|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 5, 2017 11:43:44 GMT -4
Halifax is not an exception to the rule yet ... but they are moving toward that. Sorry, let me rephrase, the argument from some of the fanbase of smaller french teams is that Halifax (and possibly a few others) are exceptions to the rule. And that seems to be the primary motive for wanting to change the draft format. The motives go much deeper then that. They're just upset that Halifax is better managed then Quebec with less resources so the attention is on Halifax. When Quebec gets players like Gentile and Coxhead everyones only mad until they see Quebec still not winning. Halifax's success is simply making people jealous. How dare they rebuild properly and be successful on and off the ice. Halifax just spent 2 years near the bottom as even they realize they need to be at the top of the draft to win. At some point you need to stop trying to fix what's not broken and tip your hat to those being successful within the system we're all working with.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 5, 2017 12:00:46 GMT -4
All very interesting thoughts and comments about the draft, kids not showing up, kids using the NCAA card,etc etc. I see that there is a very simple solution to all of this. Several years ago the CHL banned its juniot teams from drafting European goaltenders. The NCAA has rules in place that if a certain kid tires out for a CHL team for a period of time and plays in an exhibition game, the kid then becomes ineligible. Why does the CHL not respond in kind. Quite simply put, if a kid is drafted by a CHL team and he fails to report to his team, he then becomes ineligible to play in the CHL. Also if a kid uses the NCAA card and goes to NCAA, again he then becomes ineligible for the CHL. If some of these kids are as good as they or their agents think, they will be noticed no matter where they play. You are not depriving a kid of playing NCAA, but if he decides that is what you want, toodile doo, see you later. There are a hundred kids just chomping at the bit to take your place. An add on to this: Has Canadian goaltending ever been worse at this level since Euro goaltenders were removed? We're hurting our own product by not letting in European goaltenders. Not helping it. See, the Europeans are not replacing elite level guys. Like our skaters they're replacing the 2nd/3rd stringers. So by removing a top 5 European you're replacing him with a Canadian from the bottom 30 or 40 in that region. A kid that would normally be in Jr A now gets to be an OHL backup. Or, in other worse, a Canadian kid just wanting to play isn't playing to sit a European who would be among our top 5 or 10. I dont see any advantage to it and neither has our NHL draft hopes so why are we still doing it? What have we improved by making that change other then we feel better about hurting our own product?
|
|
|
Post by hal on Jun 5, 2017 13:16:21 GMT -4
Sorry, let me rephrase, the argument from some of the fanbase of smaller french teams is that Halifax (and possibly a few others) are exceptions to the rule. And that seems to be the primary motive for wanting to change the draft format. The motives go much deeper then that. They're just upset that Halifax is better managed then Quebec with less resources so the attention is on Halifax. When Quebec gets players like Gentile and Coxhead everyones only mad until they see Quebec still not winning. Halifax's success is simply making people jealous. How dare they rebuild properly and be successful on and off the ice. Halifax just spent 2 years near the bottom as even they realize they need to be at the top of the draft to win. At some point you need to stop trying to fix what's not broken and tip your hat to those being successful within the system we're all working with. I think what some people are saying that ..........when you look at the Draft from all directions..... that it is broken ......in the sense that the playing field will most likely never be level .
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 5, 2017 13:20:11 GMT -4
The motives go much deeper then that. They're just upset that Halifax is better managed then Quebec with less resources so the attention is on Halifax. When Quebec gets players like Gentile and Coxhead everyones only mad until they see Quebec still not winning. Halifax's success is simply making people jealous. How dare they rebuild properly and be successful on and off the ice. Halifax just spent 2 years near the bottom as even they realize they need to be at the top of the draft to win. At some point you need to stop trying to fix what's not broken and tip your hat to those being successful within the system we're all working with. I think what some people are saying that ..........when you look at the Draft from all directions..... that it is broken ......in the sense that the playing field will most likely never be level . It's never level anywhere. Halifax picked 1st and 2nd overall last year. Saint John didn't pick until round 3 this year. The teams having success on the ice are proving that the talk of the draft not being level is borderline insane. Developing still trumps all. Look at the teams having success, it's not always big markets. Why? How the hell are teams like Rouyn and Baie Comeau so successful if it's not because the draft is offering them good talent?
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Jun 5, 2017 13:34:33 GMT -4
The reality is that in the last 5 seasons, nine different teams have made the President's Cup finals. The team that made it twice? The small market Quebec-based team that no one will report to: Baie Comeau. If there's a small group of teams taking advantage of unfair situations at the draft, they're not doing a very good job of it. People make a big deal out of it, but the league seems to have fixed the problem with 1st round compensation...maybe they could extend it to round 2 and 3? Right now BC can gamble on any high end player with NCAA intentions and not lost a 1st rounder. If the kid doesn't show, they get a pick next year. I would like to see it in rounds 2 and 3, it might encourage a few more gambles on US NCAA kids. You can't do it for the whole draft but extending it a bit might help stop the "bluffs". Make note that not every kid that says he is going NCAA is bluffing...every year there are 10-12 kids that should go in the top 5 rounds that end up never playing in the Q or reporting to a team...Bucheler is one quick example. Newhook and Merritt could be two from this year...
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Jun 5, 2017 14:20:33 GMT -4
The reality is that in the last 5 seasons, nine different teams have made the President's Cup finals. The team that made it twice? The small market Quebec-based team that no one will report to: Baie Comeau. If there's a small group of teams taking advantage of unfair situations at the draft, they're not doing a very good job of it. People make a big deal out of it, but the league seems to have fixed the problem with 1st round compensation...maybe they could extend it to round 2 and 3? Right now BC can gamble on any high end player with NCAA intentions and not lost a 1st rounder. If the kid doesn't show, they get a pick next year. I would like to see it in rounds 2 and 3, it might encourage a few more gambles on US NCAA kids. You can't do it for the whole draft but extending it a bit might help stop the "bluffs". Make note that not every kid that says he is going NCAA is bluffing...every year there are 10-12 kids that should go in the top 5 rounds that end up never playing in the Q or reporting to a team...Bucheler is one quick example. Newhook and Merritt could be two from this year... Round 2 ... yes ... Round 3 ... no
|
|
|
Post by sc74 on Jun 5, 2017 16:02:40 GMT -4
Sorry, let me rephrase, the argument from some of the fanbase of smaller french teams is that Halifax (and possibly a few others) are exceptions to the rule. And that seems to be the primary motive for wanting to change the draft format. The motives go much deeper then that. They're just upset that Halifax is better managed then Quebec with less resources so the attention is on Halifax. When Quebec gets players like Gentile and Coxhead everyones only mad until they see Quebec still not winning. Halifax's success is simply making people jealous. How dare they rebuild properly and be successful on and off the ice. Halifax just spent 2 years near the bottom as even they realize they need to be at the top of the draft to win. At some point you need to stop trying to fix what's not broken and tip your hat to those being successful within the system we're all working with. A lot of Halifax centric in that post. They've been writing the same things for more than 10 years, it's not just the Mooseheads. The same topic comes back every year. The difference is that this year there were more players not wanting to go anywhere than the previous years and Halifax got 3 of them, more than any other team. I like Tourigny's view of the situation and it explains Rouyn-Noranda's success in the last few years. It should be a lesson for some of the markets that are more vocal about it (I'm talking to you Steve Ahern). Tourigny has seen both sides so his opinion is valuable. www.lapresse.ca/le-nouvelliste/sports/hockey-junior/201706/04/01-5104340-tourigny-na-pas-ete-sollicite-par-le-canadien.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B9_sports_1633428_section_POS3"I remember that when I first started in the league, I wanted to make a rule to limit the number of Ontarian players. I thought the Olympics had too much. Charlie Henry intervened in the meeting, asking me why his team should be penalized if I was not able to make good contacts and be persuasive myself. I was angry at the time, but after I thought about it, I changed my mind and we made a culture change in Rouyn-Noranda.
We needed a few years but now there are very few players who refuse to go to Rouyn. I think those who are complaining about the current situation might also need a guy like Charlie Henry to shake them. It's up to the teams to work to make their market attractive."
