HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Other Leagues > Canadian Junior Hockey > OHL

*OFFICIAL* Windsor Spitfires 2012-13 Season Thread (Part 8)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-04-2013, 02:46 PM
  #976
aresknights
Registered User
 
aresknights's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: london
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ward Cornell View Post
Not sure why it matters if it's an ex-player, ex-employee or an ex-coach, trying to find the source might be nice to know but doesn't really matter.
The fact is the Spitfires did do something wrong and the fans should be given an explanation of "some sort" but doesn't really need to know the nuts and bolts.!
True enough, just pointing out that it may not have been Hunter as "rumored" by Otto

aresknights is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 02:50 PM
  #977
aresknights
Registered User
 
aresknights's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: london
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayzorIsDull View Post
I think it makes sense but you can't expect much from the OHL. There's zero transparency in what they try and do. As long as London and Kitchener are healthy franchises in the OHL the guys like Branch and Baker don't give a crap what's happening with the 18 other teams.
Really? Same Branch that suspended Mark for a year?

I guess the 18 owners just roll over and accept that thinking as well. Are the owners that afraid of the Hunters and the community owned Rangers, that theyd let Branch and Baker do that.

I guess they and all the fans deserve it then, if they arent part of the solution, theyre part of the blame. insert sarcasm icon

aresknights is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 02:52 PM
  #978
aresknights
Registered User
 
aresknights's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: london
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libbs View Post
With the 4th overall selection, the Windsor Spitfires are proud to select, Sean Day....

oh wait... nevermind.


I don't really care who said what or what the sanctions were actually for... but dictating which years the team loses it's first rounder is total BS. I've said before, but the team should have been given a choice as to what first round pick they were willing to forfeit, ala the NJ Devils re: Cap circumvention.

"Loss of a first round draft choice in either 2013 or 2014 as well as 2016 or 2017. Which ever year the Spitfires elect to use their 1st round pick, they will forfeit a 2nd round pick that year. If no 2nd round pick is available for that particular year, the Spitfires will have no choice but to forfeit their 1st round pick."

Does something like that not seem more logical? The team is still getting hit with the lost draft picks but it's not a crippling as what is currently happening.
I think most would have been fine with that. Not a bad idea.

aresknights is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 02:55 PM
  #979
RayzorIsDull
Registered User
 
RayzorIsDull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeylegend11 View Post
I would agree with both of u there on all opinions Spits should have been given the option of what years to lose the 1st rders
It should be noted that the Spits have 1 remaining 2nd rder for 2014 which will be
given to the league as part of the sanctions going forward,meaning as of now they
do not have a 2nd or 3rd rder next yr,though they do have a 1st
It also should be noted that Rychel does not go rogue on trades they are all run by Boughner before being consumated
With 5 picks in the 1st 81 selections I can guarantee all that the selections will
be top heavy with forwards,in fact would not surprise me that in the 1st 6 guys
picked 4 or 5 are forwards
With 15 picks this yr pretty much assured a goalie will be selected,they should have
picked 1 last yr with 1 one of their 17 selections,Nedljokovic was picked in the 6th
rd last player in that rd,so 19 teams missed the boat on that one,btw the Spits
picked smallish forward a 95 born American Jack Billings with their 6th rd selection
I thought for sure they would go forward route last year and it was Sanvido and Brown early. If you're going to take a bunch of forwards early you will need to make a couple spots available in camp. I would expect 2 import forwards to take up spots. I guess that would mean the likes of Marchese, Johnson, Bilcke, Studnicka aren't safe by any means. I am for the whole forward approach though just not sure if it will happen.

RayzorIsDull is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 02:56 PM
  #980
punch1943
Registered User
 
punch1943's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,118
vCash: 500
WR gets another Pick (#97)

According to Jim Parker of the Star............

Windsor #Spitfires get Owen Sound's 5th-round pick (97th) from Belleville #Bulls in Saturday's #OHL Draft for Mississauga's 5th in 2014.

Spits now have 6 picks in top 100 (Nos. 35, 43, 47, 68, 81 & 97)

According to the OHL web site-

Trading period for draft picks only ends at 3:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2013

punch1943 is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 02:59 PM
  #981
hockeylegend11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by punch1943 View Post
According to Jim Parker of the Star............

Windsor #Spitfires get Owen Sound's 5th-round pick (97th) from Belleville #Bulls in Saturday's #OHL Draft for Mississauga's 5th in 2014.

Spits now have 6 picks in top 100 (Nos. 35, 43, 47, 68, 81 & 97)

According to the OHL web site-

Trading period for draft picks only ends at 3:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2013
You beat me to the punch good get,means now the Spits have 1-2nd,2 3rds,1 4th and
2-5ths,not a bad haul after starting the trade session with 1-3rd,4th and 5th

hockeylegend11 is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 03:02 PM
  #982
PhlyerPhanatic
Moderator
Straight Shooter
 
PhlyerPhanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The BUD 309A19
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
I don't really care who said what or what the sanctions were actually for... but dictating which years the team loses it's first rounder is total BS. I've said before, but the team should have been given a choice as to what first round pick they were willing to forfeit, ala the NJ Devils re: Cap circumvention.

"Loss of a first round draft choice in either 2013 or 2014 as well as 2016 or 2017. Which ever year the Spitfires elect to use their 1st round pick, they will forfeit a 2nd round pick that year. If no 2nd round pick is available for that particular year, the Spitfires will have no choice but to forfeit their 1st round pick."

Does something like that not seem more logical? The team is still getting hit with the lost draft picks but it's not a crippling as what is currently happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeylegend11 View Post
I would agree with both of u there on all opinions Spits should have been given the option of what years to lose the 1st rders
Conditional sanctions? At what point would they have had to opt in or out... Before or after Day was granted exceptional status?

PhlyerPhanatic is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 03:05 PM
  #983
hockeylegend11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhlyerPhanatic View Post
Conditional sanctions? At what point would they have had to opt in or out... Before or after Day was granted exceptional status?
Before,because u know an exceptional player would have been available in the 4 hole
Day or no Day

hockeylegend11 is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 03:09 PM
  #984
PhlyerPhanatic
Moderator
Straight Shooter
 
PhlyerPhanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The BUD 309A19
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeylegend11 View Post
Before,because u know an exceptional player would have been available in the 4 hole
Day or no Day
I get what you're saying(don't agree with it at all)...but I can't help but think this is all coming to a head now that Day may drop to the slot that Windsor would occupy this season. So based on the strength of a draft..they would be able to pick what years to take their punishment? Read that from the outside and tell me if it seems fair.

PhlyerPhanatic is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 03:18 PM
  #985
hockeylegend11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhlyerPhanatic View Post
I get what you're saying(don't agree with it at all)...but I can't help but think this is all coming to a head now that Day may drop to the slot that Windsor would occupy this season. So based on the strength of a draft..they would be able to pick what years to take their punishment? Read that from the outside and tell me if it seems fair.
You are most likely right in light of the Day situation,I think a team should never lose
a 1st rder regardless of what they have done,afterall teams cant trade 1st rders unless
special situations ie defected player loosely defined,so special situations could have been done here as well protect all non playoff teams,so my view
The league makes sure that for example if a 3rd overll player does not want to show
the compensation would be 5th the following year not 4th,as compensation is the next selection then the defected player,so as to protect the 4 non play off teams,could have been done here imo

hockeylegend11 is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 03:18 PM
  #986
Libbs
Registered User
 
Libbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhlyerPhanatic View Post
Conditional sanctions? At what point would they have had to opt in or out... Before or after Day was granted exceptional status?
It's a valid question, and not one that I factored in. IMO, the cut off would be draft day in 2013 (and draft day in 2016).

All conditions would have to be met for that 2 year block:

- Choose to lose the 1st rounder in 2013, they will forfeit a 2nd in 2014. If there is multiple 2nds, come the draft in 2014, whichever pick is the highest in the one that is forfeit. If there is no 2nd in 2014, the team risks losing their 1st rounder in 2014 as well and have until the 2014 draft to acquire a 2nd round pick.

- Choose the 1st rounder in 2014, there MUST be a 2nd rounder in 2013 by draft day or else this option is eliminated and the 2013 1st rounder will be forfeited. Then see scenario above. Same rule applies with multiple 2nds as with scenario above.

Same goes for 2016/2017. If the proper conditions aren't met, it is possible the team to lose up to 4 1st rounders instead of 2 1st and 2 2nds. This would force the GM to use his assets wisely.

Libbs is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 03:20 PM
  #987
Libbs
Registered User
 
Libbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhlyerPhanatic View Post
I get what you're saying(don't agree with it at all)...but I can't help but think this is all coming to a head now that Day may drop to the slot that Windsor would occupy this season. So based on the strength of a draft..they would be able to pick what years to take their punishment? Read that from the outside and tell me if it seems fair.
I actually made this suggestion back a while ago... way before Day had even applied for exceptional status. The players available have little bearing on why I feel this way.

Libbs is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 03:21 PM
  #988
PhlyerPhanatic
Moderator
Straight Shooter
 
PhlyerPhanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The BUD 309A19
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeylegend11 View Post
You are most likely right in light of the Day situation,I think a team should never lose
a 1st rder regardless of what they have done,afterall teams cant trade 1st rders unless
special situations ie defected player loosely defined,so special situations could have been done here as well protect all non playoff teams,so my view
The league makes sure that for example if a 3rd overll player does not want to show
the compensation would be 5th the following year not 4th,as compensation is the next selection then the defected player,so as to protect the 4 non play off teams,could have been done here imo
I will agree with you that losing the 1st rounders is a very harsh penalty. They should allow teams to trade their 1st rounders..I've always thought that was a stupid rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libbs View Post
I actually made this suggestion back a while ago... way before Day had even applied for exceptional status. The players available have little bearing on why I feel this way.
Under what circumstance would you opt in or opt out of a certain draft year? I'm curious.

edit..sorry just read your other post.

PhlyerPhanatic is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 03:27 PM
  #989
Libbs
Registered User
 
Libbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhlyerPhanatic View Post
I will agree with you that losing the 1st rounders is a very harsh penalty. They should allow teams to trade their 1st rounders..I've always thought that was a stupid rule.

Under what circumstance would you opt in or opt out of a certain draft year? I'm curious.
Lets take this year for example. I could probably say with 100% certainty that the Spits would opt to lose their 2014 1st rounder (granted they met the conditions in order to choose this year).

Say the Spits didn't suck last year and would pick in the lower 1/2 of the draft. Based on projections for the following season, they may elect to lose their 2013 first rounder with the hopes they could be a championship contender then use their 2014 1st rounder to help kickstart the inevitable rebuild after the run year.

Libbs is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 03:38 PM
  #990
Libbs
Registered User
 
Libbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Legend.

Spits do not lose a 2nd rounder next year. They lose them in 2015 and 2017.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...id-branch.html

Libbs is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 03:43 PM
  #991
hockeylegend11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libbs View Post
Legend.

Spits do not lose a 2nd rounder next year. They lose them in 2015 and 2017.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...id-branch.html
Libbs

Thanx I stand corrected,so they lose nothing next yr correct?

hockeylegend11 is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 03:53 PM
  #992
KyGuy9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 295
vCash: 500
Kingston struck gold. They snuck into the playoffs, and also got a possible #1 pick in Day. Or was it Mississauga?

Are the penalties written in stone, or can they be changed?

I wish Warren would just come out and tell us what he did, I mean he already got punished, so what's the secret?

KyGuy9 is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 04:03 PM
  #993
Libbs
Registered User
 
Libbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeylegend11 View Post
Libbs

Thanx I stand corrected,so they lose nothing next yr correct?
Doesn't seem like it.

Libbs is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 04:04 PM
  #994
Libbs
Registered User
 
Libbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyGuy9 View Post
Kingston struck gold. They snuck into the playoffs, and also got a possible #1 pick in Day. Or was it Mississauga?

Are the penalties written in stone, or can they be changed?

I wish Warren would just come out and tell us what he did, I mean he already got punished, so what's the secret?
It would be Missy as they were lowest seed of any of the playoff teams.

Libbs is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 04:05 PM
  #995
Ottomatic
Registered User
 
Ottomatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,802
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ward Cornell View Post
Not sure why it matters if it's an ex-player, ex-employee or an ex-coach, trying to find the source might be nice to know but doesn't really matter.
The fact is the Spitfires did do something wrong and the fans should be given an explanation of "some sort" but doesn't really need to know the nuts and bolts.!
It matters for the sake of transparency. I want to know if the player or former employee had an axe to grind, I want to know if the punishment fits the crime here. Also if it's not owed to the fanbase, it should be owed to the tax player who built the 70M new arena in part on promises of hosting a Memorial Cup to help pay for it.

Why does it have to be secret for? If Bill Dark, now working for the London Knights, was the snitch and it just so happens London decided to bid for the Memorial Cup hosting gig again because they knew Windsor would be penalized - I think that should be common knowledge. If Dark is involved - it REALLY starts to stink actually. Did London put him up to it? Did London bring in Austin Watson and convince him to implicate the Spitfires?

Why was the sanctions decreased? Was it to buy silence because the OHL didn't have a strong case? Or because the OHL wanted to protect the sources? If would be shady as hell if Dark and Watson, a London Knight employee and an London Knight player were the two sources and then they trade in part on the resulting penalty to host the Memorial Cup again - making the Hunters six figures, if not seven, in the process. Will Dark get a bonus?

And it matters to the players who are under the shadow - I've heard Campbell, Fowler, Ryan, Watson, Koko, Peca and Dark all implicated by somebody or other along the way. If it's Watson, than I want to know what happened to him - given it takes two to tango in any shady dealing, I don't think Warren would have offered enticements without them being requested and accepted. Did whichever player accept the extras gladly when they were here, but then decided to snitch about it later on?

And if Warren is a total ******* in all of this - then that should be known as well.


Last edited by Ottomatic: 04-04-2013 at 04:19 PM.
Ottomatic is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 05:53 PM
  #996
RayzorIsDull
Registered User
 
RayzorIsDull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,610
vCash: 500
That's a terrific post Otto. By all accounts the penalty was reduced because the Spits were never notified they were under investigation. What credible governing body would conduct an investigation and never notify the offending party? When the NCAA investigates a program the school is notfied. When the SEC investigates a brokerage house or bank the brokerage house or bank is notified. If the OHL wants to be a credible league they need to make it clear what a punishment is for certain violations. Tough to have credibility when there's zero transparency. They don't care about credibility in the eyes of fans or public only if they continue feed players to the AHL and NHL.

RayzorIsDull is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 06:15 PM
  #997
coachfluffy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottomatic View Post

And it matters to the players who are under the shadow - I've heard Campbell, Fowler, Ryan, Watson, Koko, Peca and Dark all implicated by somebody or other along the way. If it's Watson, than I want to know what happened to him - given it takes two to tango in any shady dealing, I don't think Warren would have offered enticements without them being requested and accepted. Did whichever player accept the extras gladly when they were here, but then decided to snitch about it later on?
I believe the other was Campbell, who, like Watson, was traded to the nether regions of the league. Not sure if they objected to being sent so far from home or whether the Spits decided to end whatever agreement they had.

coachfluffy is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 06:38 PM
  #998
Ottomatic
Registered User
 
Ottomatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,802
vCash: 500
^Campbell showed up at the Alumni game - why would he screw over the Spits and then have the gall to show his face if he did?

Ottomatic is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 07:19 PM
  #999
krazy kanuck
Registered User
 
krazy kanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 2,591
vCash: 500
Some interesting posts today in Spitsville. My thoughts:

- The conditional punishment option is an interesting one, and ironically enough I would be ok with that. I think there would have to be pretty tight conditions though. i.e. one of 2013/2014 one of 2015/2016. Decide to pick in 13, automatically lose 14. Same with 15/16.

- Do we really think Sean Day is falling to #4? Do we really? Really?

- Could it be Watson? I would assume that if it's an existing player he would have been punished too. I may be assuming much, but you would think so. For that reason, I've always thought it doesn't involve current OHLers.

- The NCAA comparison cracks me up because the NCAA would have been far harsher. Look at what they did to USC for Reggie Bush.

- I think WR's trades are interesting given the Memorial Cup bid. He's trading future picks for this year, so he must think these players are going to contribute (since he can't trade any of them after the draft) but really how many first year players picked after the first round contribute much to a Mem Cup team? He could have argued that the picks for future years could be used to bolster his 2014 Mem Cup entry, but the guys he drafts won't likely. Has he given up the ghost on the cup?

krazy kanuck is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 07:35 PM
  #1000
RayzorIsDull
Registered User
 
RayzorIsDull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by krazy kanuck View Post
Some interesting posts today in Spitsville. My thoughts:

- The conditional punishment option is an interesting one, and ironically enough I would be ok with that. I think there would have to be pretty tight conditions though. i.e. one of 2013/2014 one of 2015/2016. Decide to pick in 13, automatically lose 14. Same with 15/16.

- Do we really think Sean Day is falling to #4? Do we really? Really?

- Could it be Watson? I would assume that if it's an existing player he would have been punished too. I may be assuming much, but you would think so. For that reason, I've always thought it doesn't involve current OHLers.

- The NCAA comparison cracks me up because the NCAA would have been far harsher. Look at what they did to USC for Reggie Bush.

- I think WR's trades are interesting given the Memorial Cup bid. He's trading future picks for this year, so he must think these players are going to contribute (since he can't trade any of them after the draft) but really how many first year players picked after the first round contribute much to a Mem Cup team? He could have argued that the picks for future years could be used to bolster his 2014 Mem Cup entry, but the guys he drafts won't likely. Has he given up the ghost on the cup?

Really the same NCAA that didn't harshly punish Ohio St, Auburn, Miami (Fla) for their numerous indiscretions regarding benefits, recruitment violations of the like.

Depends who you get in the draft. Mackenzie MacEachern is in the draft a 94 who's already been drafted in the NHL and committed to MSU. He put his name on the draft list you can figure out the rest. He would be a big boost for any team.

RayzorIsDull is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:39 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.