[radoran]

"In practice" means "in the actual doing of something; in reality."

 

So, it means "how the rule would actually be handled in reality."

 

You're not seriously trying to say you thought "in practice" meant "in a team practice" - are you???

 

No, not instead of. I didn't say that.

 

You did say:

 

I'm not talking about kids who haven't played any NHL games.

 

Because that was what I directly quoted to you.

 

If you ARE talking about kids who haven't played any NHL games, you might want to talk to yourself about it, because I'm not sure you agree with you.

 

At least, you haven't been clear about it.

 

Either of you.

[fanaticV3.0]

"In practice" means "in the actual doing of something; in reality."

 

So, it means "how the rule would actually be handled in reality."

 

You're not seriously trying to say you thought "in practice" meant "in a team practice" - are you???

 

 

 

 

You did say:

 

 

 

 

Because that was what I directly quoted to you.

 

If you ARE talking about kids who haven't played any NHL games, you might want to talk to yourself about it, because I'm not sure you agree with you.

 

At least, you haven't been clear about it.

 

Either of you.

 

Well yeah, that's why I was confused.

 

I'm not. I'm talking about the ones who have played in the NHL and are coming up on that period where the team has to decided keep them or send them back. Once you lace up those skates, they should be able to do whatever they want with you and those options should not be limited to NHL or juniors. As their employer, you should be able to send them to the A if that's where you think they would benefit the most. This is completely different if we're talking about a kid who has been drafted, but not signed, which is not what I'm talking about.

[TedZep]

Send them wherever you, as their employer, see fit.

 

But each club is a franchise of the NHL, and as such, must follow the rules stipulated by the NHL and the CBA, which was negotiated with the benefit of the future of the NHL (which is in part directly affected by the health of the CHL, etc.) in mind.  Just like the owner of a Chik fil A can't contractually replace all the chicken on the menu with hot dogs & sausages, owners of an NHL franchise can't flout the rules they agreed to when they bought it.

[fanaticV3.0]

But each club is a franchise of the NHL, and as such, must follow the rules stipulated by the NHL and the CBA, which was negotiated with the benefit of the future of the NHL (which is in part directly affected by the health of the CHL, etc.) in mind.  Just like the owner of a Chik fil A can't contractually replace all the chicken on the menu with hot dogs & sausages, owners of an NHL franchise can't flout the rules they agreed to when they bought it.

 

I don't care? I'm sorry that I think it's a bad set up? I don't know what else to tell you. I don't care who set it up either, that's irrelevant to whether it's a good or bad one.

[TedZep]

I don't care who set it up either, that's irrelevant to whether it's a good or bad one.

 

The people who it directly effect care, and it's the way they want it to be.  Your feelings don't matter a single iota on the matter.  We tried to help you understand the why, but if you refuse to absorb your lessons, that's on you.

[fanaticV3.0]

The people who it directly effect care, and it's the way they want it to be.  Your feelings don't matter a single iota on the matter.  We tried to help you understand the why, but if you refuse to absorb your lessons, that's on you.

 

We're talking about opinions on the functionality of a system in a form of entertainment and you're lecturing me on life lessons. You need a life lesson and it's called perspective.

[jammer2]

I don't watch much college football. Why don't they pull players out of college to see if NFL teams think they're ready? It wouldn't bother me cause I don't really follow them. I wonder if a 20 year old player would develop better on the Washington redskins or on the Ohio State Buckeyes? It must be the Redskins cause thats the NFL and I don't care about college football too much. 

 

Great post, you made you point perfectly!