Toggle sidebar

Do CHL to AHL Eligibility Rules Need a Change?

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Nhl shouldn't baby the chl at all. If your 18 and your team would rather have you in the ahl it should be there choice. For some reason the they won't let 18 year old Canadians play in the ahl but it's fine if your from anywhere else. No time better than now to tell the assholes that hide rape to get f***ed.
 
redwings25 said:
Nhl shouldn't baby the chl at all. If your 18 and your team would rather have you in the ahl it should be there choice. For some reason the they won't let 18 year old Canadians play in the ahl but it's fine if your from anywhere else. No time better than now to tell the assholes that hide rape to get f***ed.
Click to expand...

NHL is heavily profiting from the fact that they have great independent development leagues for undrafted juniors, trying to screw those leagues would not help IMO.

If most of the Junior aged prospects would go to AHL instead of juniors, this would probably hurt the ticket sales of junior teams, and hurt prospect development.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chainshot
This really isn't a problem.

You have a guy like Mason McTavish. He played a few games in Anaheim. Then back to junior and he played the WJC. Then traded to a contender and went on a Memorial Cup run. Now he's stepping into the NHL as an impact player for a full three years on an ELC.

Brandt Clarke also went back to the CHL and has walked right into the NHL. Same with Guenther.

At least CHL guys can get a taste of the NHL in training camp. NCAA guys aren't allowed to even attend.

Olli Juolevi went back to Europe rather than junior. Did that help him? The Islanders had the choice to send Kieffer Bellows to the AHL but sent him to the CHL instead.
 
Last edited:
Why not just push the draft up a year?

Never understood why they draft these guys so young. Borderline gambling, some of the guys aren't even done growing yet.

Stay in junior another year or go to Europe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peat and Oryxo
Chips said:
A problem can be if the prospect is huge, and finds it way too easy to score in junior and form bad habits

Tom Wilson was brought to the NHL for this reason. He ideally would have gone to the AHL
Click to expand...
Huh....Tom Wilson found it too easy to score in junior? He found it too easy so decided not to score?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cardiac Jerks
Toby91ca said:
Huh....Tom Wilson found it too easy to score in junior? He found it too easy so decided not to score?
Click to expand...
Maybe I misremember it was the way he was scoring in his last year, he was huge and growing and could essentially bully his way through to scoring areas in a way or with ease he wouldn’t necessarily in the NHL they were worried
 
Anyone who is drafted by an NHL team, is too good for juniors. It's the entire reason they were drafted to begin with. They just don't belong in that league. The fact that these players can either play in the NHL, or go back to shitty junior hockey, is a f***ing joke. There needs to be other options.
 
mouser said:
Agreed. Dach was a bit of a project when drafted, not at all unreasonable to expect he would need the two years of CHL development.

I'm skeptical there are many if any players who are "too good for juniors" but "not good enough for the NHL". What we tend to run into more often is the player rights belong to a crappy CHL team that isn't a great development place for the player. In which case the better approach may be to force a player trade to another CHL club.
Click to expand...

Many of those types end of getting traded anyways. Draisaitl & MacTavish being two recent examples. Kadri going farther back.

OP - "too old" does not really apply when the CHL cut off is 21.
 
It will never change... MANY junior teams would have to fold if the leagues across the CHL lost all their high end players that put butts in the seats.

Alot of teams barely get by as it is
 
x Tame Impala said:
I’m not a big prospect development fan but I’m reading more and more on HF about prospects being stuck playing in the CHL when they are some combination of too: old, skilled, or big. That they’d be better off developing in the AHL and being able to play against men instead of teenagers.

I know this is a hot issue for Canadians in particular and because I don’t follow prospect development very closely I don’t have much of an opinion one way or the other.

As a Hawks fan the most recent example I can think of was Kirby Dach. This was discussed on the Hawks board and I was wondering what other teams have had situations like this with their prospects.

Dach was drafted 3rd overall and had a good but not great season in the WHL before making the Hawks team. He had issues executing on offense and it was my impression he lacked confidence and finish to his game. It’s been argued he (and Boqvist) was rushed to the Blackhawks by Bowman and Ownership to give fans something to watch while the Hawks were on the decline.

It was clear that Dach was not comfortable as a NHLer yet but his options were limited. He couldn’t go back to the CHL and he was not eligible for the AHL as a 19 year old. So a few questions I’d like answers to from some of you who do follow this closely and know more than I do…

1) Do players actually benefit from having an “overqualified” season in the CHL? What are some examples of this working?

2) Should NHL teams have the option to grant one prospect a year “Exceptional Status” and allow them to play in the AHL after they’re drafted?

3) Would this exceptional status ruin the CHL?
Click to expand...
Dach could have gone back to the CHL, the Hawks are just a poor development team now.

There is no problem with the CHL/NHL agreement.


On any given year there’s at MOST one to two players in the entire CHL that’s “too good” to go back.

It’s a made up issue that’s really only an issue on HF Boards.
 
Toby91ca said:
Agree....who are the examples? I was going to say Crosby....he was too good for Juniors while playing there, but he certainly was good enough for NHL, so doesn't fit.....who does? Shane Wright was mentioned - 1) not sure if he's not good enough for NHL yet, so hard to say....probably wouldn't be in the NHL if drafted by a stronger team though, but 2) why would we think he's too good for Junior? It's not like he lit the OHL on fire last year. He had a great year for sure, but he was only 8th in scoring.....even if you are at the top, doesn't mean you are too good for the league. Crosby, in his draft year, outscored #2 scorer by 50pts...#2 scorer was a guy who played with Crosby and had his stats padded accordingly, otherwise gap would have been even wider. Wright had 94pts last year and league leader had 124 I think. No reason to think Wright would be too good for the league. Don't underestimate the value of confidence or the determent of having your confidence shaken.
Click to expand...
Lafreniere. When it became clear he wasn't quite ready for the NHL the thing to do would have been to send him to the AHL. He was way too good for junior at that point.
 
It will never change. People are too narrow minded to realize that their future shiny toy prospects are developing by playing against their current shiny toys. The NHL knows this though. You can count on one hand the number of players actually to good for the CHL at 18 post draft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fixed to Ruin
f*** the CHL dinosaurs and what they "want".

It's pretty well known that the level of competition can have a great influence on an athlete's development. More and more studies even show that there are optimal ratios of success/failure to maximize learning and development.

It's science.

The CHL is a perfectly adequate league and some players will benefit from being there at 19 and 20 and become great NHL players. For others, though, the CHL may be too easy and the NHL may be to steep of an upgrade. They need to learn at a pro level, but not with the elite.

There are ways to think outside the box and help the CHL without sacrificing the interests of its players. For too long, the CHL has been stubborn and refused to evolve in too many ways.
 
The one change I would make - if you elect to keep any player past the 8 games or whatever, and you burn a year of the ELC, you should be able to bring that player back if you send them back to Juniors.

Like everyone has said, the CHL won't go for it. I can see frustrations but the CHL protecting itself is an obvious path and having a strong Junior league isn't the worst thing ever so...not sure there's a good middle ground.
 
Cardiac Jerks said:
You've lost me here. Why could a 19 year old who had a "good but not great" season the year prior not go back to the CHL?
Click to expand...

I agree. In Dach's case he had yet to dominate the WHL prior to being elevated. Chicago would have been best served giving him an extra year to dominate and then make a call the following season.

There are some players like Perfetti and Byfield who torched the OHL in their draft years that were in a position to benefit from AHL time when the OHL shut down due to covid but for many junior players another year in junior isn't a bad thing. Most 17 year olds aren't good enough to advance. We are really only talking about a small handful of players each year.

