61 replies to this topic

[FollowingHockey]

Just saw this in the Grand Island Independent story on the Tri-City press conference - This is crazy! Didn't think this would ever happen again with the drafts. Surprised the USHL hasn't announced this yet. Why does it take so long for a league to announce things to its fans?

Quote

Return of tenders

A tenders system will return to the USHL next month.

Tenders were used by the league during the Storm’s first years with each team allowed a maximum of five.

This time around, each team will be able to sign two tenders. The first one will result in the loss of a first-round draft pick, the second with the loss of a second-rounder.

Players with 1996 birthdates can start signing tenders starting Jan. 16.

“These are going to be used for elite, elite, elite kids,” Brooks said. “If we can’t find that elite kid that we want to sign and come to Tri-City, we won’t because you lose your first- and second-round draft choices.”

This can lead to some difficult choices.

“There are advantages and disadvantages to tendering,” Brooks said. “You lose a draft pick if you do and you gain a pretty good player. But you’ve got to make sure that’s the player you want.”

Edited by FollowingHockey, 30 December 2011 - 02:30 AM.

[hockeyboy]

This is a stupid idea, they may as well have the London Knights join the league. Stupid.

[Mr Ricochet]

At first thought I don't like this, but I didn't follow the league when tenders were allowed. I'd love to hear from fans who did and what their thoughts are.

Will GB, Dubuque, Indy, and the like be assured a top 5 type talent year in and year out? Seems likely. Will this give the top organizations an upper hand? Seems likely. Will it help the league find a sort of parity? Seems unlikely. Can this keep the very top players from leaving for the CHL because they won't have to go to a "bottom feeder" USHL club and instead a power house who they will make even more powerful? It could. Will this help a team like the Steel when they run into a situation like this year where the #1 pick in the draft will just stay away, and they instead can "negotiate" with a lesser player who will report to the team?

Agree 100% with you FH, too damn bad that the USHL feels zero need to inform its fans of anything. As Brooks well knows, the lack of information is fertile ground for speculation. Now with a smaller version of the tender system back and teams' ability to "negotiate" with 15-16-17 year olds, speculation will be as common as a sunrise.

[Yeti]

Wow. I had not heard about this before. Still don't know if I believe it until I hear it from the USHL.

[Yeti]

Quote

This time around, each team will be able to sign two tenders. The first one will result in the loss of a first-round draft pick, the second with the loss of a second-rounder.

Players with 1996 birthdates can start signing tenders starting Jan. 16.

So would this be a entry draft pick teams lose, or a futures draft pick?

So many questions with this. I may have to send an email to Brian Werger and pick his brain.

I know former Stars coach Steve Johnson was a big fan of tenders back in the day. Teams like Lincoln and Omaha that had a lot of money could go out and get the top talent. The rich get richer, so to speak. But I don't believe back then that teams lost a draft pick if a player signed a tender. What this current version of tenders sounds like is a big gamble, imo.

Teams have to locate and talk to a younger high-profile player and make sure he's interested in playing for that team. You don't want to waste a first or second round pick on a flake. I guess you'd also have to worry about going after a younger player, only to see the USNTDP offer him a spot on one of their rosters.

Does the player sign some kind of a contract? Unlike the old tenders system, I assume there would be no money exchanged. Either you are able to sign the player and lose a draft pick, or you decide to keep your draft picks.

Edit: I sent Werger a quick email....I'll let you know what he said when he responds.

Edited by Yeti, 30 December 2011 - 08:05 AM.

[The One Timer]

It'd seem like this only leads to losing a futures pick, as it'd be the same year.

Conversely, I don't really like this, for the reasons the Steel had last year. Sure, they had some '95's, but they were local kids who were just filling up the roster to play out the string.

[SCM2011]

Yeti, on 30 December 2011 - 07:29 AM, said:

Wow. I had not heard about this before. Still don't know if I believe it until I hear it from the USHL.

Its the real deal. Coach Larson mentioned it on his coaches show this week. They way he explained it was that you can tender 2 96's but they have to be on your 23 man roster. You cant tender a 96 and then stash him away on your affiliate list. They better be real special players if you are going to go that route.


Looking at this year as an example,Taylor Cammaratta (95) is a player where a tender would have been a steal. Beyond him there are only a handful of 95's that play a meaningful role on their teams.


