Compensatory Draft Selection for Cherepanov?

[Ola]

OK, so let's pretend Nashville drafts Cherepanov in 2009. Do you really think the league is going to let the pick stand? No, wait - you just answered this question:

And yes ... this is nit-picky, but Swedish law is irrelevant in this case; the NHL is headquartered in the United States, and so U.S. law will apply. It's like me saying, "well Illinois law says ....." on a case where California law applies - in which case, Illinois case law means squat.

Haha, I didn't exactly say that swedish law should apply.

But I don't know how to explain it to a amature, like because I understand the fundamentals of one legal system, I know atleast how it can't be relegated in another system.

There is no way someone can argue a position that the CBA should be interpreted in a way that you can draft anything else then live human beeings in the NHL.

Like, lets say the rulebook says that you only can have 5 skaters on the ice, and 1 goalie -- it doesn't directly relegate the issue if you can put 10 tigers on the ice late in a game when you are trying to protect a lead -- right?

I know it sounds ridiculos but I think its a illustrative example because there is always aspects that are ridiculos that isn't relegated.

And inorder to have a well working "market" there must be rules to prevent interpretations of a contract thats completely ridiculos.

And interpretating the CBA in a way that the intended wording of it was anything else that you only can draft live human beeings, thats ridiculos. Nobody could ever come up with a single reasonable argument for why it should be interpreted that way.

So if anyone here had even remotely some knowledge of US contract law they would come on and say "Ola you are right, thats the "prevent completely ridiculos contract interpretations rule"" .

This is how draft eligble is relegated in the NHL:

8.4 Eligibility for Claim.
(a) All Players age 18 or older are eligible for claim in the Entry Draft,
except:
(i) a Player on the Reserve List of a Club, other than as a try-out;
(ii) a Player who has been claimed in two prior Entry Drafts;
(iii) a Player who previously played in the League and became a Free
Agent pursuant to this Agreement;
(iv) a Player age 21 or older who: (A) has not been selected in a
previous Entry Draft and (B) played hockey for at least one season
in North America when he was age 18, 19, or 20 and shall be
eligible to enter the League as an Unrestricted Free Agent pursuant
to Article 10.1(d); and
18
(v) a Player age 22 or older who has not been selected in a previous
Entry Draft and shall be eligible to enter the League as an
Unrestricted Free Agent pursuant to Article 10.1(d).

"Player(s)" means a hockey player who is party to an SPC, a Rookie,
Unsigned Draft Choices, and Free Agents.

Its not directly relegated that a player have to be a live human beeing.

But I very much belive that it can't be a result of US contract law that you might as well draft a tiger or a Marshall Tank and put on the ice instead of a live human beeing.

Just because it doesn't directly say that you can't.

So because I know the fundamentals of Swedish Contract Law I think I am right and you are wrong.

 

[Ola]

To me this is screaming towards a grievance. Now, others will know better than I, but would the "spirit" of the rule regarding compensation picks be an important issue in such a proceeding?

Because to me, the intention of the compensatory pick is to guard against such things as Wheeler this past offseason, or a possible Eric Lindros type situation where a player refuses to sign and simply waits out the two years. I don't believe it was ever intended to act as a safeguard for drafting teams against injuries or death.

We can argue the wording and legalities of draft eligibility et all until we're blue in the face (incidentally, in that regard, the recent arbitration decision surrounding defecting players to me rules out draft eligibility for Cherepanov), but the bottom line to me is that the Rangers are attempting to apply this clause in a manner in which it was never intended for.

Exactly, that was my understanding too.

But doesn't anyone know the rules on how to interpret a contract in the US?

Like you natrually goes on the wording first. But whats comes after that? The spirit? In what situations can you go by the spirit?

I know for sure that you can't put tigers on the ice nor draft dead people.

 

[Ola]

One thing that I think certainly would seal it is that the CBA use "age".

What does age mean? My english really sucks but doesn't it mean the time between from when you born to when you died?

And when you are alive you "is" a age. And after you died, you "was"/"had" a certain age.

So even by the wording -- nobody can say that Cherepanov is "of age 18 or older".

 

[caley]

I'm gonna cross-post this from the much more emo/less rational post on the NHL Board

Interesting viewpoint. Reading on another board tonight (So, I'm not sure how spot-on the details are), I learned that in 1988, the Calgary Flames drafted a player named Stefan Nilsson in the seventh round, then, in the twelfth round, Vancouver also drafted Stefan Nilsson. It turns out there were two Stefan Nilssons eligible to be drafted that year, but the one the Flames had put in the paperwork for had passed away in an auto accident three months before the draft. Once the Flames realized their mistake, they put in a claim against the Canucks' pick, but were overruled by the NHL.

What all this means is that, technically, the NHL set a precedent with that ruling that a team can indeed draft a deceased player, because Calgary's selection of a deceased player was enforced.

So, given that ruling, and an in any absence of an amendment since then, Alexei Cherepanov is indeed eligible to be drafted next season, and the Rangers should indeed be awarded a compensatory draft pick.

 

[Captain Ron]

I'm gonna cross-post this from the much more emo/less rational post on the NHL Board

Interesting viewpoint. Reading on another board tonight (So, I'm not sure how spot-on the details are), I learned that in 1988, the Calgary Flames drafted a player named Stefan Nilsson in the seventh round, then, in the twelfth round, Vancouver also drafted Stefan Nilsson. It turns out there were two Stefan Nilssons eligible to be drafted that year, but the one the Flames had put in the paperwork for had passed away in an auto accident three months before the draft. Once the Flames realized their mistake, they put in a claim against the Canucks' pick, but were overruled by the NHL.

What all this means is that, technically, the NHL set a precedent with that ruling that a team can indeed draft a deceased player, because Calgary's selection of a deceased player was enforced.

So, given that ruling, and an in any absence of an amendment since then, Alexei Cherepanov is indeed eligible to be drafted next season, and the Rangers should indeed be awarded a compensatory draft pick.

But...but....but....exactly.

One things about law is if you allow it for one you must legally allow it for all. If the instance you sighted is truly the case then a dead person is indeed eligible for the draft.

 

[Faltorvo]

AHH but i have to ask can a team knowingly draft a dead person?

Second question, if a team drafted AC in the first round next year, would they then not be eligible for compensation also ?

If a team is allowed to draft a name that does not exist as a tangeble reality then names like santa clause or toothfairy are eligible?

 

[azrok22]

Second question, if a team drafted AC in the first round next year, would they then not be eligible for compensation also ?

They could be eligible for compensation... two years after he is drafted (so 2011)... but doesn't make a whole lot of sense to draft him with a first round pick just so you'd get a second round pick in 2011.

 

[Faltorvo]

IF spirit or intent of wording does not matter in the CBA, then it is possible for all the teams to use there first round picks to draft entities that do not exist in our reality, and treat the start of the 2nd round as the true first round thus lowering there selections value and contract demands

 

[Faltorvo]

They could be eligible for compensation... two years after he is drafted (so 2011)... but doesn't make a whole lot of sense to draft him with a first round pick just so you'd get a second round pick in 2011.

To me it makes as much sence for someone to be able to claim that AC is still eligible to be drafted or to become a UFA.

If sence had anything to do with it, then AC is not eligible for redraft since no one with any sence would draft him .

 

[Faltorvo]

Can a team draft someone who does not exist? Well i think the president has been set as a yes (but this was done without intent). But seeing how wording in contract law also does cover spirit and intent provisions ,can a team knowingly draft a non existing entity?

Now to take this into the realm of the absurd, if spirit and intent has no meaning or weight, then what is to prevent a team from dressing and icing said deceased?

Well we all know the answer to the absurd is and that is NO.

Because in law not everthing has to be spelled out ver badem, spirit and intent covers the vague and absurd.

 

[sue123]

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.

It probably wasn't found because it's a tough diagnosis to make. You need to do an ECHO to find it, and it's not routinely done because of the risk/benefit ratio. If he had no symptoms, no family history or sudden death in the family, there would be no point to do an ECHO. If something shows up on an EKG, it can resemble athlete's heart, which is perfectly normal in high level athletes. Also, sometimes the EKG in somebody with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (which is what I'm assuming Cherry had) can be perfectly normal.

So now you may be saying, why don't the do an ECHO on everyone to rule out HCM? Because most people with HCM do not make it into high level athletic competition because they have some symptoms that would prevent them from getting to the top of their sport. Also, doing ECHO is not without risk either. You need someone who is really good at what they're doing to perform the ECHO, or else you might get a false reading. But you take that reading as positive because you know HCM can have no symptoms with it. Now, you've got to put that person through more invasive and unnecessary testing, the risks of which can be greater than the risk of that person dying from HCM. HCM is not a common disease, it's actually pretty rare, and usually genetic, so people who have sudden deaths in their family get tested for it. So now, because you wanted to screen everyone, you may have caused serious harm or killed 5 people to find the 1 who had HCM. So in a person with no risk factors and no family history, there's no point to routinely screen.

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion on Glen Sather's ethics.

 

[jniklast]

Can a team draft someone who does not exist? Well i think the president has been set as a yes (but this was done without intent). But seeing how wording in contract law also does cover spirit and intent provisions ,can a team knowingly draft a non existing entity?

Now to take this into the realm of the absurd, if spirit and intent has no meaning or weight, then what is to prevent a team from dressing and icing said deceased?

Well we all know the answer to the absurd is and that is NO.

Because in law not everthing has to be spelled out ver badem, spirit and intent covers the vague and absurd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taro_Tsujimoto

 

[mouser]

I'm gonna cross-post this from the much more emo/less rational post on the NHL Board

Interesting viewpoint. Reading on another board tonight (So, I'm not sure how spot-on the details are), I learned that in 1988, the Calgary Flames drafted a player named Stefan Nilsson in the seventh round, then, in the twelfth round, Vancouver also drafted Stefan Nilsson. It turns out there were two Stefan Nilssons eligible to be drafted that year, but the one the Flames had put in the paperwork for had passed away in an auto accident three months before the draft. Once the Flames realized their mistake, they put in a claim against the Canucks' pick, but were overruled by the NHL.

What all this means is that, technically, the NHL set a precedent with that ruling that a team can indeed draft a deceased player, because Calgary's selection of a deceased player was enforced.

So, given that ruling, and an in any absence of an amendment since then, Alexei Cherepanov is indeed eligible to be drafted next season, and the Rangers should indeed be awarded a compensatory draft pick.

I don't see how this incident sets a precedent that a deceased player can be legally drafted. It certainly sets a precedent that if a team submits an incorrect/invalid pick that they cannot fix it after the fact. Or at least can't fix it after another team has selected the player they intended to take.

We would need to know whether the draft pick was ruled as valid and what rights Calgary was given for the deceased player following the draft to determine how the league recognized the selection.

 

[Faltorvo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taro_Tsujimoto

Ah yes i see your point
. Hence my ? in my statements.

So the league did not create a bylaw afterwords to prevent such a farce and slap in the face to the integrity of the league from that?

 

[Unk]

IF spirit or intent of wording does not matter in the CBA, then it is possible for all the teams to use there first round picks to draft entities that do not exist in our reality, and treat the start of the 2nd round as the true first round thus lowering there selections value and contract demands

But that's absurd and is never going to happen, because what's then happening if you 'lose' your 1st round pick and trade it for a 2nd round pick, which no team would do.

 

[coolguy21415]

Even if a precedent is set such that a team could draft a dead player... Who cares? Is it such an awful thing that a team that drafts a dead player not be saved from itself...

 

[coolguy21415]

It could, I suppose, be used as a method of deferring picks. Say the Ducks in 07 had drafted a deceased player with the 30th overall pick. That would have given them a compensatory pick in 09 only a spot lower than their 07 pick... In an exceptionally deep draft no less.

But at the same time you can't offer a deceased player a contract, so would the comp pick be awarded?

 

[Faltorvo]

Even if a precedent is set such that a team could draft a dead player... Who cares? Is it such an awful thing that a team that drafts a dead player not be saved from itself...

Well for me it would go towards the spirit and intent of bylaws.

Somethings should be inplace to protect the integrety of the league.

One example would be the prevention of drafting non existing entities like ,santa clause and the easter bunny.

A person that is deceased is a non existing entity, thus preventing any team from knowingly drafting them.

 

[Faltorvo]

It could, I suppose, be used as a method of deferring picks. Say the Ducks in 07 had drafted a deceased player with the 30th overall pick. That would have given them a compensatory pick in 09 only a spot lower than their 07 pick... In an exceptionally deep draft no less.

But at the same time you can't offer a deceased player a contract, so would the comp pick be awarded?

If you can knowingly draft a non existing entity, then i don't see what bylaw prevents you from offereing a contract either. Unless it goes against the spirit and intent of the bylaws, wich inturn could or would be used also againt said drafting allowence.

BTW your analogy concerning the Ducks is brilliant

That goes to show where and why, spirit and intent of contract wording is used.

sorry for my spelling I ain't got no good learnens

 

[Garfinkel1]

If the Rangers do get this extra pick, the 47th pick is going to have huge shoes to fill. RIP Cherp

 

[cptjeff]

Mod-edit: deleted. Given the fact that questions existed about his willingness to ever play in the NHL before he was drafted and the Rangers knew he was a risky pick in another regard before they chose him, the team is just better off taking the high road and not pushing this issue. That the situation has been presented should be reason enough for a clarification clause to be inserted into the CBA as soon as possible.

I'm sorry, but what? The Kid had his rangers jersey framed and hanging above his mantle. That was the one jersey he had hanging in the house from what I heard...

 

[Captain Ron]

It could, I suppose, be used as a method of deferring picks. Say the Ducks in 07 had drafted a deceased player with the 30th overall pick. That would have given them a compensatory pick in 09 only a spot lower than their 07 pick... In an exceptionally deep draft no less.

Why would it be only one spot lower? Comp picks are always 30 spots lower than the original selection.

But at the same time you can't offer a deceased player a contract, so would the comp pick be awarded?

You could offer it....there just would be nobody to sign it.

 

[Captain Ron]

If you can knowingly draft a non existing entity, then i don't see what bylaw prevents you from offereing a contract either. Unless it goes against the spirit and intent of the bylaws, wich inturn could or would be used also againt said drafting allowence.

BTW your analogy concerning the Ducks is brilliant

That goes to show where and why, spirit and intent of contract wording is used.

sorry for my spelling I ain't got no good learnens

You guys are taking this to a ludicrous level. No team is going to willingly use a 1st round pick on a deceased person or imaginary entity....even if there is no rule against it....The reason is because there is absolutely no benefit to it. Are you trying to say that the Rangers hoped that Cherepanov would die in order to get the 47th pick in the 2009 draft? Why would that be advantageous?

BTW the Ducks analogy is not brilliant because they would get the 60th pick in the draft......not the 31st. But people here do not want to take the time to research the actual rules.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

It seems to me that precedent suggests the Rangers should get a compensatory pick, the letter of the law also suggests they should get a compensatory pick, and common sense, since the guy died before being signed in the NHL, also suggests they *deserve* one.

Is anyone in the league or NHLPA or whatever going to say no? Seems pretty cut and dried, despite how morbid the whole thing is.

 

[Faltorvo]

You guys are taking this to a ludicrous level. No team is going to willingly use a 1st round pick on a deceased person or imaginary entity....even if there is no rule against it....The reason is because there is absolutely no benefit to it. Are you trying to say that the Rangers hoped that Cherepanov would die in order to get the 47th pick in the 2009 draft? Why would that be advantageous?

BTW the Ducks analogy is not brilliant because they would get the 60th pick in the draft......not the 31st. But people here do not want to take the time to research the actual rules.

Why don't you take you own advice, research or atleast read why i consider it brilliant.
It has nothing to do with me thinking it's a good strategy. But more to the point of it being a perfect example of why contracts have provisions in there for (intent and spirit of the agreement) as opposed to it word for word.

Mod Edit: deleted.