Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [hockhist] RE: Dynasties and Territorial Rights to Prospects

Expand Messages
  • William Underwood
    ... OHA-Oshawa & Niagara Falls; SJHL-Evestan, QUE-Shawnigan, WIN-Braves, ... Actually it was Waterloo Jr B. ... The EHL was officially an amateur league (even
    Message 1 of 17 , Sep 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      >> BOSTON: 3 minor pro pus the Broos:
      > 8 junior clubs plus 10 lower affiliates (for some reason they didn't
      > have lower affiliates on the three Winnipeg area junior teams they
      > owned)
      > 2 in the OHA, 1 SJHL, 1 in Quebec (with 2 lower levels) 3 in Winnipeg
      >> and 1 Ontario junior B team with lower youth affiliates.

      >CHL-Minnesota, WHL-San Francisco, AHL-Hershey
      OHA-Oshawa & Niagara Falls; SJHL-Evestan, QUE-Shawnigan, WIN-Braves,
      >Monarchs and Warriors; OHArB-(Lakeshore ?)

      Actually it was Waterloo Jr B.

      >Also sent players to Clinton EHL

      The EHL was officially an amateur league (even though it really was not,
      players were paid but it and the IHL were not regarded as being pro)
      thus it had no junior sponsorship slots. Only pro affiliates had them.
      This was true as late as the 1970's when 2 US Olympians had actually
      played in the IHL after college to maintain amateur status.

      >
      >> DETROIT: same structure as above.
      > 8 junior teams and 12 lower affiliates.
      > 1 in the OHA, 1 in the AJHL, 1 in Quebec, 1 Ontario junior A non OHA,
      1
      > jr. A in Manitoba. 1 in the maritimes, the Edmonton Oil Kings who were
      > an independent team but a top club and an additional Edmonton youth
      >> organization complete with two sub affiliates!

      >AHL-Pittsburgh, CHL-Memphis, WHL-Seattle
      >OHA-Hamilton, AJHL-?,

      Edmonton Oil Kings were not in the AJHL. They played in the provincial
      senior league but were a junior team. And they also sponsored the
      Edmonton Canadians AC. There was no real AJHL so one assumes that they
      played in some other competition.

      >Quebec-St. Jerome; Ontario junior A non
      >OHA-Sudbury;

      Not Sudbury, it was Stratford.

      >Manitoba-Weyburn; maritimes-Fredericton

      They did sponsor Weyburn but it is in Saskatchewan. The Manitoba team
      was Flin Flon who I believe actually played in the SJHL too.

      >Also sent players to Johnstown EHL, Toledo-IHL

      Again these were amateur teams officially.

      >
      >> NEW YORK:
      > 5 farm clubs and the Rangers.
      > 9 junior teams only 2 sub affiliates
      > 1 OHA, 4 other non OHA Ontario A teams and 1 B, 1 in Quebec, 2 in
      >> Manitoba
      >

      >AHL-Baltimore, Providence, (Springfield ?),

      Nope, they actually shared Rochester with Toronto.

      >CHL-Minnesota, WHL-Vancouver
      >OHA-Kitchener; non OHA Ontario A teams (North Bay?) (Ottawa?)??;

      North Bay and Burlington.

      >1
      >B,-???;

      The Kitchener Green Shirts who they sponsored as well as the Kitchener
      Rangers in the OHA.

      >Quebec-Drummondville;

      Three Rivers was shared with the Leafs.

      >Manitoba-Winnipeg, Brandon


      Correct, the Winnipeg Rangers (there were 4 junior teams in Winnipeg all
      of whom were bought by Ben Hatskin later on and merged into one team the
      Jets) and Brandon.

      >Also Fort Wayne-IHL, New Haven EHL

      Again officially amateur.

      >> CHCAGO:
      > Hawks plus 3
      > 8 junior clubs 11 sub affiliates
      > 1 OHA, 2 non OHA Ontario junior A, 2 Ontario junior B, 1 Quebec, 2 in
      >> the SJHL.
      >

      >CHL-St. Louis, WHL-Los Angeles, AHL-Buffalo
      >OHA-St. Catharines; OHA Ontario junior A-Sault Ste. Marie, ?;

      Not the Sault, it was Brockville and they also had Sudbury.

      > 2 Ontario
      >junior B-Dixie,

      Dixie and Sarnia.


      ?; Quebec-Sorel; SJHL-Moose Jaw, Saskatoon

      Correct.