Most of the best 96's will be scooped up by the NTDP so you are talking about a very select few that would make an immediate impact.

[Yeti]

Someone I know brought this up...I thought it was a good question. I assume if a team has already traded their first or second round futures pick, they won't be allowed to tender a player...or will they?

Really seems like a big risk, but every draft pick is a risk also. Teams have drafted a kid in the futures draft and have lost him to the NTDP, or maybe the kid never was interested in playing in the USHL.

I suppose both are risks...but this new tender system seems more of a risk, imo.

[Yeti]

SCM2011, on 30 December 2011 - 08:39 AM, said:

Its the real deal. Coach Larson mentioned it on his coaches show this week. They way he explained it was that you can tender 2 96's but they have to be on your 23 man roster. You cant tender a 96 and then stash him away on your affiliate list. They better be real special players if you are going to go that route.

That makes no sense to me. Why would you want two '96's on your main roster? How many '95's play in this league and contribute?

I can understand being allowed to keep them on your affiliate list...but requiring each team to include them on their main 23 player roster is nuts. Waste of a spot on the roster. How many '96's can come in and contribute enough at this level to warrant a spot on the 23 player roster? Like you said, the few that could are going to get snatched up by Team USA.

Edited by Yeti, 30 December 2011 - 10:45 AM.

[Ryan]

As far as 96's go, Blake Clarke was the only 96 in the USHL this season and had 1 goal in 13 games for Fargo. So yeah, unless you have a Cammarata that is head and shoulders above every other player in his age group and has said no to the NTDP or wasn't offered a spot, then it seems pointless if they have to be on the 23 man roster.

[SCM2011]

Yeti, on 30 December 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

SCM2011, on 30 December 2011 - 08:39 AM, said:

Its the real deal. Coach Larson mentioned it on his coaches show this week. They way he explained it was that you can tender 2 96's but they have to be on your 23 man roster. You cant tender a 96 and then stash him away on your affiliate list. They better be real special players if you are going to go that route.

That makes no sense to me. Why would you want two '96's on your main roster? How many '95's play in this league and contribute?

I can understand being allowed to keep them on your affiliate list...but requiring each team to include them on their main 23 player roster is nuts. Waste of a spot on the roster. How many '96's can come in and contribute enough at this level to warrant a spot on the 23 player roster? Like you said, the few that could are going to get snatched up by Team USA.

Exactly. It would only make sense for a kid like Cammarata. Maybe a Guertler but even that is debatable. I don't see anyone going with 2 96 tenders under this system unless they are trying to build a team 1-2 years out.

It would seem to make more sense to do what Green Bay did this year with the younger Schmaltz. Bring him up for 10 games and secure his rights for next year before the draft, without having to make a roster commitment.

It will be interesting to see the actual rule. If it is as Brooks and Larson have interpreted it, this could turn into the same type of situation the NBA had recently with high schoolers. Teams afraid to miss that next Kobe Bryant starts reaching for these guys and it hurts their overall depth, the league becomes younger, etc.

[TheShow]

Ryan, on 30 December 2011 - 11:08 AM, said:

As far as 96's go, Blake Clarke was the only 96 in the USHL this season and had 1 goal in 13 games for Fargo. So yeah, unless you have a Cammarata that is head and shoulders above every other player in his age group and has said no to the NTDP or wasn't offered a spot, then it seems pointless if they have to be on the 23 man roster.

Lil Schmaltz is also a 96.

[SCM2011]

Ryan, on 30 December 2011 - 11:08 AM, said:

As far as 96's go, Blake Clarke was the only 96 in the USHL this season and had 1 goal in 13 games for Fargo. So yeah, unless you have a Cammarata that is head and shoulders above every other player in his age group and has said no to the NTDP or wasn't offered a spot, then it seems pointless if they have to be on the 23 man roster.

I'm assuming that the tender offered in January is for next year's roster and to get a jump on the Futures draft. If that is the case, you would need to look at 95 birthyear players in the league and ask yourself, how many would you have committed a roster spot to for the early signing as opposed to selecting in the futures draft

[SCM2011]

If the rule is how Larson explained it and comments I've read made by Brooks, I see this hurting older players who come into the league after playing jrs for a couple years elsewhere.

Makes more sense to bury a kid with a ton of upside on your 4th line who could be around for 3 years than someone who might be a 4th line grinder with another year left.

[Ryan]

TheShow, on 30 December 2011 - 11:12 AM, said:

Ryan, on 30 December 2011 - 11:08 AM, said:

As far as 96's go, Blake Clarke was the only 96 in the USHL this season and had 1 goal in 13 games for Fargo. So yeah, unless you have a Cammarata that is head and shoulders above every other player in his age group and has said no to the NTDP or wasn't offered a spot, then it seems pointless if they have to be on the 23 man roster.

Lil Schmaltz is also a 96.

True, but Clarke was on the roster right from the get go, unlike Schmaltz who was added part way through. If he had signed a tender, then he would have had to be there from the start. So 1 player born in 96 made a USHL club out of camp.

[minor life]

Very few teams are likely to use this tool. However, it will be very enticing for players to go directly to teams and express their interest in that team. The team then can evaluate whether to tender or draft. More times than not it will be used as a guage for the draft. After speaking with a few coaches this morning, none of them said they were definitely going to tender any players, they all said it would take the exceptional player to get them to use this tool. All also said, that they would first attempt to assure that player they would take them in the draft, and said that if another team picking ahead of them were to be seen as potentially taking the player they had interest in, then they may use it, and even then it was seen as something that would be a big decision.

IMO this is a tool to allow more active long term recruiting for teams. Develop conversations around a potential tender offer, build the relationship and look further down the road. Players and parents at this level are usually pretty savy to the ins and outs of recruiting by this time, or are at least educated and have done their research on where they would like to go. I am sure though there will be some use of this, some of the teams that struggle could just make a run at a few players using "the USHL with us next year, or with someone else in two years" approach.

[Mr Ricochet]

Yeti, on 30 December 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

Really seems like a big risk, but every draft pick is a risk also. Teams have drafted a kid in the futures draft and have lost him to the NTDP, or maybe the kid never was interested in playing in the USHL.

I suppose both are risks...but this new tender system seems more of a risk, imo.

Unless I'm missing something, I see it as less of a risk, Yeti. Under the new scenario, as we know it at the moment, GB approaches a kid and says we want you, and have a tender to make sure you are a Gambler. Not we'd like to have you IF you fall to us at pick #15 or 16.

So there is now no worry on either the Gamblers' or the kids part that a club that he doesn't want to go to will draft him. If both parties want to become a union it will happen, no matter if a lesser team wants this top prospect.

This was linked on another thread. http://www.thejunior...%20Agenda.htmlI

I haven't had time to compare anything, but with the USHL being allowed to basically be the only Tier 1 option, and this new tender thing does this seem to anyone an attempt to keep top players from going Major Junior and instead stay in the US, and therefore play in the USHL?

[Mr Ricochet]

SCM2011, on 30 December 2011 - 11:20 AM, said:

If the rule is how Larson explained it and comments I've read made by Brooks, I see this hurting older players who come into the league after playing jrs for a couple years elsewhere.

Makes more sense to bury a kid with a ton of upside on your 4th line who could be around for 3 years than someone who might be a 4th line grinder with another year left.

Great point!!

[Mr Ricochet]

minor life, on 30 December 2011 - 11:29 AM, said:

After speaking with a few coaches this morning,

Then the new tender rule is as Brooks explained it? What do you know, from speaking with management/front office types, the new rule to be?

[minor life]

Unfortunately I dont have a copy of the rule, trying to get one now. Many coaches just know that the tool will be available. However, the people I spoke to said that they will be reluctant to use it. No one specifically said this, but it was infered, as pointed out here, that this could hurt teams wanting to make a run by picking up a few older kids from the NAHL or EJHL. Teams may risk loosing a few prospect players to other teams who have clearly dedicated themselves to building and developing from within, but those top level teams will still be the destination of choice for free agent players anyway. I have never spoken to a player who said they wanted to play for a last place team. I have spoken to players that have said they dont mind waiting to play for one of the top teams if thats what it takes to get there.

Lets just say every team used one tender, basically you just eliminated your first round of futures draft and, the second round in effect becomes the first round. I could see this scenario playing out because most teams wont mind keeping that player on the roster. Again though it is going to have to be one hell of a prospect to get most teams to do this. The futures draft just makes more sense, if the draft pick comes to camp and makes the team then great, if not you still have his rights locked up.

Definitely does make things interesting though.