|
Post by Jack Bauer on Aug 8, 2015 20:01:29 GMT -4
Ahh yes the popular hockey term sook....people still call Crosby that...if thats your friends only opinion on the matter then stuff like this is way over their head anyway and that opinion is moot to those who know the difference. I respect the fact that they are pissed that a kid ( from Halifax ) doesn't want to play here ...they have a hard time understanding why ......why ? ...because they are not being given a reason they truly believe . They are not digesting the Waterloo / NCAA scenario and that upsets them . Your suggesting that it is "way over their heads" is unfair to them because they are a lot smarter about a lot of this then you give them credit for ....Old School as they may be . I respect being pissed at the situation itself or even Dumont personally but not the kid. That they think they are to digest the NCAA route kind of proves my point. Would they rather it be in print that the hockey world thinks their organization is not being run properly or by the right people? Out of respect hockey people more then any other sport never actually speak their mind. Why would this be any different?
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Aug 8, 2015 20:04:20 GMT -4
A lot of you who are angry at Bowers should redirect that anger to Dumont who picked a player he was told ahead of time wouldn't play for Cape Breton. Why aren't fans roasting him over the fire and questioning him about this? Now he is being the "sook" and being spiteful and saying he is not trading Bowers because he is basically doesn't want to give Bowers what he wants. He should take ownership of the mistake he made and deal him and help his team. And did it for the 3rd straight year. Capitalizing on a loophole the first time and losing value the 2nd.
|
|
|
Post by hockeyguy92 on Aug 8, 2015 20:04:44 GMT -4
Why don't we all focus on the kids who are actually coming to training camp who want to make the team and play here. Yes it sucks Bowers isn't coming. No point to keep on arguing about it.
|
|
|
Post by Citris on Aug 8, 2015 20:43:26 GMT -4
The Bishop brothers reenact the Bowers discussion in this thread
|
|
|
Post by dt281 on Aug 8, 2015 20:45:53 GMT -4
Yes let's shit on Dumont for playing hardball with Bowers. The sky isn't going to fall because they don't cave and take less than they think is fair value for him. You do realize the Bowers pick was gained by selecting Roy even though he didn't want to play here. We also got our top 2 D from the same assets from the Chicoutimi trade.
I doubt the haul is that great but I trust Dumont or will at least hold off on roasting him for selecting Bowers until he makes a trade. I'm sure this situation is harder since it's only 3 division rivals he will play for. I would not accept the #9 pick and have him rack up points the next 3-4 years 8 times a year against us. I'd love to see the kid here but if they make him sit of the Q instead of taking lesser value so be it.
. I don't think anyone was ever happy with a coach we had here. Mario was criticized and managed to win a championship else where. For years most wanted Pascal gone too, he managed to find another jgig too . Guess what? We aren't going to get the Gallants, Nolans, or Flynns. I think Dumont is a very good GM and average coach but I'm sure Waterloo has an elite staff there? How much did Svechnikov's stock drop playing here?
|
|
|
Post by billet on Aug 8, 2015 22:25:15 GMT -4
Yes let's shit on Dumont for playing hardball with Bowers. The sky isn't going to fall because they don't cave and take less than they think is fair value for him. You do realize the Bowers pick was gained by selecting Roy even though he didn't want to play here. We also got our top 2 D from the same assets from the Chicoutimi trade. I doubt the haul is that great but I trust Dumont or will at least hold off on roasting him for selecting Bowers until he makes a trade. I'm sure this situation is harder since it's only 3 division rivals he will play for. I would not accept the #9 pick and have him rack up points the next 3-4 years 8 times a year against us. I'd love to see the kid here but if they make him sit of the Q instead of taking lesser value so be it. . I don't think anyone was ever happy with a coach we had here. Mario was criticized and managed to win a championship else where. For years most wanted Pascal gone too, he managed to find another jgig too . Guess what? We aren't going to get the Gallants, Nolans, or Flynns. I think Dumont is a very good GM and average coach but I'm sure Waterloo has an elite staff there? How much did Svechnikov's stock drop playing here? very very good point thanks
|
|
|
Post by Citris on Aug 8, 2015 22:39:52 GMT -4
I think if Cape Breton refuses to trade or relinquish the rights to Bowers the league will probably step in and modify it's rules a bit. Like when they realized the extra compensation pick when trading a player was abusable, holding a kids rights and refusing to move him is detrimental to your team, and the league as a whole.
Now whether or not this rule would be immediate or only made to fix future situations, I don't know.
Obviously I think the compensation model before was credulous, but as this is demonstrating, there are problems with the current model as well, speaking from the interests of the league as a whole, assuming the goal is to have the best possible talent playing in the league as possible.
Perhaps the compensation picks need to be revisited, maybe a lesser pick like a second round pick in the same position the original pick was made, instead of the pick -5 positions.
Edit-
Actually, I am pretty sure there is already a rule against that. I'm going to research this real quick.
Edit #2-
Apparently there is no rule against holding a player in perpetuity.
From the Administrative rule book:
8.03 SELECTED PLAYER REFUSING TO SIGN A CONTRACT If a player refuses to sign a contract with the club that selected him or with the club designated by the club that selected him, the player shall remain the property of the club and he will be allowed to play for any team of his choice at a lower level. The name of this player shall be put on the eligibility list of the team
I can not find any exception to this rule. As long as they hold him on their 50 man protected list, he is ineligible to play for another team. Initially I thought there was a restriction how long you could hold a players rights. Unless I missed something, there is not.
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Aug 9, 2015 0:21:17 GMT -4
I think if Cape Breton refuses to trade or relinquish the rights to Bowers the league will probably step in and modify it's rules a bit. Like when they realized the extra compensation pick when trading a player was abusable, holding a kids rights and refusing to move him is detrimental to your team, and the league as a whole. Now whether or not this rule would be immediate or only made to fix future situations, I don't know. Obviously I think the compensation model before was credulous, but as this is demonstrating, there are problems with the current model as well, speaking from the interests of the league as a whole, assuming the goal is to have the best possible talent playing in the league as possible. Perhaps the compensation picks need to be revisited, maybe a lesser pick like a second round pick in the same position the original pick was made, instead of the pick -5 positions. Edit- Actually, I am pretty sure there is already a rule against that. I'm going to research this real quick. Edit #2- Apparently there is no rule against holding a player in perpetuity. From the Administrative rule book: 8.03 SELECTED PLAYER REFUSING TO SIGN A CONTRACT If a player refuses to sign a contract with the club that selected him or with the club designated by the club that selected him, the player shall remain the property of the club and he will be allowed to play for any team of his choice at a lower level. The name of this player shall be put on the eligibility list of the teamI can not find any exception to this rule. As long as they hold him on their 50 man protected list, he is ineligible to play for another team. Initially I thought there was a restriction how long you could hold a players rights. Unless I missed something, there is not. It's exactly like the Americans that every team takes and who refuse to play in the Q. As long as they are on your protected list, no other Q team can take them. Just because a team is interested in acquiring his rights, the team cannot be forced to trade him.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Aug 9, 2015 1:31:03 GMT -4
Yes let's shit on Dumont for playing hardball with Bowers. The sky isn't going to fall because they don't cave and take less than they think is fair value for him. You do realize the Bowers pick was gained by selecting Roy even though he didn't want to play here. We also got our top 2 D from the same assets from the Chicoutimi trade. I doubt the haul is that great but I trust Dumont or will at least hold off on roasting him for selecting Bowers until he makes a trade. I'm sure this situation is harder since it's only 3 division rivals he will play for. I would not accept the #9 pick and have him rack up points the next 3-4 years 8 times a year against us. I'd love to see the kid here but if they make him sit of the Q instead of taking lesser value so be it. . I don't think anyone was ever happy with a coach we had here. Mario was criticized and managed to win a championship else where. For years most wanted Pascal gone too, he managed to find another jgig too . Guess what? We aren't going to get the Gallants, Nolans, or Flynns. I think Dumont is a very good GM and average coach but I'm sure Waterloo has an elite staff there? How much did Svechnikov's stock drop playing here? How you acquire a top 5 pick does not justify wasting it to prove a point which at this point is all we are doing if nothing happens. Personally I think a trade happens because it would be beyond stupid to let this thing linger past the trade deadline in January. The banners in the rink would indicate being unhappy with the coaching is logical and acceptable I would think. We seen a lot of coaches come into our rink over the years and make the home team look like a Jr A team. Hard to justify anything Durocher did in taking a franchise overdue for a rebuild and going for it against all odds and falling flat on his face. Durochers own lack of awareness of his organization was laughably embarrassing. With Vincent we seen the good and bad of a young coach. But nothing that would indicate the fans were not right in demanding change. How he left would leave a sour taste in most peoples mouths but I think he was treated pretty fairly here considering his time here being a bit of a roller coaster ride and never resulted in a championship. We acquired the core of our team by being really bad. Our fans and the organization deserves some reward for those tough times. Starting this year on the note of our top pick refusing to report and #1 trade acquisition preferring the ECHL over here is about the worst way to start things. The Bishops, Svechnikovs, Lazarevs, Leblancs, Leveilles, and Dubois should be coming into a positive environment to try and avoid the brutal start that cost last seasons team any chance at success. Getting a pro player back for that team only made things worse. This team should be doing everything it should to avoid repeating last year mistakes, but the newspaper headlines are pretty similar.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Aug 9, 2015 1:36:07 GMT -4
I think if Cape Breton refuses to trade or relinquish the rights to Bowers the league will probably step in and modify it's rules a bit. Like when they realized the extra compensation pick when trading a player was abusable, holding a kids rights and refusing to move him is detrimental to your team, and the league as a whole. Now whether or not this rule would be immediate or only made to fix future situations, I don't know. Obviously I think the compensation model before was credulous, but as this is demonstrating, there are problems with the current model as well, speaking from the interests of the league as a whole, assuming the goal is to have the best possible talent playing in the league as possible. Perhaps the compensation picks need to be revisited, maybe a lesser pick like a second round pick in the same position the original pick was made, instead of the pick -5 positions. Edit- Actually, I am pretty sure there is already a rule against that. I'm going to research this real quick. Edit #2- Apparently there is no rule against holding a player in perpetuity. From the Administrative rule book: 8.03 SELECTED PLAYER REFUSING TO SIGN A CONTRACT If a player refuses to sign a contract with the club that selected him or with the club designated by the club that selected him, the player shall remain the property of the club and he will be allowed to play for any team of his choice at a lower level. The name of this player shall be put on the eligibility list of the teamI can not find any exception to this rule. As long as they hold him on their 50 man protected list, he is ineligible to play for another team. Initially I thought there was a restriction how long you could hold a players rights. Unless I missed something, there is not. It's exactly like the Americans that every team takes and who refuse to play in the Q. As long as they are on your protected list, no other Q team can take them. Just because a team is interested in acquiring his rights, the team cannot be forced to trade him. Yeah I dont see how the league can really force anyones hand here. All they can do is really just ask us to trade him but no rules will be changed to force that because then you are creating a situation that literally makes the draft useless. CB still could have got good assets for that #4 pick is what a lot of people are missing out of all of this. We could have moved down and really solidified our lineup and depth for making more deals but we are choosing this route hoping to get more in a trade. All the risk is on us at a time where we really dont need to be taking risks after getting players like Svechnikov and Lazarev here for their 19yo seasons.
|
|
|
Post by Citris on Aug 9, 2015 2:43:36 GMT -4
No, I don't see how the league can fairly force a team to trade a player, nor am I in favor that.
In a situation like this there needs to be a bit more incentive for Cape Breton to trade the player, be it from a compensation pick, or pressure from a rule that may allow the player to voluntarily re-enter the draft after he remains unsigned for a certain amount of time.
Out of curiosity I wonder if what the limitations are on Bowers signing as a free agent with an OHL team? (say London.)
|
|
|
Post by hal on Aug 9, 2015 3:02:54 GMT -4
No, I don't see how the league can fairly force a team to trade a player, nor am I in favor that. In a situation like this there needs to be a bit more incentive for Cape Breton to trade the player, be it from a compensation pick, or pressure from a rule that may allow the player to voluntarily re-enter the draft after he remains unsigned for a certain amount of time. Out of curiosity I wonder if what the limitations are on Bowers signing as a free agent with an OHL team? (say London.) Apparently it must be a "LOWER LEVEL" .
|
|
|
Post by WildcatMapleLeafs on Aug 9, 2015 6:29:39 GMT -4
No, I don't see how the league can fairly force a team to trade a player, nor am I in favor that. In a situation like this there needs to be a bit more incentive for Cape Breton to trade the player, be it from a compensation pick, or pressure from a rule that may allow the player to voluntarily re-enter the draft after he remains unsigned for a certain amount of time. Out of curiosity I wonder if what the limitations are on Bowers signing as a free agent with an OHL team? (say London.) He isn't a free agent though. His rights already belong to a CHL franchise. In addition to that , he'd have to clear the QMJHL waivers to go to the OHL or WHL , which wouldn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by dennisns on Aug 9, 2015 7:30:39 GMT -4
Your 19 year olds are in their graduation year - its time to turn the Bowers pick into support for the good players on hand - the kid was picked knowing he wasn't coming - trading him was anticipated - get on with it before this year's opportunity is lost. At the time of the Ranger trade, what has happened was a KNOWN possibility - time to initiate Plan B - obviously there had to be a PLAN B !
|
|
|
Post by jamesnorris on Aug 9, 2015 9:06:53 GMT -4
Every time this discussion comes up, people take their side of the argument to a new extreme.
I still think the most ridiculous thing I've read on this situation is people blaming Dumont for picking the best player available at #4.
People would be calling for his head for passing on Bowers
|
|