If you want to create a one player per team exemption for a players 19 year old year then I'd be open to that.
 
Whenever these threads pop up, it's clear the people who don't see the development money that flows from from the CHL down to lower leagues. It's like a pyramid with the NHL at the top. There is no benefit to taking gate earning out of CHL teams on a larger scale than just an individual player - it will hurt the CHL team that pays transfer fees down to AAA and midget leagues so that they remain operational. Cutting off talent percolation is not good for the NHL as a whole.

Then there is the commentary about shifting the draft age - good luck with winning that right-to-work suit since it went to the courts already and that is why the draft is now 18-year olds and not 19's or 20's. The league aren't going to win that case so get used to it as an 18-year old draft and look at the bigger picture of how stronger CHL teams benefit stronger leagues below those.

Or be petulant.
 
I think there should be some concession made, but doubt it will happen. Even one guy per team every 3 years would be a big improvement.
mouser said:
Agreed. Dach was a bit of a project when drafted, not at all unreasonable to expect he would need the two years of CHL development.

I'm skeptical there are many if any players who are "too good for juniors" but "not good enough for the NHL". What we tend to run into more often is the player rights belong to a crappy CHL team that isn't a great development place for the player. In which case the better approach may be to force a player trade to another CHL club.
Click to expand...
I don't even think it's "too good for the CHL", because what does that mean... more so, it's that there are guys for whom the AHL is probably the best developmental option.

I would point to Ridley Greig last year as an example... had he played in the AHL last season (and stayed healthy), he would have had a far greater chance to crack the NHL as a full-timer this year. Was he "hurt" by being one of the top WHLers last year? Certainly not; being captain was definitely a positive experience and he missed a lot of time the year prior. But he would have been a top 6er in the AHL last year, played all situations, and likely gotten a few NHL games.

Brent Othmann, Wyatt Johnson, Mason McTavish, Brandt Clarke, Dylan Guenther and Zach Bolduc are all current examples of guys who might benefit from at least some AHL time this season, but are unable to be assigned.
 
I never really bought the whole “he’s too good for junior but not good enough for the NHL” argument. Often times the player in question is like third in team scoring and his team was out early in the playoffs.
 
Chainshot said:
Whenever these threads pop up, it's clear the people who don't see the development money that flows from from the CHL down to lower leagues. It's like a pyramid with the NHL at the top. There is no benefit to taking gate earning out of CHL teams on a larger scale than just an individual player - it will hurt the CHL team that pays transfer fees down to AAA and midget leagues so that they remain operational. Cutting off talent percolation is not good for the NHL as a whole.

Then there is the commentary about shifting the draft age - good luck with winning that right-to-work suit since it went to the courts already and that is why the draft is now 18-year olds and not 19's or 20's. The league aren't going to win that case so get used to it as an 18-year old draft and look at the bigger picture of how stronger CHL teams benefit stronger leagues below those.

Or be petulant.
Click to expand...
The NFL and NBA have draft restrictions that preclude 18 year-olds.

NFL - 3 years removed from HS graduation
NBA - 1 year removed from HS graduation + must be at least 19 by the end of the calendar year of the draft.
 
CHL should allow more 20 yr old players per teams. It would raise the quality of opposition for those "barely ready" prospects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peat
x Tame Impala said:
Because he passed his 9 game ELC limit. Does that only affect his contract or is he not allowed to be sent down to the CHL after those 9 games as well?
Click to expand...
If a player plays in 10 nhl games they burn year 1 of their elc. Otherwise it can roll for another year (so instead of 18-21 it slides to age 22 when it expires). Teams can return players back to the chl afterwards. Edm did that with Leon.

The next key date or timeline is half the nhl season. Once a player is on the roster for half the season they accrue a year towards nhl free agency. That’s why Edm returns Leon back to the W so that he didn’t get to accrue that first year, he still burned it but didn’t gain a year towards free agency so he hits it at 26 vs 25.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom