Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Ridly Greig (LW) 28th Overall

BankStreetParade said:
It's a system that would be designed to fill the gap between "prospect is drafted and goes straight to the NHL" vs "prospect is drafted, doesn't make the NHL and the only alternative is back to his team".

This might get into contract law territory because obviously there's an agreement in place for a draft to be held rather than teams jockeying to sign young prospects like free agents.

I'm assuming the idea currently is that if a player under a certain age can't play f/t in the NHL that it's monetarily beneficial to his junior team for him to come back as it gives them more financial incentive, via gate revenues, to continue developing players like him. So, just make it a cash transaction and let teams develop their assets according to their own development philosophy.

I don't know about every player necessarily falling under this category but it could be something that teams negotiate with the junior teams these players are drafted from. Maybe a top 3 pick is worth $500k in transfer fee but a third round pick is only worth $100k? Something like that.

But it is a weird grey zone where two teams technically own the rights to a player at the same time and both entities have financial incentives involved. If it's about money, let's make it about money and move on from the weird technicalities that keep certain players in junior because they're under a certain age.
Click to expand...
Teams decide on when they will go on runs 3 years prior to going on them, and they tank for high draft picks these years and then make their runs with these guys, which lasts for only a season, with these players. I know for a fact CHL teams will fight with everything they have to keep the guys under 20 not in the NHL in the CHL. Deciding to rebuild and doing bad for 3 years, and then in your run year you get 2/3 of your guys swiped into the AHL? Teams will be fighting that, and it’s a concession that is not likely to change.
 
Last edited:
BondraTime said:
Teams decide on when they will go on runs 3 years prior to going on them, and they tank for high draft picks these years and then make their runs with these guys, which lasts for only a season, with these players. I know for a fact CHL teams will fight with everything they have to keep the guys under 29 not in the NHL in the CHL. Deciding to rebuild and doing bad for 3 years, and then in your run year you get 2/3 of your guys swiped into the AHL? Teams will be fighting that, and it’s a concession that is not likely to change.
Click to expand...
Again, if it's based on money you can create monetary incentives for both sides through the use of things like transfer fees. At the end of the day, doesn't the NHL's team rights to own players under prospect supercede all other agreements? I don't think they'll flex that position too much as it's detrimental to a good working relationship but I have to imagine there's lots of GMs out there who would rather develop some of their guys at a professional level than watch them go back to junior and pointlessly dominate their competition.

If your point is that it isn't about money, then I would need a clarification on why the CHL would have such a hard stance on the subject.
 
Micklebot said:
You think? Idk enough about him to know for sure, but LW is pretty crowded too unless Stützle shifts to center.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he could play LW or RW positions. This is purely my speculation that he won't be playing C. A lot could change in the 2/3 years.
 
BankStreetParade said:
Again, if it's based on money you can create monetary incentives for both sides through the use of things like transfer fees. At the end of the day, doesn't the NHL's team rights to own players under prospect supercede all other agreements? I don't think they'll flex that position too much as it's detrimental to a good working relationship but I have to imagine there's lots of GMs out there who would rather develop some of their guys at a professional level than watch them go back to junior and pointlessly dominate their competition.

If your point is that it isn't about money, then I would need a clarification on why the CHL would have such a hard stance on the subject.
Click to expand...
I guarantee you, they will put their foot down on that issue.

CHL gets paid for each player, European or home bread, that’s is drafted from the league. Teams make lots of money on their league runs, and then Memorial cup runs. That’s 30+ games of playoff revenue, sponsorships, and all other revenue streams.

Saint John would have lost tons, TONS of money on their Mem cup run had they lost Chabot, Zboril, Joseph, etc. They lose 4 years of lead up to their run (they began their run with the drafting of Nathan Noel, Chabot, and Joseph in 2013), including lots of sponsorship money, 20+ playoff games, 5 memorial Cup games, and very likely drafted player developmental bonuses for having them on their rosters.

Look at Halifax, would they have been happy taking the 500k for Drouin and losing 10+ games of playoff revenue? 10,000 fans for 10+ games at 20+ bucks a ticket, + advertising, + concessions. All it takes is an extra game or 2 from some teams to erase that money received.

100% GM’s would rather have control over their players, the reason they don’t is because the CHL and it’s members are extremely, extremely against that.

