Compensatory Draft Selection for Cherepanov?

[Squiffy]

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.

By the letter, IMO, due to the lack of a transfer agreement, AC remains Ranger property in perpetuality as a defected player, per the recent arbitration decision, and hence not eligible to be drafted in '09.

 

[Buffaloed]

By the letter, IMO, due to the lack of a transfer agreement, AC remains Ranger property in perpetuality as a defected player, per the recent arbitration decision, and hence not eligible to be drafted in '09.

Artem Kryukov (aka Kriukov) is a good example in this case. He was selected #15 in 2000 by Buffalo. He never signed and the NHL won't award a comp pick unless Russia signs a transfer agreement.

 

[Squiffy]

Artem Kryukov (aka Kriukov) is a good example in this case. He was selected #15 in 2000 by Buffalo. He never signed and the NHL won't award a comp pick unless Russia signs a transfer agreement.

Vorobiev is a Leaf example. It's likely the deciding factor in this discussion.

 

[kdb209]

Artem Kryukov (aka Kriukov) is a good example in this case. He was selected #15 in 2000 by Buffalo. He never signed and the NHL won't award a comp pick unless Russia signs a transfer agreement.

For pre-lockout draftees, a Transfer Agreement should have no impact.

All unsigned pre-lockout Euro players who had been considered "defected" players under the old CBA have become UFAs under the transition rules of Exhibit 16.

n. "Defected" Players. Any Player who met the qualifications for "defected" status
as per the terms of, and as of the date of expiration of, the Expired CBA shall
remain "defected" for a defined period of time, following which the Player shall
become free of the exclusive negotiating rights of his drafting Club and shall be
eligible to enter the League as an Unrestricted Free Agent. The "defected" status
of Players selected in the 2002 Entry Draft, or prior, shall expire as of June 1,
2006. The "defected" status of Players selected in the 2003 Entry Draft shall
expire as of June 1, 2007. The "defected" status of Players selected in the 2004
Entry Draft shall expire as of June 1, 2008. Any Player who remains an Unsigned
Draft Choice at the time his "defected" status expires in accordance with this
paragraph shall be subject to having to enter the League through the Entry Level
System in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 of the Expired CBA,
including without limitation, the salary scale set forth therein, following
application of the 24 percent rollback as provided for in Paragraph 1(a) above,
provided, however, that such Players shall, at a minimum, be required to sign a
one-year Entry Level SPC to enter the League, regardless of the Player's age at
the time the SPC is signed and, provided further, the Player may negotiate for
Performance Bonuses only as permitted by the rules set forth in Article 9 and
Exhibit 5 of this Agreement governing Entry Level Performance Bonuses, and as
allowed under Article 50 of this Agreement.

Any first rounders who became UFAs under Exhibit 16 should qualify their team for a compensatory pick under Article 8.3(b) - assuming they tendered the required Bona Fide Offer.

(b) 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. By way of example, if a Club cannot sign the third pick in the first
round, it will receive the third pick in the second round as compensation.

This is a different situation from post lockout draftees. After the termination of the IIHF PTA, the NHL has re-instated the "defected player" rules (and an arbiter upheld that decision over an NHLPA grievence) - as a result unsigned Euro's have their rights retained indefinitely. Under that ruling, Cherepanov would not have been eligible for next year's Entry Draft, so no compensatory pick would be awarded.

 

[Buffaloed]

Vorobiev is a Leaf example. It's likely the deciding factor in this discussion.

He wasn't a 1st round pick. There would be no comp pick regardless of his status.

 

[Captain Ron]

Artem Kryukov (aka Kriukov) is a good example in this case. He was selected #15 in 2000 by Buffalo. He never signed and the NHL won't award a comp pick unless Russia signs a transfer agreement.

This will probably be the biggest sticking point in the matter....even more so than Cherepanov's living status.

 

[coolguy21415]

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



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

Yeah that's my bad. I forgot about that, thought they did it like the NFL, where comp picks are all grouped at the end of the round.

 

[Squiffy]

He wasn't a 1st round pick. There would be no comp pick regardless of his status.

Right right.. what was I thinking?

Okay, just an example of a drafted Euro league player whose rights are being held in perpetuity.

