Compensatory Draft Selection for Cherepanov?

[Jumptheshark]

Then the nucks should get one for Luc, the flames lost a pick last season and the list goes on

 

[azrok22]

Then the nucks should get one for Luc, the flames lost a pick last season and the list goes on

/sigh

Please read before commenting. The Nucks should NOT get one Bourdon because he was SIGNED. Complete negates the second element.

As far as the flame losing someone, I'm not familiar with the situation... but if he was an UNSIGNED, 1st ROUND PICK, then yes, they should have gotten compensation. My belief is he probably wasn't.

 

[Jumptheshark]

/sigh

Please read before commenting. The Nucks should NOT get one Bourdon because he was SIGNED. Complete negates the second element.

As far as the flame losing someone, I'm not familiar with the situation... but if he was an UNSIGNED, 1st ROUND PICK, then yes, they should have gotten compensation. My belief is he probably wasn't.

and you are missing my point----

we are talking about death here and teams lose players sometimes. How could the nhl, on one hand player X dies so team A gets a pick--but player Y dies and team B gets nothing,

Seems to me the crux of the arguement is the fact he is unsigned and there for he falls into a different catagory.

Sigh---some people do not think about the BIGGER ramification of some decisions.

BTW

The NYR still owe his rights---they did not lose them, Every obit named him as the top ranger prospect and not former. People are looking at the NHL bi-laws an splitting hairs.

The fact he was unsigned at the time is moot from my perspective. So, nucks lose their top young guy and more or less the response is too bad--he was signed. NYR lose their top guy and they should get something cause he was not signed.

I think people are looking at it from a grief point of view and not a logical point of view.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

and you are missing my point----

we are talking about death here and teams lose players sometimes. How could the nhl, on one hand player X dies so team A gets a pick--but player Y dies and team B gets nothing,

Seems to me the crux of the arguement is the fact he is unsigned and there for he falls into a different catagory.

Sigh---some people do not think about the BIGGER ramification of some decisions.

BTW

The NYR still owe his rights---they did not lose them, Every obit named him as the top ranger prospect and not former. People are looking at the NHL bi-laws an splitting hairs.

The fact he was unsigned at the time is moot from my perspective. So, nucks lose their top young guy and more or less the response is too bad--he was signed. NYR lose their top guy and they should get something cause he was not signed.

I think people are looking at it from a grief point of view and not a logical point of view.

whether or not Cherepanov was signed isn't the point, this isn't like the player never reported or was going to report, technically the contract went into effect the minute Cherepanov went to Rangers training camp and it was understood that once the Omsk obligation was done, Alexei would've begun his career in NA.

 

[MortUWary]

and you are missing my point----

we are talking about death here and teams lose players sometimes. How could the nhl, on one hand player X dies so team A gets a pick--but player Y dies and team B gets nothing,

Seems to me the crux of the arguement is the fact he is unsigned and there for he falls into a different catagory.

According to the CBA, which is previously cited in the first post, being unsigned "draft property" IS recognized by the NHL a different category.

whether or not Cherepanov was signed isn't the point...

Actually, it is the point. Please refer to the original post where the section of the CBA that refers to draft pick compensation for unsigned players.

...this isn't like the player never reported or was going to report, technically the contract went into effect the minute Cherepanov went to Rangers training camp and it was understood that once the Omsk obligation was done, Alexei would've begun his career in NA.

So, it is legal to have two concurrent playing contracts? I'm pretty sure that Cherepanov would have to wait until his contract with Omsk expired before any legal system would "technically" recognize another agreement.

 

[azrok22]

Thankfully, rules are based on what is written.

Seems to me the crux of the arguement is the fact he is unsigned and there for he falls into a different catagory.

There is no rule at all for players who pass away. There IS a rule for players who go unsigned.

Sigh---some people do not think about the BIGGER ramification of some decisions.

The ramifications of ignoring the explicit clause relating to players who are unsigned, whether or not they can ever be signed, are pretty BIG too. Essentially, you're suggesting we ignore the CBA and resolve all NHL issues based on fairness.

