Couple WHL notes today.....first, the Giants finally suffered a regulation loss yesterday afternoon when they were beaten 3-2 in Chilliwack by the Bruins. The Giants' record now falls to a dismal 14-1-0-3 and a mere .861 winning percentage.
The other note, from Jon Keen's blog, is that Broncos overage defenceman Jesse Dudas is apparently set to make his return from his knee injury next Friday, the 21st. That will give the Broncos four overagers on their roster and they'll then have two weeks to make a move to get back down to three. The other overagers on the team are forward Keegan Dansereau, defenceman Spencer McAvoy, and goaltender Travis Yonkman. There won't be any difficulties finding a team in the league that wants one of those four. Yonkman might be hardest to trade given the league's glut of goalies so it'll probably be one of the other three who goes.
To the NHL now, I heard about this last week but didn't get around to commenting until today. Apparently the New York Rangers have asked the NHL to give them a compensatory draft pick for losing prospect Alexei Cherepanov. Cherepanov, as we all know, died last month during a game in Russia.
This is the most classless and insulting thing the Rangers have done in a long time, maybe ever. Basically the Rangers are saying that because they're not going to sign Cherepanov before next year's draft (I wonder why?), that they should get the compensatory 2nd round pick that teams get when they let first round picks re-enter the draft instead of signing them. Gee, they're "letting" a dead guy re-enter the draft. How generous of them!
It sucks losing a top prospect like this but them's the breaks. It could have happened to any team in the league.
If the Rangers actually get away with this then the Flames should ask for compensation for the fact that their 1986 first round pick, George Pelawa, died in a car accident two months after being drafted. The league didn't give them anything then.
UPDATE: A reader pointed me to this article on the Cherepanov situation, which I think is dead on the mark.
9 comments:
Yes once again let us trash the Rangers without asking for the full story behind their motives.
The all too typical classless of the Canadian media who trash the Rangers while pretending to the high and mighty.
The Rangers made a request not a demand, had it been Bob Gainey, the Canucks or the Leafs making the request, the odds are that it would have been applauded for being forward thinking.
They would have been saluted for trying to fill a hole in their system.
Could the Rangers worded their request better? Yes
By making this request the Rangers are asking for the rest of the NHL to sit down and discuss this matter with each other as well as the NHLPA.
Put the emotion aside and realize that the NHL is a business first and foremost so get off your high holy soapbox and be a real journalist.
Oh and if you want to use the 1986 example then also use the current CBA with all the salary restrictions as well as the tiny fact that the 1986 draft was a 12 round affair not the current 7 round.
If the Canucks made this re
(A) Classless is classless whether it comes from the Rangers, the Leafs, or anyone else.
(B) I'm not a journalist.
Eh, the Rangers are completely within their rights to ask for a compensation pick. There is a clause within the CBA that a team who does not sign their first-round pick is entitled to a second round pick. Phoenix exercised this clause last year when Blake Wheeler bolted to play with Boston instead. Minnesota used it two years back to make up for the selection of A.J. Thelen in the first round. Technically, the Rangers will not sign Alexei Cherepanov before next year's draft and, thus, are owed a pick.
Now, the interesting thing is a lot of people are upset about the idea of the Rangers allowing Cherepanov to re-enter the draft because he is deceased, he should be unable to be drafted. However, in 1988, the Calgary Flames selected forward Stefan Nilsson in the draft. Several rounds later, the Vancouver Canucks selected Stefan Nilsson. It turns out, there were two Stefan Nilssons and the one Calgary selected had passed away two months prior to the draft. The Flames protested the Canucks' pick, as that was the player Calgary wanted, but the league ruled that Calgary had filed the paperwork on the other Nilsson, not the living one. With that decision, the NHL ruled that, in effect, teams could indeed draft deceased players. So, realistically, Alexei Cherepanov is eligible to be drafted next season.
The real issue, though, is the transfer agreement because at the moment, there is no agreements between the NHL and Russia, which means a Russian prospect does not re-enter the draft in two years, he is that team's prospect indefinitely. So, it looks like the Rangers won't be compensated, after all.
I know this is a contentious issue, because it involves the death of a 19-year-old, and because the Rangers inquired about this only 10 days after Cherepanov's passing. But, business-wise, the Rangers did nothing wrong, they inquired at a GM Meeting, behind closed doors. It's unfortunate that it's been picked up by the media and reported in such great detail without acknowledging that, yes, by the letter of the law, the Rangers didn't do anything wrong.
It's sad that Cherepanov passed away at such a young age, very sad, but the NHL is a business, and business goes on.
Yes, hockey is a business...however, the most successful business men I know have class, morals and conduct themselves with ethics and dignity, and also manage to make some money along the way. There lies the difference between being a business man or a used car salesman. Hiding behind the veil of being our nation's favorite past-time doesn't make the Ranger's suggestion anymore tasteful than it actually is.
The fact that what the Rangers did is not against the rules in no way makes it a tasteful, classy way to run your business.
Perhaps they could offer a Cherepanov bobblehead - instead of bobbing, the head slumps over and the eyes roll back in the head. That's completely within the rules too and not only that, it's good business since it'll earn them money. After all, the fact that it's really bad taste and very offensive to the dead player and his family is irrelevant when you consider "it's just business", right?
Just wondering exactly how much time you took to look at the issue before making your moral judgment?
Which person is showing their poor taste by the use of a Cherepanov bobblehead?
How do you know what is or is not offensive to Cherepanov's family? When did you talk to them or anyone connected to them?
Ah that is right you are not a journalist so you can make moral judgments about a subject you really do not know anything on a firsthand basis.
Even worse is that which person actually came up with the Cherepanov Bobblehead doll "joke"
which one would like to ask the parents of Cherepanov if they find those remarks to be offensive.
You call what the Rangers did wrong but have no problem with a crude and disgusting remark.
I suppose your post here was in good taste eh?
I said right in the comment that it was in bad taste. But your argument is that taste and class are secondary to business, right? You're excusing the Rangers' actions because it's "a business first and foremost", and thus we should "put the emotion aside". Those are direct quotes from you. (At least I assume you're the same person who posted the first comment)
Apparently you're not able to "put the emotion aside" over my (ludicrous) "just business" idea but you can put it aside over the Rangers' VERY REAL "just business" move.
Lastly, in the future please have the courage to put your name to your comments. My real name is right there on everything I say but you're taking shots at my remarks while hiding in anonymity.
First off I do have the choice as to whether or not to remain in anonymity since it is an option offered here.
Questioning courage has nothing to do with this discussion and even a very lame thing to say since this is your blog so big deal you use your name.
That you picked that area to complain about is sad.
It does not matter whether you said it was in bad taste you still said it and you did not care whether or not your remarks would have been offensive towards the Cherepanovs or anyone else.
If you actually cared if you offended anyone you would have offered an apology in advance for what you wrote.
You talk about the emotional nonsense but yet it was YOUR own words which were the starting point for this exchange.
You choose words that had more emotion by using classless, insulting or the sarcastic "gee they are letting a dead guy" remark.
Yet you accuse me of being emotional because I questioned you.
Thanks Dude for the chuckle.
The question is not whether you may remain anonymous, but why you choose to remain anonymous?
The bobble head analogy, pretty poor taste, but I think the regular readers of this blog know who you are and where you come from.
As for the Rangers, I would put this in the same class as attorneys chasing ambulances and real estate agents generating client lists from the obituaries.
Thanks for having a forum where these things can be discussed.
Post a Comment