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 5, 2017 16:12:09 GMT -4
The motives go much deeper then that. They're just upset that Halifax is better managed then Quebec with less resources so the attention is on Halifax. When Quebec gets players like Gentile and Coxhead everyones only mad until they see Quebec still not winning. Halifax's success is simply making people jealous. How dare they rebuild properly and be successful on and off the ice. Halifax just spent 2 years near the bottom as even they realize they need to be at the top of the draft to win. At some point you need to stop trying to fix what's not broken and tip your hat to those being successful within the system we're all working with. A lot of Halifax centric in that post. They've been writing the same things for more than 10 years, it's not just the Mooseheads. The same topic comes back every year. The difference is that this year there were more players not wanting to go anywhere than the previous years and Halifax got 3 of them, more than any other team. I like Tourigny's view of the situation and it explains Rouyn-Noranda's success in the last few years. It should be a lesson for some of the markets that are more vocal about it (I'm talking to you Steve Ahern). Tourigny has seen both sides so his opinion is valuable. www.lapresse.ca/le-nouvelliste/sports/hockey-junior/201706/04/01-5104340-tourigny-na-pas-ete-sollicite-par-le-canadien.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B9_sports_1633428_section_POS3"I remember that when I first started in the league, I wanted to make a rule to limit the number of Ontarian players. I thought the Olympics had too much. Charlie Henry intervened in the meeting, asking me why his team should be penalized if I was not able to make good contacts and be persuasive myself. I was angry at the time, but after I thought about it, I changed my mind and we made a culture change in Rouyn-Noranda.
We needed a few years but now there are very few players who refuse to go to Rouyn. I think those who are complaining about the current situation might also need a guy like Charlie Henry to shake them. It's up to the teams to work to make their market attractive."The only real issue is Newhook. The Barron examples always come up. Kid wanting to be closer to home, especially with the bigger markets. We all benefit from those. Lets face it: Newhook is what all the rage is about. How do you prevent it? Without cutting off your nose to spite your face, you don't. Big markets have easier times earning success. Welcome to the world. Without them there's no way this 18 team league exists and we don't see near the star power that we would if they were not in the league. So I'm sure we can make everyone happy and just have a league with no Hischier's, Ehlers', Radulov's, Esposito's, Huberdeau's so that everyone can be happy that a Shane Bowers doesn't embarrass a small market GM wasting a top 5 pick or that a Halifax picked a top 5 kid in round 3 that nobody had a firm commitment from that may yet be a 2nd liner that doesn't make a huge impact....because some of remember when players like Kenzie Sheppard were once the NCAA holdouts that "educated" fans desired and demanded to available to their teams.
|
|
|
Post by sc74 on Jun 5, 2017 16:19:34 GMT -4
A lot of Halifax centric in that post. They've been writing the same things for more than 10 years, it's not just the Mooseheads. The same topic comes back every year. The difference is that this year there were more players not wanting to go anywhere than the previous years and Halifax got 3 of them, more than any other team. I like Tourigny's view of the situation and it explains Rouyn-Noranda's success in the last few years. It should be a lesson for some of the markets that are more vocal about it (I'm talking to you Steve Ahern). Tourigny has seen both sides so his opinion is valuable. www.lapresse.ca/le-nouvelliste/sports/hockey-junior/201706/04/01-5104340-tourigny-na-pas-ete-sollicite-par-le-canadien.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B9_sports_1633428_section_POS3"I remember that when I first started in the league, I wanted to make a rule to limit the number of Ontarian players. I thought the Olympics had too much. Charlie Henry intervened in the meeting, asking me why his team should be penalized if I was not able to make good contacts and be persuasive myself. I was angry at the time, but after I thought about it, I changed my mind and we made a culture change in Rouyn-Noranda.
We needed a few years but now there are very few players who refuse to go to Rouyn. I think those who are complaining about the current situation might also need a guy like Charlie Henry to shake them. It's up to the teams to work to make their market attractive."The only real issue is Newhook. The Barron examples always come up. Kid wanting to be closer to home, especially with the bigger markets. We all benefit from those. Lets face it: Newhook is what all the rage is about. How do you prevent it? Without cutting off your nose to spite your face, you don't. Big markets have easier times earning success. Welcome to the world. Without them there's no way this 18 team league exists and we don't see near the star power that we would if they were not in the league. So I'm sure we can make everyone happy and just have a league with no Hischier's, Ehlers', Radulov's, Esposito's, Huberdeau's so that everyone can be happy that a Shane Bowers doesn't embarrass a small market GM wasting a top 5 pick or that a Halifax picked a top 5 kid in round 3 that nobody had a firm commitment from that may yet be a 2nd liner that doesn't make a huge impact....because some of remember when players like Kenzie Sheppard were once the NCAA holdouts that "educated" fans desired and demanded to available to their teams. I don't have the perfect solution because I'm on your side, I don't see how you can make it better. The league already hurt itself by preventing teams to give US scolarships to players. Since then you've seen a lot less quality Americans coming over. The rule about the compensation in the 1st round is a good one though.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 5, 2017 16:25:59 GMT -4
The only real issue is Newhook. The Barron examples always come up. Kid wanting to be closer to home, especially with the bigger markets. We all benefit from those. Lets face it: Newhook is what all the rage is about. How do you prevent it? Without cutting off your nose to spite your face, you don't. Big markets have easier times earning success. Welcome to the world. Without them there's no way this 18 team league exists and we don't see near the star power that we would if they were not in the league. So I'm sure we can make everyone happy and just have a league with no Hischier's, Ehlers', Radulov's, Esposito's, Huberdeau's so that everyone can be happy that a Shane Bowers doesn't embarrass a small market GM wasting a top 5 pick or that a Halifax picked a top 5 kid in round 3 that nobody had a firm commitment from that may yet be a 2nd liner that doesn't make a huge impact....because some of remember when players like Kenzie Sheppard were once the NCAA holdouts that "educated" fans desired and demanded to available to their teams. I don't have the perfect solution because I'm on your side, I don't see how you can make it better. The league already hurt itself by preventing teams to give US scolarships to players. Since then you've seen a lot less quality Americans coming over. The rule about the compensation in the 1st round is a good one though. Agreed. Unfortunately the reality is that the best small markets can do is trade assets who don't want to be there for ones who do. That's a reality for the biggest markets in pro sports sometimes. But as long as smaller places like Rouyn and Shawinigan can be competitive by following a cycle and developing well then there's really nothing that needs change. My team is a small market. Can't attract stars according to the complainers. Had a team 1 year ago with 2 NHL 1st round forwards. Didn't win shit because of a complete lack of development within the team structure by the coach who is continually rewarded for being mediocre. It's certainly not attracting good players that's the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Jun 5, 2017 16:30:17 GMT -4
Banning trading first round picks creates parity, which is why the OHL sends the same teams to the memorial cup over and over again. Give me a break. We already have a league using that model and we can see it doesn't work. Teams like London will still have a massive advantage... the only difference is the smaller market teams will have a worse return on their assets. Banning first round picks doesn't create parity it creates monopoly. London is an exception to the rule ... they have built such a strong program that everybody wants to play there ... Americans and Euros will line up to play there. Don't fault one team for doing their jobs so well that they get rewarded for it annually. Banning trading 1sts and young players will protect teams from their overzealous GMs who trade picks like candy. London has VERY deep pockets, their attendance is up around 10,000 per game plus they are owned/run by former NHLers. They have all the factors in their favor...a team like BC could not compete on the same level as London.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 5, 2017 16:36:26 GMT -4
London is an exception to the rule ... they have built such a strong program that everybody wants to play there ... Americans and Euros will line up to play there. Don't fault one team for doing their jobs so well that they get rewarded for it annually. Banning trading 1sts and young players will protect teams from their overzealous GMs who trade picks like candy. London has VERY deep pockets, their attendance is up around 10,000 per game plus they are owned/run by former NHLers. They have all the factors in their favor...a team like BC could not compete on the same level as London. But they still scout and draft well. Nobody argues that Moncton and Quebec have equally deep pockets. But where is their constant supply of star Europeans and impact Americans? London never becomes complacent. They're always out looking for the next top player. Yes they have the means, but so do many other big markets that are not near as good year in year out.
|
|
|
Post by sc74 on Jun 5, 2017 16:38:10 GMT -4
A lot of Halifax centric in that post. They've been writing the same things for more than 10 years, it's not just the Mooseheads. The same topic comes back every year. The difference is that this year there were more players not wanting to go anywhere than the previous years and Halifax got 3 of them, more than any other team. I like Tourigny's view of the situation and it explains Rouyn-Noranda's success in the last few years. It should be a lesson for some of the markets that are more vocal about it (I'm talking to you Steve Ahern). Tourigny has seen both sides so his opinion is valuable. www.lapresse.ca/le-nouvelliste/sports/hockey-junior/201706/04/01-5104340-tourigny-na-pas-ete-sollicite-par-le-canadien.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B9_sports_1633428_section_POS3"I remember that when I first started in the league, I wanted to make a rule to limit the number of Ontarian players. I thought the Olympics had too much. Charlie Henry intervened in the meeting, asking me why his team should be penalized if I was not able to make good contacts and be persuasive myself. I was angry at the time, but after I thought about it, I changed my mind and we made a culture change in Rouyn-Noranda.
We needed a few years but now there are very few players who refuse to go to Rouyn. I think those who are complaining about the current situation might also need a guy like Charlie Henry to shake them. It's up to the teams to work to make their market attractive." The Barron examples always come up. Kid wanting to be closer to home, especially with the bigger markets. We all benefit from those. That is a reason I don't buy. If he doesn't get drafted by Halifax but by Drummondville, he would go to USHL just because he 'wanted' to be closer to home?!
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Jun 5, 2017 16:39:27 GMT -4
The motives go much deeper then that. They're just upset that Halifax is better managed then Quebec with less resources so the attention is on Halifax. When Quebec gets players like Gentile and Coxhead everyones only mad until they see Quebec still not winning. Halifax's success is simply making people jealous. How dare they rebuild properly and be successful on and off the ice. Halifax just spent 2 years near the bottom as even they realize they need to be at the top of the draft to win. At some point you need to stop trying to fix what's not broken and tip your hat to those being successful within the system we're all working with. A lot of Halifax centric in that post. They've been writing the same things for more than 10 years, it's not just the Mooseheads. The same topic comes back every year. The difference is that this year there were more players not wanting to go anywhere than the previous years and Halifax got 3 of them, more than any other team. I like Tourigny's view of the situation and it explains Rouyn-Noranda's success in the last few years. It should be a lesson for some of the markets that are more vocal about it (I'm talking to you Steve Ahern). Tourigny has seen both sides so his opinion is valuable. www.lapresse.ca/le-nouvelliste/sports/hockey-junior/201706/04/01-5104340-tourigny-na-pas-ete-sollicite-par-le-canadien.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B9_sports_1633428_section_POS3"I remember that when I first started in the league, I wanted to make a rule to limit the number of Ontarian players. I thought the Olympics had too much. Charlie Henry intervened in the meeting, asking me why his team should be penalized if I was not able to make good contacts and be persuasive myself. I was angry at the time, but after I thought about it, I changed my mind and we made a culture change in Rouyn-Noranda.
We needed a few years but now there are very few players who refuse to go to Rouyn. I think those who are complaining about the current situation might also need a guy like Charlie Henry to shake them. It's up to the teams to work to make their market attractive."In terms of the last quote from Tourigny...I agree with it, however, there are factors that some teams have zero control over. Baie Comeau RN and VD can't offer a fully English market with universities or the deep pockets that Halifax Quebec Moncton and SJ have. Some markets will always have an edge, but the edge can be minimized a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 5, 2017 16:44:24 GMT -4
The Barron examples always come up. Kid wanting to be closer to home, especially with the bigger markets. We all benefit from those. That is a reason I don't buy. If he doesn't get drafted by Halifax but by Drummondville, he would go to USHL just because he 'wanted' to be closer to home?! Why not? Shane Bowers went from #1 pick slam dunk to report to USHL and didn't report after having his rights owned by multiple teams. Too many internet vocal minority loudmouths think all these kids have agendas no matter what any of them do or say. Bowers camp proved they didn't and made everyone involved from the Q complainer side look petty. Maybe the Barron kid was Halifax or nothing. Much like i'm sure Lafreniere would have been Quebec or nothing had CB owned the #1 pick. In this case closer to home is the best franchise in the league. A team that with no intent actually helped deny a team a committed drafted player based on its education packages to others last season. Is it really that far fetched that players want to be there or nowhere? Especially when nowhere is a free trip down south to develop in peace away from the Canadian hockey mob? Hasn't hurt Bowers 1 bit.
|
|