View Single Post
09-29-2006, 01:40 PM
Change is good.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Originally Posted by
Yes the rule is to benefit the CHL and I am quite thankful the rule is there. Since I live four hours away from the closest place to catch an NHL or AHL game I rather enjoy being able to watch some future stars in my hometown. You say he will be playing with a bunch of sixteen year olds but teams are actually limited to how many 16 year olds play. They only have so many cards they can use on rookies. Sure Marc and a few other elite would benefit from playing in the AHL a year early but consider the ones who are not. There are no exceptions to the rule for a few exceptional players. I understand you being upset but consider it this way. You steal our stars (Like Staal or Wolski or Tavares) early than the CHL becomes a watered down league. Now let me tell you I would not pay sixteen dollars a ticket to watch crap. I pay good money to watch good players in this league. So eventually the attendance dies down and than the league begins to dwindle and teams start folding. All of a sudden we lose the CHL and players now have to go to lower standard development leagues producing talent not up to par. This in turns affects the NHL. And for what? Moving a few stars up a year early? The NHL recognizes this that is why the rule is left intact. And the CHL is still the best development league in the world.
Baseball seems to survive just fine with minor league teams that serve the big teams and not the other way around.
The alternate scenario you dismissively proposed would work out much better for the big clubs. The lower standard development leagues you refer to would significantly raise their level of "par" as they increased the percentage of pro prospects to journeymen. Furthermore, the big clubs would have a lot more control over the development of their players. As a result, the level of play throughout the system would INCREASE, particularly in the AHL and eventually in the NHL.
And at the same time, yes, some CHL teams would start to fold (others would no doubt become part of the multi-tiered minor league system). So what's the problem with that? Other than you and 3,999 other fans would lose your team, I mean. I realize that's cold, but it's basic economics - the overall benefit to the community of North American hockey fans would increase.
As it stands (in regard to Staal), the interests of the Greater Sudbury area (pop. 155,000) are being placed ahead of those of the NY metro area (pop. 25,000,000). Even if you factor in relative levels of hockey interest in both locations, that's still complete and total BS. Which again is why I say there is no rationale for the current system other than the fact that those negotiating the deals are good ol' Canadian boys protecting an anchronistic system that benefits small Canadian towns with populations in 5 figures at the expense of the big clubs that serve marketplaces with populations in the 7-8 figure range.
Not to worry - at least for the time being, the system seems fairly well entrenched, as illogical as it is.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BrooklynRangersFan