Compensatory Draft Selection for Cherepanov?

[FissionFire]

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.

I'm not familiar with the entire drafting process, but doesn't a player need to file some paperwork or declare something to be eligible to be drafted? That's the case with the NFL and NBA I know but I'm not sure with the NHL and MLB. IF this is true, Cherepanov obviously is incapable of filing that paperwork so would not be eligible to reenter the draft. Sort of like a player can't become a free agent unless they file the paperwork. The expiration of the contract or passing of a signing deadline in my understanding doesn't automatically put a player back into the draft or free agency.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

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.

Uh, why the **** not?

Every time a 1st round pick is not signed, the team that failed to sign them gets a compensatory pick.

Cherepanov was not signed. Why should we NOT get a compensatory pick?

There are a lot of reasons a player isn't signed. Maybe the guy ****ing sucked like AJ Thelen. Maybe a player DIED like Cherepanov. Both of those reasons caused the player not to be signed.

For you to say we shouldn't get the compensatory pick that we are entitled to is just... absurd.

 

[Captain Ron]

I understand this is a very sensitive issue......but you have to look at it from a logical standpoint as well. Let us suppose for a moment that a player was drafted in the 1st round, but then before he signs with his team he goes missing (as in absolutely nobody knows where this guy is) and is never heard from again. In this scenario the team would definitely receive a compensation pick because it would meet all of the criteria. But, in the scenario I proposed it is also possible that the player is no longer living (perhaps they just could not find the body). So if a missing player would equal a compensation pick why would a deceased one not?

 

[Captain Ron]

I'm not familiar with the entire drafting process, but doesn't a player need to file some paperwork or declare something to be eligible to be drafted? That's the case with the NFL and NBA I know but I'm not sure with the NHL and MLB. IF this is true, Cherepanov obviously is incapable of filing that paperwork so would not be eligible to reenter the draft. Sort of like a player can't become a free agent unless they file the paperwork. The expiration of the contract or passing of a signing deadline in my understanding doesn't automatically put a player back into the draft or free agency.

No, before the new CBA a player had to "opt in" to be drafted. Now any player who is of draft eligible age can be drafted. A team could draft any random 18 year old kid (without the person's knowledge), and it would be a valid selection.

 

[FissionFire]

No, before the new CBA a player had to "opt in" to be drafted. Now any player who is of draft eligible age can be drafted. A team could draft any random 18 year old kid (without the person's knowledge), and it would be a valid selection.

But is that true for a player who wants to reenter the draft as well?

 

[Hunter Gathers]

But is that true for a player who wants to reenter the draft as well?

I don't see why it wouldn't be. If you don't have to opt in the 1st time, I don't see why you'd have to opt in the 2nd time.

 

[Captain Ron]

But is that true for a player who wants to reenter the draft as well?

It is not a question of wanting to re-enter the draft. If the player was previously selected and did not sign before their rights expired then they are eligible to be drafted again.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Every time a 1st round pick is not signed, the team that failed to sign them gets a compensatory pick.

Cherepanov was not signed. Why should we NOT get a compensatory pick?

There are a lot of reasons a player isn't signed. Maybe the guy ****ing sucked like AJ Thelen. Maybe a player DIED like Cherepanov. Both of those reasons caused the player not to be signed.

For you to say we shouldn't get the compensatory pick that we are entitled to is just... absurd.

Just for my own clarification, are you saying that if a team drafts a player in the first round and then does not sign them because they suck (or "****ing suck"), you believe that the team deserves a compensatory pick?

 

[Yelnats Puc]

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

Not to mention he was signed as well.

So, that's two parts he doesn't meet.

 

[azrok22]

Just for my own clarification, are you saying that if a team drafts a player in the first round and then does not sign them because they suck (or "****ing suck"), you believe that the team deserves a compensatory pick?

Not a matter of deserving a compensatory pick, but yes they are entitled to the pick (assuming they tendered a bona-fide offer to the player and he didn't sign)... still pretty unlikely you're going to tender a bona-fide offer to a player you think sucks (and the sucky player would decline the offer), so a pretty out there example.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Not a matter of deserving a compensatory pick, but yes they are entitled to the pick (assuming they tendered a bona-fide offer to the player and he didn't sign)... still pretty unlikely you're going to tender a bona-fide offer to a player you think sucks (and the sucky player would decline the offer), so a pretty out there example.