 

[Captain Ron]

Yeah that's my bad. I forgot about that, thought they did it like the NFL, where comp picks are all grouped at the end of the round.

No problem, we all make mistakes.

 

[Vagrant]

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

The fact that Rangers brass and fans of the team are calling Cherepanov an "asset", makes me warm and fuzzy inside. This wasn't an asset. This is a man who died well before his time and all of hockey is worse for it having happened.

Just very very sad that the Rangers would sell his memory short by turning this into some kind of precident setting ruling about how a multi-million dollar team is compensated when a teenager falls down dead. Just filthy.

And don't think for a minute that the fans around the league and the player himself wouldn't know that his pick is the pick that represents Cherepanov's death. I wouldn't want to be drafted in a such a cut throat position and have to deal with my own expectations as well as the unfair expectations of those that would eventually compare them.

 

[Fugu]

The fact that Rangers brass and fans of the team are calling Cherepanov an "asset", makes me warm and fuzzy inside. This wasn't an asset. This is a man who died well before his time and all of hockey is worse for it having happened.

Just very very sad that the Rangers would sell his memory short by turning this into some kind of precident setting ruling about how a multi-million dollar team is compensated when a teenager falls down dead. Just filthy.

And don't think for a minute that the fans around the league and the player himself wouldn't know that his pick is the pick that represents Cherepanov's death. I wouldn't want to be drafted in a such a cut throat position and have to deal with my own expectations as well as the unfair expectations of those that would eventually compare them.

I have no idea why you would use terms like "filthy" and "selling memories short" in discussing the interpretations of a collective bargaining agreement. Players and prospects indeed are assets. Once upon a time before the players formed unions, they were indefinitely bound assets who could be sold and bartered at will by the owners. The very institution of entry drafts was a means to allocating assets fairly, to strengthen the weakest links.

It's a business. Talent is limited and finite. The emotional platitudes are completely out of place in a $2.5+ billion per year business.

 

[Buffaloed]

I have no idea why you would use terms like "filthy" and "selling memories short" in discussing the interpretations of a collective bargaining agreement. Players and prospects indeed are assets. Once upon a time before the players formed unions, they were indefinitely bound assets who could be sold and bartered at will by the owners. The very institution of entry drafts was a means to allocating assets fairly, to strengthen the weakest links.

It's a business. Talent is limited and finite. The emotional platitudes are completely out of place in a $2.5+ billion per year business.

I was moderately in favor of the NHL awarding the comp pick as it would be a nice gesture and show that the league has humanity. That it's not all a cold, hard, business and that sometimes rules can be bent to do the right thing. Now that the Rangers have demanded the pick on a business level, I'm no longer in favor of it. I don't see how they can possibly prevail based on the language in the CBA. A risk is taken with every draft pick and in this case more so than others due to the lack of a transfer agreement, and lack of a pre-draft physical. The only risks that are covered are specified in the CBA, and this one isn't.

 

[ObnoxiousPensFan*]

I dont wanna come off as a dick or anything but Vancouver didnt get a pick when Luc B died, I want alive but i'm pretty sure Pittsburgh didnt get a free pick when Michel Briere died( who was gonna be our 1st legimate star), so why sure New York I hope they dont get squat.


ps: it's not that i hate the rangers there fans,team,history and the entire state of new york or anything.

 

[Fugu]

I was moderately in favor of the NHL awarding the comp pick as it would be a nice gesture and show that the league has humanity. That it's not all a cold, hard, business and that sometimes rules can be bent to do the right thing. Now that the Rangers have demanded the pick on a business level, I'm no longer in favor of it. I don't see how they can possibly prevail based on the language in the CBA. A risk is taken with every draft pick and in this case more so than others due to the lack of a transfer agreement, and lack of a pre-draft physical. The only risks that are covered are specified in the CBA, and this one isn't.

I guess there are two ways to look at it. If you show humanity and do the right thing, then one expects that each time there is a tragedy, the right thing should be done. Exactly where do you draw the line? When teams lose roster players to tragic events-- how do you do the right thing then? A roster player has a higher 'value' since he has fulfilled his potential yet there is no outcry to help teams fill the hole left by this type of loss. As unfortunate and tragic as these things are, one does invite compensation for a loss each time it occurs if your standard is applied.

