Morgan Rielly

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Like I said before, I see Busta's point about the CHL losing their best players, but the players best interest should come into it and that should be a players/ parents decision ultimately IMO.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

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.

It's certainly a pickle their both in and I agree with you ultimately, but hockey has been about using your skill to create a long professional career for the asset, which is the player, so it should lean towards the NHL, because they are going to pay the big salaries.

They should keep this same rule in place, but modify it, much like they did for Tavares in the OHL, which is the best example I can think of.

A minority of players are just going to be further developed than others and they shouldn't have to waste a year or two because of it.

 

[Kin]

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.

Except that makes it sound as though the CHL has any sort of power here. They don't. The NHL could change the way they do business tomorrow and institute a European style Academy and Junior system and the CHL couldn't do a thing about it. The only thing the NHL can't do is set up a developmental system that benefits them tremendously that they don't have to pay for and that's the only reason concessions of any kind are made towards the CHL.

 

[Kin]

It's certainly a pickle their both in and I agree with you ultimately, but hockey has been about using your skill to create a long professional career for the asset, which is the player, so it should lean towards the NHL, because they are going to pay the big salaries.

I'm not entirely sure what the "it" is in "it should lean towards the NHL" but if you mean the agreement between the CHL and NHL it does heavily favour the NHL. Almost ridiculously so. Look at the example I used of NHL teams having to bid for Sid Crosby, how many millions of dollars a year does the NHL save by not having to negotiate honestly for individual players?

This tiny little rule, which probably affects 5-6 players or so a year, is basically the only thing that leans in any way towards the CHL. So while nobody disputes that players should be doing what's in their best interests, I wouldn't confuse that with the best interests of the NHL. After all, the league has been pretty consistent in putting the player's best interests behind their own whenever possible.

 

[bustaheims]

Like I said before, I see Busta's point about the CHL losing their best players, but the players best interest should come into it and that should be a players/ parents decision ultimately IMO.

Let's really be honest here. The CHL and their teams are still, at their heart, a business. While it's nice and all to look at things on the human level and what's best for the individual, the guys running the show are making decisions based one thing and one thing only - what's best for the bottom line. The players' best interest doesn't come into play there, and, from a business perspective, it shouldn't.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I'm not entirely sure what the "it" is in "it should lean towards the NHL" but if you mean the agreement between the CHL and NHL it does heavily favour the NHL. Almost ridiculously so. Look at the example I used of NHL teams having to bid for Sid Crosby, how many millions of dollars a year does the NHL save by not having to negotiate honestly for individual players?

This tiny little rule, which probably affects 5-6 players or so a year, is basically the only thing that leans in any way towards the CHL. So while nobody disputes that players should be doing what's in their best interests, I wouldn't confuse that with the best interests of the NHL. After all, the league has been pretty consistent in putting the player's best interests behind their own whenever possible.

"It" being the predicament in general between the two leagues. The way I look at it, the rules favour the NHL for the reason that they are the league where the best players in the world are going to end up for their careers and most likely where they want to be and the CHL will never compete with that, so the NHL kind of has them over a barrel.

Being that it only affects 5 or so players a year, it would seem that it's in both leagues favour to simply modify the rule for those 5 players, rather than get into a pissing match, making it not at all about the players anymore.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Like I said before, I see Busta's point about the CHL losing their best players, but the players best interest should come into it and that should be a players/ parents decision ultimately IMO.

Let's really be honest here. The CHL and their teams are still, at their heart, a business. While it's nice and all to look at things on the human level and what's best for the individual, the guys running the show are making decisions based one thing and one thing only - what's best for the bottom line. The players' best interest doesn't come into play there, and, from a business perspective, it shouldn't.

Not if they want to play their junior in Canada I guess. Unfortunately, you're right though, but the CHL will never compete with the NHL teams financially, so shouldn't the rules sway towards the NHL, as Nik points out, it already does?

We're talking about a small percentage of players anyway, which was also pointed out, so it seems to me that they should just modify the rule for exceptional status, at least that's just how I see it.

 

[Kin]

"It" being the predicament in general between the two leagues. The way I look at it, the rules favour the NHL for the reason that they are the league where the best players in the world are going to end up for their careers and most likely where they want to be and the CHL will never compete with that, so the NHL kind of has them over a barrel.

Well, like I said, they do and they don't. The NHL benefits from the existence of the CHL. The CHL doesn't benefit at all from the existence of the NHL. So while it's true that the CHL is never going to be competitive with the NHL in any true sense of the word, the reason the agreement exists is because the CHL has no reason to be in bed with the NHL in the first place. Besides, as I keep mentioning with regards to English football, the smaller clubs aren't necessarily competing with the bigger clubs but that doesn't mean that they just give their best players to the bigger clubs either. A system still exists to funnel talent upwards but not at the expense of everyone else.

Being that it only affects 5 or so players a year, it would seem that it's in both leagues favour to simply modify the rule for those 5 players, rather than get into a pissing match, making it not at all about the players anymore.

Ok, so, again if the CHL should just give the NHL whatever they want whenever they want it to avoid a "pissing match" why would the CHL enter into any agreement with the NHL? Seriously, outside of this one minor concession what do you think the CHL benefits from an association with the NHL?

 

[bustaheims]

We're talking about a small percentage of players anyway, which was also pointed out, so it seems to me that they should just modify the rule for exceptional status, at least that's just how I see it.

Well, the issue is that this small percentage of players is the reason the rule exists as is. These are the players the CHL is not willing to lose to the AHL. So, I'm not seeing any reason why the CHL would even consider agreeing to such a rule.

 

[Kin]

We're talking about a small percentage of players anyway, which was also pointed out, so it seems to me that they should just modify the rule for exceptional status, at least that's just how I see it.

Well, the issue is that this small percentage of players is the reason the rule exists as is. These are the players the CHL is not willing to lose to the AHL. So, I'm not seeing any reason why the CHL would even consider agreeing to such a rule.

Well, exactly. Right now the CHL's selling point as a league is that it's where the best 15-19 year olds play besides the handful of exceptional players in the NHL. By taking away that "small percentage" of players you're essentially establishing the AHL as a direct competitor to the CHL. Why would the CHL agree to that in return for virtually nothing?

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

We're talking about a small percentage of players anyway, which was also pointed out, so it seems to me that they should just modify the rule for exceptional status, at least that's just how I see it.

Well, the issue is that this small percentage of players is the reason the rule exists as is. These are the players the CHL is not willing to lose to the AHL. So, I'm not seeing any reason why the CHL would even consider agreeing to such a rule.

Well, exactly. Right now the CHL's selling point as a league is that it's where the best 15-19 year olds play besides the handful of exceptional players in the NHL. By taking away that "small percentage" of players you're essentially establishing the AHL as a direct competitor to the CHL. Why would the CHL agree to that in return for virtually nothing?

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.

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. I just think there should be some middle ground so that everybody wins here.

 

[bustaheims]

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.

Well, pro status is really what this rule is already all about. These players aren't granted pro status until they either crack an NHL roster or are no longer eligible to play in the CHL. The CHL has rights to these older players because A) they're under contract and B) they've negotiated those rights with the individuals and with the NHL. I mean, really, all you're doing here is re-stating the same argument you've been using all along, just with different words.

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. I just think there should be some middle ground so that everybody wins here.

There never has and never will be a middle ground here. This rule is based on a business decision and a business decision alone. There's also no concrete proof that being in the AHL instead of the CHL would be in the best interest of the player. In some cases it might be, but in others it wouldn't. It's much easier and much simpler for all parties to have a blanket rule that covers all situations.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

If I'm arguing, then I'm not accomplishing my goal, as I pretty much hate arguing. It was more me trying to understand why there is the potential for a young player to either be stagnant or ruined, depending on what decision is made, based on the rule.

I guess Morgan Rielly (and skilled players like him) might end up being the losers in all this, and I get that it's not a slam dunk that the AHL may be a better fit for him. But isn't that why they have people in place to evaluate and decide what's best for a players development?

 

[bustaheims]

If I'm arguing, then I'm not accomplishing my goal, as I pretty much hate arguing. It was more me trying to understand why there is the potential for a young player to either be stagnant or ruined, depending on what decision is made, based on the rule.

Well, there's really nothing supporting the idea that the prospects we're talking about will be ruined or stagnate because they have to play an extra season or two in junior. It's an argument people like to make, but it's one that has absolutely nothing concrete to support it.

I guess Morgan Rielly (and skilled players like him) might end up being the losers in all this, and I get that it's not a slam dunk that the AHL may be a better fit for him. But isn't that why they have people in place to evaluate and decide what's best for a players development?

Well, sure, but the fact that the people who have decided what's best for a player's development haven't really made a strong push to have this rule changed should tell you that they don't feel the situation as-is is so unacceptable. For the small amount of players that it may be an issue for, it's not worth the headache that would be caused trying to change the status quo.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Well, sure, but the fact that the people who have decided what's best for a player's development haven't really made a strong push to have this rule changed should tell you that they don't feel the situation as-is is so unacceptable. For the small amount of players that it may be an issue for, it's not worth the headache that would be caused trying to change the status quo.

That's fair, but that's also why I used the words potential and may. It can also work both ways, like in Rielly's case where I believe he is actually too good to develop in the CHL. While he isn't going to be ruined, he maybe won't develop being around better players. Where this rule comes into it for me is maybe down the road, after the 10 games, it turns out that he might be a bit over his head, but the skill level at the AHL might be better for him, while keeping him learning the teams system and maybe bringing him back up at a later date within that season.

I was more trying to have a conversation, rather than trying to ram home any point about, I'm clear that the rule probably won't change, regardless of the points for or against.

 

[Jalili]

I've been reading along, and I agree that it would be in the best interest of CHL prospects to amend the rules.