Understood. Regardless of whether or not it's the case, should it be?

Having said that, I don't want to derail the thread.

 

[0123456789*]

They shouldent get a pick.

Obviously this scenario doesnt meet the criteria like several people mentioned. A dead man cant be drafted or become a UFA.

But more importantly compensation was never meant to compensate for dead, OR seriously injured players, it was never meant to compensate for so called acts of god. It was meant to compensate for players who refuse to sign, in essence being a wasted draft pick because THEY by their own choice refused to sign. How ever in Cherapanovs case he didnt choose to not sign, he simply died and the fact that he didnt happen to be singed at the point of death is a mute point because all the criteria for compensation arent met AND thats the way its meant to be, otherwise the wording would be very different.

Also I would like to get back to a point someone brought up where they said that if he survived but was unable to continue his career then the Rangers would get a compensation pick. That most definitely is not the case and that is not why this rule is in place, again to get a compensation pick the player must refuse to sign, the team would first need to give a offer and im sure a player who cant play anymore will gladly sign on the dotted line, im sure I wouldent think twice about signing a NHL contract if I was a paraplegic or what ever.

 

[Captain Ron]

They shouldent get a pick.

Obviously this scenario doesnt meet the criteria like several people mentioned. A dead man cant be drafted or become a UFA.

Can you refer to a clause in the CBA where it states a dead man cannot be drafted?

 

[ej_pens]

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.

Actually, with the union losing the "defected status" grievance, then there is no question on whether he would be eligible to be drafted again or not. As a "defected status" player, the Rangers would have held his right forever and he wouldn't have been eligible to re-enter the 2009 Draft, correct?

 

[mouser]

Also I would like to get back to a point someone brought up where they said that if he survived but was unable to continue his career then the Rangers would get a compensation pick. That most definitely is not the case and that is not why this rule is in place, again to get a compensation pick the player must refuse to sign, the team would first need to give a offer and im sure a player who cant play anymore will gladly sign on the dotted line, im sure I wouldent think twice about signing a NHL contract if I was a paraplegic or what ever.

On a side note, if a disabled player with no NHL experience were to sign a contract, the only compensation that player would be likely to collect is the signing bonus (if any). The Pension injury provisions wouldn't apply as the player has no NHL experience. The standard player contract also includes clauses that the player can be suspended without pay if they are unfit to play due to injuries sustained outside of their employment with the hockey club.

 

[mouser]

Can you refer to a clause in the CBA where it states a dead man cannot be drafted?

There is a partial precedence when the league listed Punch Imlach's 1974 selection of Taro Tsujimoto of the Tokyo Katanas as an "invalid claim". Reasonable to expect the league would do the same for drafting a deceased person.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

They shouldent get a pick.

Obviously this scenario doesnt meet the criteria like several people mentioned. A dead man cant be drafted or become a UFA.

But more importantly compensation was never meant to compensate for dead, OR seriously injured players, it was never meant to compensate for so called acts of god. It was meant to compensate for players who refuse to sign, in essence being a wasted draft pick because THEY by their own choice refused to sign. How ever in Cherapanovs case he didnt choose to not sign, he simply died and the fact that he didnt happen to be singed at the point of death is a mute point because all the criteria for compensation arent met AND thats the way its meant to be, otherwise the wording would be very different.

Also I would like to get back to a point someone brought up where they said that if he survived but was unable to continue his career then the Rangers would get a compensation pick. That most definitely is not the case and that is not why this rule is in place, again to get a compensation pick the player must refuse to sign, the team would first need to give a offer and im sure a player who cant play anymore will gladly sign on the dotted line, im sure I wouldent think twice about signing a NHL contract if I was a paraplegic or what ever.

That is simply not true. It was also meant for teams who chose not to sign a player for any reason.

The Rangers chose not to sign Cherepanov because he is dead. As bad as that sounds, it's true.

