He can play when his junior season is over
- Stripes77

Is there some vote at some point where they can change this?

I like Nighthawks.
- mhp

That's a good name.

Is there some vote at some point where they can change this?
- Phatjohnsn

Yes there will be a negotiation. They do it every so often. Not sure exactly when though. I doubt it will be changed. the CHL does not want to lose its best players. And I can't say I blame them.

I'm really tired of this damn heat
- SABRES 89

When you sign up to live in the desert that typically comes with the deal

Watching field hockey. Man it's gotta be murder on your back.

You may want to read the latest Boston blog. It reinforces what I've been saying - that the media treated Hayes badly last year in Boston and it could be swaying vesey away from Boston and away from big cities - enter Buffalo. The Hayes family is close to.the Vesey family

It sure would. It will be interesting what they do with him. Is another year Junior better than being the 7th D in Buffalo?
- mhp

I'd think another year Junior is best

I'd think another year Junior is best
- chilliard77

Agreed and if things work out how we want we are going to need him on his ELC when the team is making a run so they can add at the deadline.

Agreed and if things work out how we want we are going to need him on his ELC when the team is making a run so they can add at the deadline.
- Stripes77

Yeah, I hadn't started taking that into account yet, but it's smart thinking. Those ELC years will be very important.

I would rather take the desert heat over the Florida humidity any day of the week.
- mhp

I heard you stopped in at the pine lounge.

I like Nighthawks.
- mhp

Nighthawks is the only one I like

He can play when his junior season is over
- Stripes77

That's too bad he should be in roch

Noghthawks is the only one I like
- Mentalorgasm5

What about the Skating Herpes?

I heard you stopped in at the pine lounge.
- SabresFaninIndiana

Yes. I had a few beers and talked with older guy tending bar and young woman with dark hair (owner?). Nice people, I'll stop in there next time I'm down there.

Yes. I had a few beers and talked with older guy tending bar and young woman with dark hair (owner?). Nice people, I'll stop in there next time I'm down there.
- mhp

Not sure who the older guy was. I heard from my brother who talked with Eddie one of the regulars. Younger women with dark hair may have been owners daughter (my sister in laws sister). I haven't been there in a while so I don't know all the people.

Yes there will be a negotiation. They do it every so often. Not sure exactly when though. I doubt it will be changed. the CHL does not want to lose its best players. And I can't say I blame them.
- Wetbandit1

I understand that the CHL doesn't want that to happen but there is definitely a middle ground. Having the Guhle's of the world play a year in the CHL when his talent level exceeds it but isn't enough for the NHL really does more to damage the player than it does either league. The NHL should be the one holding the leverage in this negotiation and someone there has to be smart enough to realize that placing a guy in this situation where he stagnates for a year at 19-20 lessens the chance for these players to become exciting young players in the NHL more quickly.

One thing I'd say would be a nice middle ground is allowing a team an exception - either one exception player per team per year OR a single exception player at a time (so if BUF made Guhle an exception last year, he could play anywhere in their organization but they couldn't have another exception player until 2017 when his CHL status would be cleared anyway). At least this gives the big clubs the option to progress these guys when they've put in the effort to make the jump.

I understand that the CHL doesn't want that to happen but there is definitely a middle ground. Having the Guhle's of the world play a year in the CHL when his talent level exceeds it but isn't enough for the NHL really does more to damage the player than it does either league. The NHL should be the one holding the leverage in this negotiation and someone there has to be smart enough to realize that placing a guy in this situation where he stagnates for a year at 19-20 lessens the chance for these players to become exciting young players in the NHL more quickly.

One thing I'd say would be a nice middle ground is allowing a team an exception - either one exception player per team per year OR a single exception player at a time (so if BUF made Guhle an exception last year, he could play anywhere in their organization but they couldn't have another exception player until 2017 when his CHL status would be cleared anyway). At least this gives the big clubs the option to progress these guys when they've put in the effort to make the jump.
- Phatjohnsn

I agree but the problem is where do you draw the line?

As for the exception. That's no good either, because the Eries and the Londons and the Portlands would get shafted because they usually have a few stars that have been drafted that are too good for the CHL, but not good enough for the NHL.

I agree but the problem is where do you draw the line?

As for the exception. That's no good either, because the Eries and the Londons and the Portlands would get shafted because they usually have a few stars that have been drafted that are too good for the CHL, but not good enough for the NHL.
- Wetbandit1

There isn't that many guys who fall into this category - the stars make the jump right away and this isn't an issue. So we're talking about fringe guys and I don't think there is ever a season where 32 fringe guys are getting plucked from the CHL and even less chance that even a majority of players that this happens to are congregated on 3 or 4 CHL teams that this would really hurt any of them.

How about this - the CHL Exception can only be used on CHL players in the 3rd/4th years of CHL eligibility. That way the CHL gets guys for 2 seasons guaranteed and then if they can make a roster out of training camp in years 3/4, the NHL squad can decide whether or not to use an exception to move the player up to AHL/NHL. Furthermore, allow the NHL team the option to designate them back to CHL if that scenario arises but doing so would basically forfeit their exception.

Point being, someone can figure this out so its fair to both sides AND the player.

Did anyone already post this?

https://www.nhl.com/news/...c-281307146?tid=277729162

There isn't that many guys who fall into this category - the stars make the jump right away and this isn't an issue. So we're talking about fringe guys and I don't think there is ever a season where 32 fringe guys are getting plucked from the CHL and even less chance that even a majority of players that this happens to are congregated on 3 or 4 CHL teams that this would really hurt any of them.

How about this - the CHL Exception can only be used on CHL players in the 3rd/4th years of CHL eligibility. That way the CHL gets guys for 2 seasons guaranteed and then if they can make a roster out of training camp in years 3/4, the NHL squad can decide whether or not to use an exception to move the player up to AHL/NHL. Furthermore, allow the NHL team the option to designate them back to CHL if that scenario arises but doing so would basically forfeit their exception.

Point being, someone can figure this out so its fair to both sides AND the player.
- Phatjohnsn

Every year there's a team that has 4 NHL tweeners on their roster. And there's no way teams give up on that. Even if it's some team that hasn't had a kid drafted in 8 years. It could always be them next year or the year after.

The problem is the older guys are the stars. London could have 4 guys on their team this year that are way too good for the CHL. Tkachuk, Juolevi, Dvorak, Max Jones. And given Uncle Lou's propensity of letting youth marinate, Mitch Marner makes 5. I think probably only Jones and Juolevi stay, but that's 2 guys, their main attractions that would be gone. London would fight tooth and nail to keep them and not let them go to the AHL. I realize this is an extreme example, but year after year there are teams that have 2 or 3 guys that are too good and they "put the asses in the seats" as they say.

Maybe there could be some financial considerations to the CHL from the NHL team for keeping a guy in the A instead of junior? Have a set amount so there're no shenanigans.

It's tough. I understand where you're coming from. I've thought about it a lot, and there's no where to draw the line that doesn't leave someone behind that has enough power to put the kibosh on the whole thing.

Did anyone already post this?

https://www.nhl.com/news/...c-281307146?tid=277729162
- Cup Crazy '07

Nice find - sound reasoning

Every year there's a team that has 4 NHL tweeners on their roster. And there's no way teams give up on that. Even if it's some team that hasn't had a kid drafted in 8 years. It could always be them next year or the year after.

The problem is the older guys are the stars. London could have 4 guys on their team this year that are way too good for the CHL. Tkachuk, Juolevi, Dvorak, Max Jones. And given Uncle Lou's propensity of letting youth marinate, Mitch Marner makes 5. I think probably only Jones and Juolevi stay, but that's 2 guys, their main attractions that would be gone. London would fight tooth and nail to keep them and not let them go to the AHL. I realize this is an extreme example, but year after year there are teams that have 2 or 3 guys that are too good and they "put the asses in the seats" as they say.

Maybe there could be some financial considerations to the CHL from the NHL team for keeping a guy in the A instead of junior? Have a set amount so there're no shenanigans.