The CHL is a business, they’ve done their homework, and there is a reason they have been staunchly against that for the past 20 years.
 
Last edited:
BondraTime said:
I guarantee you, they will put their foot down on that issue.

CHL gets paid for each player, European or home bread, that’s is drafted from the league. Teams make lots of money on their league runs, and then Memorial cup runs. That’s 30+ games of playoff revenue, sponsorships, and all other revenue streams.

Saint John would have lost tons, TONS of money on their Mem cup run had they lost Chabot, Zboril, Joseph, etc. They lose 4 years of lead up to their run (they began their run with the drafting of Nathan Noel, Chabot, and Joseph in 2013), including lots of sponsorship money, 20+ playoff games, 5 memorial Cup games, and very likely drafted player developmental bonuses for having them on their rosters.

Look at Halifax, would they have been happy taking the 500k for Drouin and losing 10+ games of playoff revenue? 10,000 fans for 10+ games at 20+ bucks a ticket, + advertising, + concessions. All it takes is an extra game or 2 from some teams to erase that money received.

100% GM’s would rather have control over their players, the reason they don’t is because the CHL and it’s members are extremely, extremely against that.

The CHL is a business, they’ve done their homework, and there is a reason they have been staunchly against that for the past 20 years.
Click to expand...
I think you're focusing too much on specific dollar amounts which I'm only using as a broad example to discuss the idea of transfer fees, as a whole. There's obviously no one-size-fits-all approach to these negotiations just like the same can be said for any contract negotiation. Also, this would be a tool to be used in some circumstances. I doubt every NHL team is going to pull every single draft pick out of the CHL, pay a negotiated transfer fee and slam their AHL teams with a massive influx of players. This is a tool designed to be used in very specific circumstances where there's a negotiation between the two sides and the NHL team feels their player would be better served developing in the AHL over juniors.

I'm not going to pretend it's not a complicated situation to resolve but there's definitely something that can be worked out, via a compensation mechanism, that can satisfy both sides. The example you used is great but how many teams, on the flip side, sell their best players for draft compensation because they're nowhere close to the Mem Cup or extended playoff runs? Maybe they would rather financial compensation from a transfer fee rather than draft picks + players? I don't know, but some amount of money must be worth it for teams that are totally out of contention in those leagues.
 
A writer from Erprinkside (always forget the name of the service) said he had a pretty good source that said ottawa was going to take kleven with that last pick in the third round. But they didn’t think greig would be available.
But then they took jarventie at the start of round 2. So I dono
 
Burrowsaurus said:
A writer from Erprinkside (always forget the name of the service) said he had a pretty good source that said ottawa was going to take kleven with that last pick in the third round. But they didn’t think greig would be available.
But then they took jarventie at the start of round 2. So I dono
Click to expand...

You mean last pick in 1st round? Where we took Greig?
 
OD99 said:
You mean last pick in 1st round? Where we took Greig?
Click to expand...
Yes. Sens didn’t expect him to be there. (Alledgedly)

just noticed my typo. I meant our third pick in the first round. Not last pick in the third round.
 
Last edited:
Burrowsaurus said:
A writer from Erprinkside (always forget the name of the service) said he had a pretty good source that said ottawa was going to take kleven with that last pick in the third round. But they didn’t think greig would be available.
But then they took jarventie at the start of round 2. So I dono
Click to expand...
JD Burke, personally wouldn't take anything he says with much trust.

Strange they would take him at 28 (but Grieg "may" have changed that...nothing on Jarventie) but not 33, but no way to say it's not true, just his "sources" word against what actually happened

 
BondraTime said:
JD Burke, personally wouldn't take anything he says with much trust.
Click to expand...
Yes that’s him. Yeah could be true or not. And it’s a vanilla piece of intel. I am surprised how many times he is able to get an interview or a sound bite from scouts from teams. And he does have a podcast with button. Who has some contacts for sure. Who knows.
 
Burrowsaurus said:
Yes that’s him. Yeah could be true or not. And it’s a vanilla piece of intel. I am surprised how many times he is able to get an interview or a sound bite from scouts from teams. And he does have a podcast with button. Who has some contacts for sure. Who knows.
Click to expand...
He's head of EPrinkside, they are a large service.

