Rangers Seek Compensation For Cherepanov
Matt Bodenschatz | National Hockey League
Nov 7, 10:31 AM | Hype this story!
Last week, FF started a new interactive feature with an unintentionally controversial topic. The reader feedback was spectacular.
This week, we’ll look to do the same — minus the controversy.
Typically I avoid mimicking entries from other blogs, but this morning, I can’t help myself, as I’d like to get the views of Pittsburgh Penguins fans on a New York Rangers issue.
James Mirtle has put together a piece about the Rangers’ desire to receive a compensatory draft pick for the death of prospect Alexei Cherepanov.
There clearly are two sides to the story. One side might argue that the value of one’s life extends beyond the rinks of the NHL, and the Rangers need to respect this during such a sad time for the Cherapanov family. The other could counter with the argument that, had the Rangers lost Cherepanov’s rights by not signing him by their deadline, they would receive compensation, so how is this different?
And that is exactly what path Rangers assistant GM Cam Hope took, according to the New York Post.
“We are not attempting to capitalize on a tragedy, but there would be no question regarding the Rangers’ right to a compensatory pick if Cherepanov had been revived and survived the incident and were on life support.”
But there are so many angles to this that haven’t been explored.
What happens if a current roster player dies? Should compensation be awarded? If not, why should compensation be awarded for a non-roster player whose value could be minimal?
What about players forced to retire prematurely – both of prospect and current player status? Should teams be compensated if a player has career-ending surgery or suffers from a career-ending illness or disease?
And then there is this: how is compensation determined? If you go by player salary, overpaid players would translate to better compensation, yet higher salary often does not mean better player. And the same goes for draft position. Higher draft picks don’t always pan out to be the best players in their draft class, and players ranked in the second round and beyond often become NHL stars.
Ultimately, this could open up a huge can of worms that could be troublesome for the NHL.
So, with that being said, it’s time for you, the reader, to chime in for this week’s discussion topic of focus.
Here is what we know:
- Alexei Cherepanov won’t be suiting up for the Rangers…ever.
- The Rangers, justifiably, would like compensation
So what do you think? Please vote in the following poll and then take a moment to post a comment with your thoughts on the topic. Are the Rangers acting inappropriately? Is this a potential problem for the NHL? What should be done? Your contributions are appreciated.
Comments
Detective Dan
Nov 7, 11:12 AM
If the Rangers receive compensation, so should the Canucks for Bourdon.
Matt Bodenschatz
Nov 7, 11:21 AM
I agree, and that is where it gets quite interesting.
Ben Schmidt
Nov 7, 11:34 AM
I voted yes, but only for prospects. To be specific, I think it should only be for unsigned prospects.
Once a prospect has signed, the team has some amount of authority over them. They can make them take physicals, they can urge them to avoid risky activities, and encourage them towards better habits. Without a contract, they have no authority over them whatsover.
Sure, they can’t completely control the players in question, so there are always things out of their control that can happen, but I do think that element of authority is what makes the difference. Any unsigned prospect could just pull a Blake Wheeler if they decide they just don’t like what the team is telling them to do, after all, while a player like Bissonnette had no choice but to pay attention, since his only options were to do things the Penguins’ way, or else toil away in the ECHL or even give up on hockey completely.
I’m pretty sure compensatory draft picks only apply for players picked in the first round, so I don’t see this system having much potential for getting abused, since the compensatory draft pick is going to end up being later than the original one, anyway.
tothrules
Nov 7, 12:15 PM
I think that in no way, shape, or form should the Rangers, or any team be compensated in such a situation. By choosing a player in a draft, teams know that they are rolling the dice on the future (or lack thereof) that the player will have with the organization. How many first round draft picks never pan out for a team and set foot on NHL ice. Does that mean that the team should receive compensation because their choice was not the right one. Yes it was a tragedy that Cherepanov passed away, but would the team be asking for compensation if he were a seventh round pick? Just because he had more promise and potential than others does not make the draft any more of a sure thing that he would contribute to the team.
KG
Nov 7, 01:27 PM
Yeah, I don’t know about this. It is obviously a very delicate situation. I am not sure if they should be given a pick. They should probably look at it as if their is never guarantee’s with draft picks. If he was a bust, as most picks are, they would be given nothing…
Again, it is a very tough spot. But I would think that a compensatory pick is not necessary…
Ben Schmidt
Nov 7, 02:38 PM
Actually, now that I’ve gotten a better look at the rules for compensation, I’d like to change my vote. To get compensation, the team would have had to have made a bona fide offer that was not accepted, and the player would have to be eligible for the next draft.
To put it bluntly, I’m pretty sure being dead makes one ineligible for the draft.
DAVID SCOTT
Nov 7, 02:55 PM
It is my (mis?) understanding that the purpose of the compensatory pick is to make whole the team in the event a player cannot be signed despite the teams good faith efforts. It is not simply for the loss due to injury or such.