It's tough. I understand where you're coming from. I've thought about it a lot, and there's no where to draw the line that doesn't leave someone behind that has enough power to put the kibosh on the whole thing.
- Wetbandit1

I guess I'm just less worried about "hurting" the CHL. They're the little guys.

Also - I'm not trying to be a Richard here - your argument doesn't really hold water because the NHL could ALREADY take all 5 of the guys you mentioned, put them on the roster, and never give them back to the CHL. They won't do that because it eats up a year of each player's ELC but the exception rule would still have this hitch.

Lastly the reality is my rule actually favors the CHL for 3 of the 5 guys you mention:

Marner - should be playing NHL this year whether its via my exception rule or under the current rules where the NHL team and just pull him up, starting his ELC. So this player isn't really relevant in the sense of hurting London.

Tkachuk - could probably play in the AHL right now with his talent but he's only played one year in the CHL. Under my proposal (must play CHL for 2 years before exceptions) he's playing in the CHL through this season anyway so CHL has nothing to complain about and the NHL GMs get another year of seasoning.

Juolevi - imo is a CHL player for 1 more year in pretty much any scenario but he's also only served 1 year in the CHL, thus not eligible for exceptions.

Dvorak - has already played 3 seasons for OHL teams, is 20 years old and would be eligible for an exception. This is a player I could see using the exception on and it makes sense that this guy shouldn't have to go through a 4th season of CHL.

Max Jones - also only 1 year served in CHL, thus not eligible for the exception.

So who does this REALLY hurt? Connor McDavids, who come along once every 15 years, and don't have 2 CHL seasons played. McDavid was SO good, he already had 3 years of playing for the Erie Otters when he was NHL draft eligible so by my rules he was already eligible for the CHL Exception.

........

I guess I'm just less worried about "hurting" the CHL. They're the little guys.

Also - I'm not trying to be a Richard here - your argument doesn't really hold water because the NHL could ALREADY take all 5 of the guys you mentioned, put them on the roster, and never give them back to the CHL. They won't do that because it eats up a year of each player's ELC but the exception rule would still have this hitch.

Lastly the reality is my rule actually favors the CHL for 3 of the 5 guys you mention:

Marner - should be playing NHL this year whether its via my exception rule or under the current rules where the NHL team and just pull him up, starting his ELC. So this player isn't really relevant in the sense of hurting London.

Tkachuk - could probably play in the AHL right now with his talent but he's only played one year in the CHL. Under my proposal (must play CHL for 2 years before exceptions) he's playing in the CHL through this season anyway so CHL has nothing to complain about and the NHL GMs get another year of seasoning.

Juolevi - imo is a CHL player for 1 more year in pretty much any scenario but he's also only served 1 year in the CHL, thus not eligible for exceptions.

Dvorak - has already played 3 seasons for OHL teams, is 20 years old and would be eligible for an exception. This is a player I could see using the exception on and it makes sense that this guy shouldn't have to go through a 4th season of CHL.

Max Jones - also only 1 year served in CHL, thus not eligible for the exception.

So who does this REALLY hurt? Connor McDavids, who come along once every 15 years, and don't have 2 CHL seasons played. McDavid was SO good, he already had 3 years of playing for the Erie Otters when he was NHL draft eligible so by my rules he was already eligible for the CHL Exception.
- Phatjohnsn

I get that but what leverage could the NHL possibly exert over them? They're the little guys, but they hold all the cards, in this case, the players. The NHL can't hurt them financially. They're not really competitors in the true sense of the word. That's why the agreement is the way it is already.

Yeah, I meant those guys are too good for the CHL, but not necessarily good enough for the NHL. It was more of a theoretical. Trust me, they will not willingly part with even one player in all the leagues if they don't have to, and the NHL holds no real leverage over them. Not like they do over the AHL and ECHL. When it comes to money(lost players) rationality goes straight out the window, and the CHL has absolutely nothing to gain by losing it's star players. Unless that something is money.

Michael Phelps! Aikman, touchdown, Unbelievable!