View Single Post
Old
10-12-2011, 04:29 PM
  #57
Sidney the Kidney
All zee Germans!
 
Sidney the Kidney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,669
vCash: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunomics View Post
So it's good for kids to be playing against others that they should be moving on from? Hell even make it a rule that 1 year after being drafted they can go to the minors I'm fine with that but I feel that them starting in the ECHL moving to the AHL then the NHL is a much better route. Plus it expands the game down here when highly touted prospects are playing better competition in the minor league cities. The CHL becomes a waste of time to the top tier after they are drafted most of the time I feel. Personally I feel the reason the rule is there is purely profit motivated and it holds prospects back from moving up leagues.
A couple of main points.

The first, you make it sound like the CHL gets all the benefits, and the players get none. The players got to play in the CHL for two years prior to their draft year, and received the development during that time that enabled them to be able to get drafted by a NHL club. The NHL realizes that the CHL spends all that time, effort, and money in developing their future players, and thus they're perfectly fine with the rule in place.

Saying that it would give other players a chance also is misguided. Those "other players" would be guys only good enough for Tier II under the current circumstances. If they allowed CHL-aged players to play in the ECHL or AHL, then their spots would be filled by guys who aren't very good. That would hurt the overall quality of hockey at the junior level, including the quality of competition these future NHL players would be facing on a nightly basis. It would also cause less fans to want to attend games. There's a reason CHL arenas can fill 7000+ arenas on a nightly basis, while Tier II teams are lucky to get 1000. The quality of hockey played at that level. Taking the majority of drafted players out of the CHL means that quality drops tremendously, and thus so does interest by the fans.

It's a mutually beneficial agreement that, really, only "hurts" a tiny, tiny fraction of players. Those good enough to make the jump to the NHL right away aren't affected, and those who are almost there get an extra year or two of development against players their age before they move on.

And second, there's also the impact of the age of these kids. Playing in the NHL is one thing; I'm sure they watch their players especially close when you're in the spotlight. NHL clubs spring for all sorts of personnel staff that make sure the youngsters' transition to life in the NHL is as smooth as possible.

ECHL teams don't exactly have the same budget or staff available to make sure the same transition is there for a 19 year old kid suddenly on his own, left to his own devices. In the ECHL, the 19 year old is surrounded by adults, with a lot more freedom to do whatever they want (to an extent). They live on their own, they're basically living as adults. At least in junior, players aren't on their own. They have billets who look after them at home, there is a requirement that they attend classes, and they're surrounded by others their age.

I really think people who are against this rule haven't actually looked deeper into the benefits, both to the player AND to the league that spends money and time developing these players. I mean, if the CHL folds (and it would, given that NHL clubs pay these clubs development money each year a drafted player plays for that club), then where are these players going to develop? You going to send a bunch of 16 year olds to play in Europe or to play against men in the ECHL?


Last edited by Sidney the Kidney: 10-12-2011 at 04:34 PM.
Sidney the Kidney is offline   Reply With Quote