Players who submit themselves for the draft are making a good faith offering of their services. If a team makes a good faith selection in the draft, and that good faith is violated by the players refusal to sign during the regulated period, the team should be compensated for the loss of their good faith. A players injury, or death, would not qualify as a violation of the implied good faith, so to expect compensation for the violation of good faith would seem unfounded.
Matt Bodenschatz
Nov 7, 04:08 PM
David, you are correct; however, the Rangers — or any other team — could make an argument that the good faith effort to sign the player in question was eliminated based on death, injury or illness. As a hypothetical, what if the Rangers had planned to make an offer to Cherepanov in January? They would be within the permitted time-frame to do so, but because of tragedy, the opportunity no longer exists.
pens#1
Nov 7, 06:17 PM
where does it stop? so a player gets drafted and then devolps a drug problem- its a horrible thing to deal with when a prospect dies but that is just the way it goes- sometimes Prospects workout sometimes they dont
jmont
Nov 7, 07:22 PM
And what about the opposite side of this? If the Rangers can seek compensation for the loss of the player, an asset, to something that was not in the player’s control, then shouldn’t the opposite (in fairness) be true? E.G. The player(or in this case the family, on his behalf) should have a right to compensation for the loss of that same potential future and contract offer (an asset for him)? In that case, the potential value would balance, and compensation would go either way.
The Rangers are basically saying “We want compensated for the loss of the ability to pay this player to play for us.” If they recieve that, then they should pay the player(family) the salary they would have offered. Practically, this doesn’t seem viable for the Rangers.
I say no, unless the player or team backs out or makes themselves unavailable willingly, there should be no compensation paid either way. Also, I don’t care what the Asst. GM says, they wouldn’t be seeking money if the tragedy hadn’t happened, yet it has and they are. That sounds like capitalizing on the tragedy to me. Let the poor kid Rest in piece. It’s bad enough he went before his time, now someone’s trying to gain over it.
meecrofilm
Nov 7, 08:25 PM
Part of the draft is the risk involved. When you draft someone, you risk not only them turning out to be NHL-calibre or not, but that they’ll stay healthy enough to make it there in the first place. Anything that happens along the way should not merit any compensation whatsoever.
Nate
Nov 8, 10:06 AM
Should the company I work for try to seek compensation, say from my insurance company, in the event of my death because they have spent time and money over the last ten years training me to be a good asset to the company? If this doesn’t apply to any other market in society, then why should NHL teams be any different?
Seems to me the Rags are trying to capitalize on a terrible situation and gives me one more reason to respect them less.
DAVID SCOTT
Nov 8, 01:18 PM
Good Faith: Compliance with standards of decency and honesty: bargained in good faith.
Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others. It derives from the translation of the Latin term bona fide, and courts use the two terms interchangeably.
Unless it can be shown that the player violated the implied good faith at the time of the draft by later causing the injury, therefor removing himself from the eligibility, or failed to disclose an extant condition that led to, or contributed to, the injury or death, he has not violated his good faith offering. He is instead is the subject of an “act of god,” an unanticipated event that both side bear as a risk.
In the event of injury, it would seem clear that the anticipatory risk of health is known and accepted by both parties whenever dealing with an athlete who’s profession exposes his body to the rigors of sports such as hockey.
In the event of death, as in this case, this does not constitute the players violation of good faith, as he did not commit this act to deprive or defraud the team of his services. Therefore the expectation of Good Faith fails to hold up as a standard for the purpose of claim.
Ranger Fan
Nov 8, 03:06 PM
Hey guys, found this site while googling for discussion on this topic. The question posed in the blog and the question about this particular Cherapanov situation are completely different. You bring up all the risk in the draft process and that teams should be aware of it, and surely anything can happen, but that’s not being argued. A rule already exists that entitles a team to compensation if a first round pick is unsigned. If you’d like to change that rule, fight for it.
In this case, the Rangers asst GM is correct. If Cherapanov did not die and was on life support, they would be getting a compensatory pick and that is a fact. The comparison to Bourdon is a bad one because the main piece of the rule is that a player is unsigned.
As a Ranger fan, I wish this was able to be handled internally between the team and the NHL. There’s no benefit to this story being out there.
DAVID SCOTT
Nov 9, 12:43 PM
RangerFan,
I hate to disagree with a fan of the Blue Machine :P
Here is the actual rule you are referring to:
Article 8.3. Compensatory Draft Picks:
“...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…”
As he is neither going to be again eligible for the Entry Draft nor become a Free Agent. The Rangers do not qualify for a compensatory pick.
JH
Nov 9, 05:46 PM
The Cherepanov and Bourdon accidents are tragic, for their families and the NHL. The question is whether these accidents can be prevented in the future. Maybe better testing on the NHL’s part for the Cherepanov situation and educating the players (youngsters) on dangerous activities such as motorcycle etc… Just seems like more should/can be done to prevent tragedies like these from occuring in the future…. and it is ridiculous how the Rangers are seeking another pick to replace Cherepanov. My thoughts. http://jib-sports-culture.blogspot.com/2008/11/tragedy-for-promising-rookies.html
Commenting is closed for this article.