 

[0123456789*]

Can you refer to a clause in the CBA where it states a dead man cannot be drafted?

a dead man is not a player, a dead man is not person, a dead man doesnt exist and a dead man is not 18, a dead man is not eligible to be drafted just like a 10 year old kid or Jagrs future yet to be kid.

player
Noun
1. a person who takes part in a game or sport
2. a person who plays a musical instrument
3. Informal a leading participant in a particular field or activity: one of the key players in Chinese politics
4. an actor


per·son (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar
a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" Shakespeare.
Idiom:

You can according to the CBA only draft a player, makes sense, and a player is a person and a person is alive, therefore a dead person is no longer a person which means he cant be a player and since he cant be a player than he cant be drafted.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Just for my own clarification, are you saying that if a team drafts a player in the first round and then does not sign them because they suck (or "****ing suck"), you believe that the team deserves a compensatory pick?

That's what the rule states, so yes. They do.

Minnesota got a pick because of AJ Thelen. And we all know how God-awful he turned out to be.

 

[Captain Ron]

a dead man is not a player, a dead man is not person, a dead man doesnt exist and a dead man is not 18, a dead man is not eligible to be drafted just like a 10 year old kid or Jagrs future yet to be kid.

A dead man is not a player? You could argue that....but you could also argue that a paralyzed person is not a player and I am 100% sure that a team could draft a paralyzed person.

A dead man is not a person? Well the law would disagree with you. There are laws against robbing or violating dead persons so they are still people.

He is not 18? You are right...he was 19 when he passed on so he would meet the age requirement (at least 18).

 

[Vagrant]

I can't believe this is even being discussed.

How unfair would it be for the kid who had to "replace" Cherepanov? Why would the Rangers even want that?

Honor his memory by allowing his legacy to be his legacy and not trying to hawk his memories off for a draft pick.

As an aside, I have to wonder if Cherepanov's slide in the draft had anything to do with this condition. I find it really odd that nobody found it during the extensive testing that these players go through in the combine. It would make it a little more understandable than this bogus transfer agreement thing that people had discussed.

 

[0123456789*]

A dead man is not a player? You could argue that....but you could also argue that a paralyzed person is not a player and I am 100% sure that a team could draft a paralyzed person.

A dead man is not a person? Well the law would disagree with you. There are laws against robbing or violating dead persons so they are still people.

He is not 18? You are right...he was 19 when he passed on so he would meet the age requirement (at least 18).

sorry but i edited my post and after you quoted it, i figured i needed to add the definition of a player/person.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I can't believe this is even being discussed.

How unfair would it be for the kid who had to "replace" Cherepanov? Why would the Rangers even want that?

Honor his memory by allowing his legacy to be his legacy and not trying to hawk his memories off for a draft pick.

As an aside, I have to wonder if Cherepanov's slide in the draft had anything to do with this condition. I find it really odd that nobody found it during the extensive testing that these players go through in the combine. It would make it a little more understandable than this bogus transfer agreement thing that people had discussed.

Because the NHL is a business and we lost an EXTREMELY important asset in Cherepanov?

 

[AddMan3001]

player
Noun
1. a person who takes part in a game or sport
2. a person who plays a musical instrument
3. Informal a leading participant in a particular field or activity: one of the key players in Chinese politics
4. an actor


per·son (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
...

Right on the money. Sather & Co. may try to get a pick, but I just can't see them convincing the NHL that Cherepanov qualifies as either a person or draft eligible.

The real question is: Will the NHL ignore the CBA (or come up with a stupid loop-hole) and just give them a pick, trying not to come off as cold-hearted (or whatever they'd be called by the press / some fans) for spouting rules and regulations after the death of a promising prospect?

 

[Carlos Ranger]

How unfair would it be for the kid who had to "replace" Cherepanov? Why would the Rangers even want that?

Every single player is eventually replaced on a team, whether it's prematurely or not or how emotional the departure of a player is should be irrelevant.

Why should the Rangers, or the 47th overall pick in 2009 feel bad because the Rangers received that pick as compensation for a player they failed to sign?