The NYR still owe his rights---they did not lose them

Maybe this is where the issue is you're not understanding. The Rangers do not get the draft pick right now today because he is dead. The Rangers get the draft pick on June 1st (or whatever the deadline is) when Cherepanov's rights are LOST because he is unsigned. [NOTE: this is where the transfer agreement issue comes in, his rights may be retained or lost, ALL OF THIS IS CONTINGENT ON THEM RULING THAT EUROPEAN RIGHTS ARE LOST AFTER THE TIME PERIOD EXPIRES, as noted in my above posts.

The fact he was unsigned at the time is moot from my perspective.

I guess you're correct in the sense that he is unsigned right now. It becomes and issue when he's unsigned on June 1st (or whatever the deadline is), as that is when the compensation is awarded, not today.

So, nucks lose their top young guy and more or less the response is too bad--he was signed. NYR lose their top guy and they should get something cause he was not signed.

Exactly. Because that is how the CBA is written. Policy doesn't matter. Fairness doesn't matter. Justice doesn't matter. All that matters is the Black Letter Law. Policy, fairness, and justice may force the black letter law to be changed... but as the black letter law stands right now, assuming the transfer agreement issue is resolved, the Rangers get the compensation.

I think people are looking at it from a grief point of view and not a logical point of view.

How is interpreting the rules exactly as they are written not logical?

whether or not Cherepanov was signed isn't the point, this isn't like the player never reported or was going to report, technically the contract went into effect the minute Cherepanov went to Rangers training camp and it was understood that once the Omsk obligation was done, Alexei would've begun his career in NA.

Not even sure where to begin... Cherepanov was not signed by the Rangers. He was in no way obligated to come over once his Omsk obligation was done. The only thing the Rangers had was his NHL-rights. Until he signed a contract to play for the Rangers, all the Rangers had was his draft rights. His draft rights may expire this summer. If his draft rights expire and he still hasn't signed a contract (which is going to be damn hard for him to do now), then the Rangers get compensation.

 

[azrok22]

So, it is legal to have two concurrent playing contracts?

Actually, it would've been legal to have two playing contracts, they just would have had to have been written where the second contract does not go into effect until the first one ends. For example: Omsk Contract for 2008- August 2009, New York Rangers Contract for September 2009-2010 would be ok.

But this doesn't really matter, because Cherepanov did not sign any contract with the Rangers.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

NYR lose their top guy and they should get something cause he was not signed.

I think people are looking at it from a grief point of view and not a logical point of view.

Based on these two sentences, it would seem that you're the one looking at it from a grief point of view, and not a logical point of view.

 

[Ola]

Maybe this is where the issue is you're not understanding. The Rangers do not get the draft pick right now today because he is dead. The Rangers get the draft pick on June 1st (or whatever the deadline is) when Cherepanov's rights are LOST because he is unsigned. [NOTE: this is where the transfer agreement issue comes in, his rights may be retained or lost, ALL OF THIS IS CONTINGENT ON THEM RULING THAT EUROPEAN RIGHTS ARE LOST AFTER THE TIME PERIOD EXPIRES, as noted in my above posts.

Depending a bit on the wording of the CBA -- I do not think NYR will get a pick either.

Cherry will have to become eligble for UFA or the draft. Cherry don't exist anymore -- so he can't become eligble for anything. Therefor the criterias of the CBA are not met -- and NYR probably won't get a pick.

But if the BOG goes out and makes a analogy and gives NYR a pick -- why not give one to Vancouver too?

 

[Wetcoaster]

It seems the case for a compensatory pick for Cherepanov would be based upon his status as an unsigned draft pick.

However the NHL has previously said it would consider Cherepanov under "defected status" and the Rangers also supported this interpretation.

The issue at hand concerns the status of drafted European players who do not sign before June 2 of the second calendar year following their selections. Article 8.6 of the CBA states that clubs lose their rights to such players if they are not signed on or by that date.

The Rangers, therefore, would lose their rights to Alexei Cherepanov, whom they selected 17th overall in 2007, if the Russian does not sign by June 1, 2009. Under terms of the CBA, Cherepanov, currently under contract to KHL Omsk, would be available for claim in the 2009 Entry Draft. The Rangers would receive the 17th pick of the second round as compensation.

The NHL, however, is claiming that the absence of transfer agreements with European hockey federations renders that portion of the CBA obsolete. It is the league's position that those unsigned players revert to what was known as "defected status" under the CBA that expired on Sept. 15, 2004, and thus remain the property of their drafting clubs forever.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0827200..._union_chief_to_testify_for_league_126258.htm

 

[Fish on The Sand]

But if the BOG goes out and makes a analogy and gives NYR a pick -- why not give one to Vancouver too?

becaus eif the Rangers get a pick it will be based on interpretation of the cba. Under no circumstance would Bourdon fit those requirements.

 

[Ola]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11062008/sports/rangers/rangers_seek_pick_for_late_prospect_137397.htm

"It's possible that the language of the CBA would need to be amended to address situations such as this one. If that's the case, then we would need to negotiate that with the Players' Association."

The Rangers, however, are arguing that the current language applies to this case and that amending the CBA is not necessary.

"The question is with the one parenthetical phrase in Article 8.3 (b) that refers compensation for an unsigned first-round draft pick who is '… again eligible for the Entry Draft or becomes an Unrestricted Free Agent …'," Rangers assistant GM Cam Hope told The Post. "That language was inserted to clarify that a team would be owed a compensatory pick even if they were to re-draft that player or sign him as a free agent.

"It seems now as if that phrase is unintentionally precluding the deceased from being included as eligible for compensation. We understand that this is a sensitive issue, but with all due respect to Alexei's family and his memory, he is technically eligible to be drafted again next year.

"We are not attempting to capitalize on a tragedy, but there would be no question regarding the Rangers' right to a compensatory pick if Cherepanov had been revived and survived the incident and were on life support.

"If an unsigned player sustained a massive injury on or off the ice, the drafting team would get a compensatory pick," Hope said. "We believe that the letter of the law applies in this case, but even if there is a disagreement on that, it's clear that the spirit of the law applies."

Hope would not speculate how the Rangers would react if the league ultimately denies their claim, but it is likely the team would file an expedited grievance to be heard and adjudicated prior to the draft that will be conducted in Montreal on June 26-27, 2009

From Brooks.

Pretty much like we all "speculated" on. The wording doesn't fit 100%.

But it could either be interpreted to fit, or a exception could be made.

 

[Titan124]

If Okposo passed away (god forbid) before he was signed, I doubt a compensatory selection would be discussed. Every drafted player is a risk, and sadly this one ended tragically.

 

[azrok22]

If Okposo passed away (god forbid) before he was signed, I doubt a compensatory selection would be discussed. Every drafted player is a risk, and sadly this one ended tragically.

You're probably right... it wouldn't be discussed because in such a scenario there would be no question the Islanders would get the compensatory draft pick.

The only question with Cherepanov is the transfer agreement issue.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

If the Calgary Flames didn't receive a compensatory pick after George Pelawa passed away, then this should be a non-issue.

 

[Ola]

azrok- Nah, it got nothing to do with a transferagreement, right?

The thing is;

1) a Club loses its draft rights to an Unsigned Draft Choice - The Rangers did loose there rights. Cherry is no more, therefor they have no "rights" to him.
2) drafted in the first Round - Chere was a first round pick
3) except as a result of failing to tender a required Bona Fide Offer - Rangers did tender a Bona Fide Offer
4) who is again eligible for the Entry Draft or becomes an Unrestricted Free Agent - Cherry does not meet the criteria to be eligble for the draft nor to become a UFA; he doesn't excist legally.

So the 4th rekvesit (sp?) isn't met.

Though, had Cherry survived but been forced to quite playing hockey -- the rangers would have recived a compensatory draft pick, because they would of course not have signed him and he would have been eligble for the draft or UFA...

The Rangers are arguing that that clasule was never ment to result in that teams with a player who becomes a vegeteble recives a draftpick, but whereas a team where one of its draftpicks dies recives nothing.

My standpoint is that the clasule isn't intended to give a compensation draft pick in any of the situations. But one fit the wording, another don't... But the intention with the clasule is atleast first and foremost to compensate teams that looses players because of the lack of transferagreement.

 

[Ola]

If the Calgary Flames didn't receive a compensatory pick after George Pelawa passed away, then this should be a non-issue.

Guys atleast read through the thread.

There is a clasule in the CBA of (what?) 2005 that says:

"In the event a Club loses its draft rights to an Unsigned Draft Choice drafted in the first round of the Entry Draft (except as a result of failing to tender a required Bona Fide Offer (as defined below)), who is again eligible for the Entry Draft or becomes an Unrestricted Free Agent, a Compensatory Draft Selection shall automatically be granted to that Club, which Compensatory Draft Selection shall be the same numerical choice in the second round in the Entry Draft immediately following the date the Club loses such rights."

NOBODY is arguing that anyone should be "nice" and fair towards the NYR and give them a draft pick. There is very much a legal issue if they de facto got a right to recive a 2nd round draft pick because they lost Cherry -- according to the CBA.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

If the Calgary Flames didn't receive a compensatory pick after George Pelawa passed away, then this should be a non-issue.

Calgary didn't get a compensatory pick for Pelawa because in 1986 there was no provision for compensatory picks of any kind at that time.

The real question here is whether Cherepanov is truly eligible to be drafted again. That's the only requirement he appears to currently not fill; while it's technically possible he could be drafted, no one is going to spend a draft pick of any kind on a deceased player - nor would they have done so pre-2005. One could argue whether the Rangers really lost their rights to Cherepanov simply because he died, but again ... that's a really murky area and there's good arguments on both sides.

I haven't passed judgment one way or the other on this, and likely won't until I hear more information. I'm not overly opposed to the idea of the Rangers getting a compensatory pick here, but ultimately I'd like to see the method for handling situations like this spelled out in black and white going forward.

 

[azrok22]

On your point I'll just quote assistant Rangers-GM Hope:

We understand that this is a sensitive issue, but with all due respect to Alexei's family and his memory, he is technically eligible to be drafted again next year.

Nashville (or was it Florida, regardless, some team) drafted Ovechkin before he was eligible to be drafted. The pick was simply invalidated.

Nothing I see in the CBA precludes the Rangers, or any other team, from drafting Cherepanov again even though he's deceased. Similarly, the Rangers could draft Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck... waste of a draft pick, but legal.

 

[Jaysfanatic*]

When I heard last week on the Leafs-Rangers broadcast that Glen Sather was trying to get a compensatory pick I laughed, because then everyone who has lost a player comes out of the woodworks asking for a pick. How bout Columbus for Stefan Legein? Or any player that didn't sign with the team that drafted them. Give me a break.

PS: This has nothing to do with the fact that it's the Rangers, I'd have said it about anyone and it definitely sucks that the poor kid passed away.

 

[azrok22]

no one is going to spend a draft pick of any kind on a deceased player

Not necessarily entirely true. Tampa Bay drafted David Carle this summer in the 6th (or was it 7th?) round knowing he would never be able to play hockey again. They did it to honor his hard work.

While certainly very unlikely, I could see it within the realm of possibility that a team draft a deceased player to similarly honor him.

 

[azrok22]

When I heard last week on the Leafs-Rangers broadcast that Glen Sather was trying to get a compensatory pick I laughed, because then everyone who has lost a player comes out of the woodworks asking for a pick. How bout Columbus for Stefan Legein? Or any player that didn't sign with the team that drafted them. Give me a break.

Not to attack you specifically, but too many people are simply not reading the thread and CBA provisions.

Legein was NOT a first round pick, therefore the provision does not apply to him.

To humor you... if he was a first round pick who was unsigned and decided to retire, then yes, CLB would get a compensatory pick.

 

[FutureConsiderations]

If he can technically be drafted again, can't his rights technically still be signed over to the Rangers? For the same reason nobody's going to sign him, nobody's going to draft him.

 

[azrok22]

can't his rights technically still be signed over to the Rangers?

Not sure what this refers to. Are you asking if it can be deemed he signed his bona-fide offer from the past summer? Can you elaborate?

 

[Jaysfanatic*]

Not to attack you specifically, but too many people are simply not reading the thread and CBA provisions.

Legein was NOT a first round pick, therefore the provision does not apply to him.

To humor you... if he was a first round pick who was unsigned and decided to retire, then yes, CLB would get a compensatory pick.

Fair enough, I just went to the last page and posted, didn't read the CBA. Either way, no. They shouldn't get a pick for this.