Not very good at evaluation (Stutzle at 8, and the reasoning was baffling, being one example), but very good articles and data tracking
 
BondraTime said:
JD Burke, personally wouldn't take anything he says with much trust.

Strange they would take him at 28 (but Grieg "may" have changed that...nothing on Jarventie) but not 33, but no way to say it's not true, just his "sources" word against what actually happened

Click to expand...


I really don't like Burke.. tooo many hot takes meant to be take seriously, to be taken seriously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReginKarlssonLehner
BondraTime said:
JD Burke, personally wouldn't take anything he says with much trust.

Strange they would take him at 28 (but Grieg "may" have changed that...nothing on Jarventie) but not 33, but no way to say it's not true, just his "sources" word against what actually happened

Click to expand...

The only way this makes sense is if they had Greig, Jarvrntie and Klevin inside their top 28 players and in that order. It’s quite possible since Greig was a steal at 28 according to some scouts. Remember there was a lot of talk about 20-60 being a “tier” in last years draft.
 
GCK said:
The only way this makes sense is if they had Greig, Jarvrntie and Klevin inside their top 28 players and in that order. It’s quite possible since Greig was a steal at 28 according to some scouts. Remember there was a lot of talk about 20-60 being a “tier” in last years draft.
Click to expand...
If that were the case, the informant should have been adamant the Sens were going to take Jarventie with their third 1st.

Only way it makes sense is they expected Grieg and Jarventie to be taken before 28, which was extremely unlikely. Grieg definitely had a good chance, Jarventie had very little. In which case, someone being adamant about the Sens taking Jarventie at 28 makes much more sense, seeing the Sens clearly thought they needed to jump on Jarventie, and let 12 other teams pick before jumping at Kleven.

Not sure anyone who knew the Sens had Jarventie ahead of Kleven would expect Jarventie to be taken before 28. Just seems like a jumped conclusion minutes after the Sens take Kleven at 44.

Too many hoops for me to take it seriously.
 
BondraTime said:
If that were the case, the informant should have been adamant the Sens were going to take Jarventie with their third 1st.

Only way it makes sense is they expected Grieg and Jarventie to be taken before 28, which was extremely unlikely. Grieg definitely had a good chance, Jarventie had very little. In which case, someone being adamant about the Sens taking Jarventie at 28 makes much more sense, seeing the Sens clearly thought they needed to jump on Jarventie, and let 12 other teams pick before jumping at Kleven.

Not sure anyone who knew the Sens had Jarventie ahead of Kleven would expect Jarventie to be taken before 28. Just seems like a jumped conclusion minutes after the Sens take Kleven at 44.

Too many hoops for me to take it seriously.
Click to expand...

I could see the Sens having both Jarventie and Kleven in their top 31 but i think its more likely they were targetting Javentie at 28 and Kleven at 33 until Grieg was available and they shifted gears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aragorn
Micklebot said:
I could see the Sens having both Jarventie and Kleven in their top 31 but i think its more likely they were targetting Javentie at 28 and Kleven at 33 until Grieg was available and they shifted gears.
Click to expand...
Sure, very possibly. In which case the Sens were targeting Jarventie at the end of the 1st. I 100% believe both guys were in our top 25. I also believe they didn’t believe they would need to take either Kleven or Jarventie at 28. The Kings had Simmonds in their top 20, Moller wasn’t even in their top 30, they still picked Moller at 52 and Simmonds at 61.

All as simple as the guy talking to Burke making an educated guess, which I think is likely.

I had no way to evaluate the Greig pick other than looking at lists at the time of the draft, I’d be lying if I said I watched more than 3 of his Hlinka games, in which I wasn’t paying much attention to him at all. He went around where he was ranked, so I was content.

Both the other guys would have been very surprising picks at 28, but we have our own list.
 
Last edited:
Burrowsaurus said:
A writer from Erprinkside (always forget the name of the service) said he had a pretty good source that said ottawa was going to take kleven with that last pick in the third round. But they didn’t think greig would be available.
But then they took jarventie at the start of round 2. So I dono
Click to expand...

Last pick of the third round is right about where I would have taken Kleven. :naughty:

But seriously I doubt that they had him in Greig's slot given they took Jarventie a few picks later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom