|
Post by KBT on Jun 14, 2006 8:48:39 GMT -5
Treating U.S. players as imports wont work since each club is only allowed 2 imports, and that number could be going down to one player. Also, the CHL, along with the "Q" have american teams, so treating them as imports wont work. Instead, maybe the "Q" should consider adding 5 or 6 rounds to the draft dedicated to U.S. born players, then teams could dedicate the main draft to Quebec and Atlantic born players, and then after that each team can have their pick of american players. The problem with that could be that the draft would now really favor the weaker teams, moreso than now. Take Rimouski for example this year, they could pick # 1 in the Q draft and then pick # 1 again in the American portion of the draft and then again in the Euro draft. Conceivably they could get three first round picks in one year. What if the top three junior players in this years' drafts are Canadian, American and Latvian? A weak team could get all three of them. That could change the face of team radically. What if they also have picks from last year or the year before and can now draft the top 6 junior aged players?
|
|
|
Post by Lirette on Jun 14, 2006 8:54:20 GMT -5
Treating U.S. players as imports wont work since each club is only allowed 2 imports, and that number could be going down to one player. Also, the CHL, along with the "Q" have american teams, so treating them as imports wont work. Instead, maybe the "Q" should consider adding 5 or 6 rounds to the draft dedicated to U.S. born players, then teams could dedicate the main draft to Quebec and Atlantic born players, and then after that each team can have their pick of american players. The problem with that could be that the draft would now really favor the weaker teams, moreso than now. Take Rimouski for example this year, they could pick # 1 in the Q draft and then pick # 1 again in the American portion of the draft and then again in the Euro draft. Conceivably they could get three first round picks in one year. What if the top three junior players in this years' drafts are Canadian, American and Latvian? A weak team could get all three of them. That could change the face of team radically. What if they also have picks from last year or the year before and can now draft the top 6 junior aged players? You could always do a lottery for each draft to avoid this. Either way I don't see them ever implementing it but I think it would be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Cristobal Huet on Jun 14, 2006 8:55:57 GMT -5
It's pretty simple why they would go play NCAA, they don't know if hockey is a for sure thing so getting an education while playing hockey is definitly not a bad idea. How can you blame a player for wanting to get an education? The Q has a very good education program,i think most of these guys like the attention of being a college kid. Since when? Try going to St.Fx or U de M for 4 years on $10,500. The Q education program is 10 years out of date.
|
|
|
Post by Cristobal Huet on Jun 14, 2006 8:57:35 GMT -5
The Q has a very good education program,i think most of these guys like the attention of being a college kid. Would you really want to be starting University when most of your friends are graduating and entering the work force? Yes, if I had a chance to play Major Junior hockey.
|
|
|
Post by gongshow on Jun 14, 2006 9:19:51 GMT -5
i think it all boils down to $$$$$$$$$$ obviously.....and that's not just in hockey. Sad but true
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jun 14, 2006 9:22:04 GMT -5
Treating U.S. players as imports wont work since each club is only allowed 2 imports, and that number could be going down to one player. Also, the CHL, along with the "Q" have american teams, so treating them as imports wont work. Instead, maybe the "Q" should consider adding 5 or 6 rounds to the draft dedicated to U.S. born players, then teams could dedicate the main draft to Quebec and Atlantic born players, and then after that each team can have their pick of american players. The problem with that could be that the draft would now really favor the weaker teams, moreso than now. Take Rimouski for example this year, they could pick # 1 in the Q draft and then pick # 1 again in the American portion of the draft and then again in the Euro draft. Conceivably they could get three first round picks in one year. What if the top three junior players in this years' drafts are Canadian, American and Latvian? A weak team could get all three of them. That could change the face of team radically. What if they also have picks from last year or the year before and can now draft the top 6 junior aged players? They could keep the Canadian players draft the same but have a lottery with all the teams for the US and Euro draft.
|
|
|
Post by hockeyfan42 on Jun 14, 2006 9:22:06 GMT -5
The reality is any pick of a Canadian, US or Euro player is a gamble. The difference is a matter of degree. Larger organizations (Quebec, Moncton, Halifax) have built in advantages. That is they can offer financial advatages smaller market teams can not.
Western teams tend look for crown jewels passed over in Ontario. Lewiston may have some advatages because of its proximity to the New England market. Every team has advatages and challenges. In the end it boils down to solid scouting and recruiting. More and more teams will need to look not only for the best player, but the player for their team.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Jun 14, 2006 9:28:38 GMT -5
Treating U.S. players as imports wont work since each club is only allowed 2 imports, and that number could be going down to one player. Also, the CHL, along with the "Q" have american teams, so treating them as imports wont work. Instead, maybe the "Q" should consider adding 5 or 6 rounds to the draft dedicated to U.S. born players, then teams could dedicate the main draft to Quebec and Atlantic born players, and then after that each team can have their pick of american players. I think that would just keep top US talent out of the Q - if a kid was considering the Q, and found out he was drafted by a small market team with limited resources, that would all but convince him to stay in the States and go NCAA. The flip side to your proposal would be that Americans are no longer draft eligible, but available to sign as free agents as 17 year olds. But the large market teams would reap all the benefits of this... The current system tries to bridge the two models, with varying degrees of success. The bottom line is, no draft will ever be truly effective if the player has legitimate options outside of the drafting league - in this case NCAA. The draft works great in the NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB because those leagues are monopolies - no where else can a player choose to play at a comparable wage and level of competition. The CHL is not a monopoly, it is battling various other leagues (primarily NCAA) to get the players it wants.
|
|
|
Post by Cristobal Huet on Jun 14, 2006 10:45:53 GMT -5
Treating U.S. players as imports wont work since each club is only allowed 2 imports, and that number could be going down to one player. Also, the CHL, along with the "Q" have american teams, so treating them as imports wont work. Instead, maybe the "Q" should consider adding 5 or 6 rounds to the draft dedicated to U.S. born players, then teams could dedicate the main draft to Quebec and Atlantic born players, and then after that each team can have their pick of american players. I think that would just keep top US talent out of the Q - if a kid was considering the Q, and found out he was drafted by a small market team with limited resources, that would all but convince him to stay in the States and go NCAA. The flip side to your proposal would be that Americans are no longer draft eligible, but available to sign as free agents as 17 year olds. But the large market teams would reap all the benefits of this... The current system tries to bridge the two models, with varying degrees of success. The bottom line is, no draft will ever be truly effective if the player has legitimate options outside of the drafting league - in this case NCAA. The draft works great in the NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB because those leagues are monopolies - no where else can a player choose to play at a comparable wage and level of competition. The CHL is not a monopoly, it is battling various other leagues (primarily NCAA) to get the players it wants. MLB has the same problems as the Q. The best prospects shun the small markets for teams that can pay huge signing bonuses and can threaten to go NCAA or stay in school.
|
|
|
Post by Bev on Jun 14, 2006 10:48:52 GMT -5
Would you really want to be starting University when most of your friends are graduating and entering the work force? Yes, if I had a chance to play Major Junior hockey. I would be bitching more when I have to work 3-4 more years at the end when I could have retired early... Oops.... I am already bitching cause I goofed off at university and got behind in years of service. It works out ok if you have a hockey career. If not you are running behind in yor career of choice.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Jun 14, 2006 11:52:45 GMT -5
I think that would just keep top US talent out of the Q - if a kid was considering the Q, and found out he was drafted by a small market team with limited resources, that would all but convince him to stay in the States and go NCAA. The flip side to your proposal would be that Americans are no longer draft eligible, but available to sign as free agents as 17 year olds. But the large market teams would reap all the benefits of this... The current system tries to bridge the two models, with varying degrees of success. The bottom line is, no draft will ever be truly effective if the player has legitimate options outside of the drafting league - in this case NCAA. The draft works great in the NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB because those leagues are monopolies - no where else can a player choose to play at a comparable wage and level of competition. The CHL is not a monopoly, it is battling various other leagues (primarily NCAA) to get the players it wants. MLB has the same problems as the Q. The best prospects shun the small markets for teams that can pay huge signing bonuses and can threaten to go NCAA or stay in school. MLB's problem is that they allow players to be drafted long before they are ready to play in the bigs ... college baseball becomes a legitimate alternative to toiling in the low minors for a few years - they can always re-enter the draft when they are done college and generally will progress quicker through the system than a kid who signed out of high school.
|
|
|
Post by KBT on Jun 14, 2006 12:12:53 GMT -5
They have to draft them young in MLB because it can take years to build up a tolerance to the heavy doses of steriods you need to take to become a star.
|
|