In every draft class there are prospects who spend a year too long in the CHL when they'd be better suited to playing in the AHL.

And, a few guys also get pushed to the NHL too early and it messes some of them up.

The rules should be modified, but in the end the league keeps rules like this in existence for political reasons. They want to prop up CHL hockey. Ah well.

 

[hap_leaf]

That's fair, but that's also why I used the words potential and may. It can also work both ways, like in Rielly's case where I believe he is actually too good to develop in the CHL. While he isn't going to be ruined, he maybe won't develop being around better players. Where this rule comes into it for me is maybe down the road, after the 10 games, it turns out that he might be a bit over his head, but the skill level at the AHL might be better for him, while keeping him learning the teams system and maybe bringing him back up at a later date within that season.

I was more trying to have a conversation, rather than trying to ram home any point about, I'm clear that the rule probably won't change, regardless of the points for or against.

I think that for an exceptional young player it is a matter of confidence.  If he still needs some confidence boosting, there is something for him to learn in a league where he can be a top dog.  If he has that confidence already, he can grow in a league that plays at a higher skill level and still accept that he might have some tough days at the rink and still rebound next game.  And I am more thinking about special status for McDavid (age 16) playing in the OHL at 15 and already this year, one report:
"There?s nights when this level looks below him now,? said one NHL scout on Monday.

How do you think MR is in this area?  Can you gauge this from his play on the ice? When you said he may be in over his head after 10 games was it perhaps his confidence of day-in and day-out in the NHL playing against the top forwards of some of the best teams, a bit much for him?

 

[Redleaf]

That's fair, but that's also why I used the words potential and may. It can also work both ways, like in Rielly's case where I believe he is actually too good to develop in the CHL. While he isn't going to be ruined, he maybe won't develop being around better players. Where this rule comes into it for me is maybe down the road, after the 10 games, it turns out that he might be a bit over his head, but the skill level at the AHL might be better for him, while keeping him learning the teams system and maybe bringing him back up at a later date within that season.

I was more trying to have a conversation, rather than trying to ram home any point about, I'm clear that the rule probably won't change, regardless of the points for or against.

I think that for an exceptional young player it is a matter of confidence.  If he still needs some confidence boosting, there is something for him to learn in a league where he can be a top dog.  If he has that confidence already, he can grow in a league that plays at a higher skill level and still accept that he might have some tough days at the rink and still rebound next game.  And I am more thinking about special status for McDavid (age 16) playing in the OHL at 15 and already this year, one report:
"There?s nights when this level looks below him now,? said one NHL scout on Monday.

How do you think MR is in this area?  Can you gauge this from his play on the ice? When you said he may be in over his head after 10 games was it perhaps his confidence of day-in and day-out in the NHL playing against the top forwards of some of the best teams, a bit much for him?

It probably wont last all season long, but McDavid's team mate, Leaf prospect Connor Brown is ahead of him in team points for the Erie Otters (and is 1st in the league), after 13 games.

Brown  13 11 18 29
McDavid13 5 18 23

Not too bad for 6TH ROUNDER, eh?

 

[Bender]

That's fair, but that's also why I used the words potential and may. It can also work both ways, like in Rielly's case where I believe he is actually too good to develop in the CHL. While he isn't going to be ruined, he maybe won't develop being around better players. Where this rule comes into it for me is maybe down the road, after the 10 games, it turns out that he might be a bit over his head, but the skill level at the AHL might be better for him, while keeping him learning the teams system and maybe bringing him back up at a later date within that season.

I was more trying to have a conversation, rather than trying to ram home any point about, I'm clear that the rule probably won't change, regardless of the points for or against.

I think that for an exceptional young player it is a matter of confidence.  If he still needs some confidence boosting, there is something for him to learn in a league where he can be a top dog.  If he has that confidence already, he can grow in a league that plays at a higher skill level and still accept that he might have some tough days at the rink and still rebound next game.  And I am more thinking about special status for McDavid (age 16) playing in the OHL at 15 and already this year, one report:
"There?s nights when this level looks below him now,? said one NHL scout on Monday.

How do you think MR is in this area?  Can you gauge this from his play on the ice? When you said he may be in over his head after 10 games was it perhaps his confidence of day-in and day-out in the NHL playing against the top forwards of some of the best teams, a bit much for him?

It probably wont last all season long, but McDavid's team mate, Leaf prospect Connor Brown is ahead of him in team points for the Erie Otters (and is 1st in the league), after 13 games.

Brown  13 11 18 29
McDavid13 5 18 23

Not too bad for 6TH ROUNDER, eh?

Granted, McDavid will be 2015 draft eligible.

But still, not bad for Brown

 

[L K]

Connor Brown is off to a great start.  Looking at his first season in the OHL is hilarious though.  I forgot just how bad the 2011-2012 Erie Otters were.  Connor Brown was the worst +/- player on the god-awful team.

25G 28A 53P -72