Secondly, you are basing you assessment of what is fair or right on how the Rangers have proceeded. Either it is the right thing to do-- or it isn't. It should not hinge on how the franchise management has handled it. At the same time, perhaps this move was necessary since it was clear that the "right" course wasn't going to be taken.

I agree however, that based on the language, the Rangers don't have a case. This league is very legalistic and has show several times that the strictest, most black/white interpretation possible is the one taken. "Right" is a highly subjective term when it comes to the legal profession.

 

[Buffaloed]

I dont wanna come off as a dick or anything but Vancouver didnt get a pick when Luc B died, I want alive but i'm pretty sure Pittsburgh didnt get a free pick when Michel Briere died( who was gonna be our 1st legimate star), so why sure New York I hope they dont get squat.


ps: it's not that i hate the rangers there fans,team,history and the entire state of new york or anything.

Irrelevant: The applicable CBA article applies to unsigned first round picks.

 

[Captain Ron]

I agree however, that based on the language, the Rangers don't have a case. This league is very legalistic and has show several times that the strictest, most black/white interpretation possible is the one taken. "Right" is a highly subjective term when it comes to the legal profession.

I do not recall reading any of your posts on this matter Fugu. What language are you speaking of that would prevent the Rangers from having a case?

 

[Ola]

I dont wanna come off as a dick or anything but Vancouver didnt get a pick when Luc B died, I want alive but i'm pretty sure Pittsburgh didnt get a free pick when Michel Briere died( who was gonna be our 1st legimate star), so why sure New York I hope they dont get squat.

ps: it's not that i hate the rangers there fans,team,history and the entire state of new york or anything.

Look, the Rangers didn't ask for a compensation pick when 1st round pick Roman Lyashenko died. They didn't ask for a compensation pick when 1st round pick Dan Blackburn was injured so badly that he was forced to stop playing hockey. They didn' ask for compensation when Stefan Chernesky, who was a 1st round pick in 97', was injured so badly that he never could play in the NHL.

But this time around, there is a clasule in the CBA that relegates this exact question.

A lost, unsigned 1st round pick.

Is it so freakin hard to atleast read a couple of post in a thread before you post?

Every 3rd post in this thread is saying the same thing -- but nobody have read them...

 

[Ola]

I do not recall reading any of your posts on this matter Fugu. What language are you speaking of that would prevent the Rangers from having a case?

A player needs to become eligble for the draft again according to the clasule.

In order to become eligble for the draft that player have to be 18 y/o or older.

So according to the wording Cherepanov will never become eligble to the draft again. Its very simple, when you is a live you is a age, after you have died -- you was a age of -- this all according to the english languege? Right? (which I suck on so I could be wrong, but thats how you say it, right?)

So Cherry, according to the wording of the CBA, doesn't fit the criteria to become eligble for the draft again.

So gooing by the wording the Rangers don't have a case. But they are arguing that the clasule should be interpreted in favor of them anyway -- because thoose words, that a player should become eligble for the draft or become a UFA -- is only ment to expand the teams that should recive compensation. Because otherwise there could be questions if the same player that they lost, ended up with the first team either by getting drafted again or through UFA.

 

[Captain Ron]

A player needs to become eligble for the draft again according to the clasule.

In order to become eligble for the draft that player have to be 18 y/o or older.

So according to the wording Cherepanov will never become eligble to the draft again. Its very simple, when you is a live you is a age, after you have died -- you was a age of -- this all according to the english languege? Right? (which I suck on so I could be wrong, but thats how you say it, right?)

So Cherry, according to the wording of the CBA, doesn't fit the criteria to become eligble for the draft again.

So gooing by the wording the Rangers don't have a case. But they are arguing that the clasule should be interpreted in favor of them anyway -- because thoose words, that a player should become eligble for the draft or become a UFA -- is only ment to expand the teams that should recive compensation. Because otherwise there could be questions if the same player that they lost, ended up with the first team either by getting drafted again or through UFA.

A dead player has already been drafted before....and the league upheld the selection. So that is not the issue. The only issue at this point seems to be the transfer agreement.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Look, the Rangers didn't ask for a compensation pick when 1st round pick Roman Lyashenko died. They didn't ask for a compensation pick when 1st round pick Dan Blackburn was injured so badly that he was forced to stop playing hockey. They didn' ask for compensation when Stefan Chernesky, who was a 1st round pick in 97', was injured so badly that he never could play in the NHL.

Probably because the CBA in effect at that time allowed for compensatory selections for unsigned 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks. The key word being "unsigned" - none of which applied to these three guys. Blackburn and Cherneski were playing under an NHL contract when injured. Lyashenko was a 2nd round pick [#52-1997, Dallas] but already had 5 NHL seasons; it would be like arguing the Blues should have received something for Bob Gassoff when he died in the summer of 1977 despite the fact that he had played 3 full NHL seasons and part of a 4th.

Of course, I have no doubt someone will bring Blackburn and Cherneski up at least two more times and say, "... and the Rangers didn't ask for a pick then." Well of course they didn't - there were no grounds for it. Hell, if someone wants to take that discussion further we could bring up Gord Kluzak and others and it would still be just as irrelevant.

 

[Buffaloed]

For pre-lockout draftees, a Transfer Agreement should have no impact.

All unsigned pre-lockout Euro players who had been considered "defected" players under the old CBA have become UFAs under the transition rules of Exhibit 16.

Exhibit 16 wasn't fully applied to Russian players because Russia didn't sign the 2005 transfer agreement. Any team that requested it could have their signing rights extended. Buffalo still holds the rights to Kryukov, Denisov, Voroshin, and Sheviev. The Panthers kept the rights to Stasyuk, the Habs still have Korneev, the Thrashers; Dobryshkin and Nikulin, the Devils; Khomutov etc..

 

[Ted Hoffman]

A dead player has already been drafted before....and the league upheld the selection. So that is not the issue. The only issue at this point seems to be the transfer agreement.

To clarify here: the league did not say "it's OK to draft a dead guy" in its ruling here, it said "we are not going to assign you a player you clearly had no intention of drafting to the detriment of another team, nor are we going to award you a compensatory pick to make up for the fact that the guy you picked is no longer alive." For all practical purposes, it's considered a voided pick a la the Panthers and Ovechkin in 2003.

Of course, if one wants to argue that another team can in fact draft Cherepanov then we go back to Squiffy's point that the Rangers technically hold Cherepanov's rights indefinitely [as long as there is no transfer agreement with Russia] ... meaning that if Florida were to select Cherepanov with the final pick in the 2009 draft, it would be voided - not because they can't draft a dead guy, but because Cherepanov's rights were not released by the Rangers due to the lack of a transfer agreement.

 

[Ola]

Probably because the CBA in effect at that time allowed for compensatory selections for unsigned 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks. The key word being "unsigned" - none of which applied to these three guys. Blackburn and Cherneski were playing under an NHL contract when injured. Lyashenko was a 2nd round pick [#52-1997, Dallas] but already had 5 NHL seasons; it would be like arguing the Blues should have received something for Bob Gassoff when he died in the summer of 1977 despite the fact that he had played 3 full NHL seasons and part of a 4th.

Of course, I have no doubt someone will bring Blackburn and Cherneski up at least two more times and say, "... and the Rangers didn't ask for a pick then." Well of course they didn't - there were no grounds for it. Hell, if someone wants to take that discussion further we could bring up Gord Kluzak and others and it would still be just as irrelevant.

Yeah, that kind of was my point IB...

Jesus does anybody ever read anything on these boards before posting?

 

[Ola]

A dead player has already been drafted before....and the league upheld the selection. So that is not the issue. The only issue at this point seems to be the transfer agreement.

Why is that relevant?

Either they are allowed to draft a dead player, or the NHL takes there time and rules it invalid -- what on earth is the diffrence? Why waste the time to rule it invalid?

A dead guy was drafted by misstake. It was completely unnecessary to take up anyones time to rule the pick invalid.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Should be interesting to see how this unfolds.

I know it was in the old cba and I am not sure if it is in the new.

there was something about teams have to make a contract offer to the playe and it gets turned down. Under the old agreemen--teams had to proove they tried to signed a player to a comp pick..

I am not sure if that appears anywhere in the new cba