      >Also Greensboro-EHL, Port Huron-IHL


      Officially amateur.

      > TORONTO:
      > The Leafs and 3 farm clubs.
      > 8 junior clubs and 5 sub affiliates.
      > 2 in the OHA, 1 Ontario non OHA jr A, 1 Ontario jr B, 1 Manitoba
      > (shared
      > with the Bruins), 1 Quebec (shared with New York), 1 Alberta, 1 SJHL.

      AHL-Rochester, CHL-Tulsa, WHL-Victoria
      >OHL-London, Tor Marlboros; non OHA jr A-(Garson?) Ontario jr B-York;

      Ottawa Capitals Jr A and Markham Waxers Jr B

      >Manitoba -?;

      Shared the Winnipeg Monarchs with the Bruins.

      >Quebec-Trois Rivieres; Alberta-Edmonton ML;

      Not Edmonton, it was the Calgary Buffaloes who played in a local Calgary
      competition.

      > SJHL-Flin Flon

      nope. Melville.

      >Also Charlotte & Nashville EHL

      Again officially amateur.

      >> MONTREAL...
      > Habs and 5 affiliates
      > 11 junior clubs, 10 sub affiliates
      > 2 in the OHA (one was Montreal), 2 non OHA Ontario jr A, 1 Ontario jr
      > B,
      >> 1 SJHL, 4 Quebec jr A 1 Quebec jr B.

      >AHL-Cleveland, Quebec, CHL-Houston, ? ?

      Providence AHL, Seattle WHL

      >OHA-Montreal, Peterborough; non OHA-(Hull ?),

      Nope, hull is in Quebec. It was Kirkland Lake.

      >Fort William;

      Nope. Columbus Canadien Junior not classified on the list that I have
      and I'm not even really sure where they were from.

      They also had Chatham jr B

      >SJHL-Regina; Quebec jr A-Lachine, Verdun, Thetford Mines, Nationale;
      Quebec jr B-?

      In Quebec they actually had Verdun, Nationale Jr A
      Maisonneuve Jr a (both Montreal metro), Hull, and Lachine Jr B.

      Plus they didn't even exercise one junior slot under the Aces.


      >Muskegon-IHL


      Officially amateur.

      >
      >> A few things come to the surface.
      >
      > 1-Not all teams used all of the sub affiliates.
      >> 2-Not all teams even fully used their sponsorship allotments


      >Well, population density probably did matter in this, it's hard to
      imagine the need to have affliliations in some of the small cities.
      Which is why the 50/70 miles rule gave Toronto and Montreal an
      >advantage.

      The hitch is that they didn't own the rights to all players in those
      areas, only those who played on affiliate clubs, signed C Forms AND were
      protected plus anyone who signed a C Form and were on another club.

      >Thinking about how the B's got Orr's rights, you probably wouldn't use
      all your affiliations just in case a "must have" player came up
      >someplace.

      No, the reason was that you didn't want to write a check. Just buying
      Parry Sound would not have gotten them Orr unless he signed that magical
      C Form.

      >>> One of the more famous incidents involving this rule was when the
      > Canadiens wanted Phil Watson who the Rangers had and the Rangers went
      > and proved that he had mixed parentage and that meant the Habs
      couldn't
      >>> claim him.
      >

      >> Actually Watson came up long before this rule. There was a
      controversy
      >> over Phil Myre.
      >


      >It seems to me to be basically the same rule, you'll have to explain
      >the difference to me.

      I'm not so sure about the Watson case but it was long before there was
      such a rule. There was no draft and no restriction on teams signing
      French players. Now he DID play on a Montreal sponsored team... but I
      think that the writer had the two Phils confuse, it was Myre with the
      very non French seeming name who DEFINITELY had an issue in the 60's.
      The only other issue that MIGHT have came up was the Maroon v. Canadien
      issue of French versus English kids...There were French kids who played
      elsewhere in the O6 era. Lorne Chabot, Marcel Pronovost, and Pierre
      Pilote to name a few. So the Habs had no monopoly de jure on French
      talent.

      Not to mention that the Hab super star of the 30's was not even French,
      he was Howie Morenz of German stock as I recall.

      >Apparently the Canadiens won the Myre case. Do
      >you know the details??

      They got him on the basis of two points. First of all it turns out he IS
      French. Secondly, they took him with their regular pick at number 5
      instead of a cultural selection anyhow so in the end the point was moot.

      >
      >>> There certainly was a Montreal hook and crook in the 1969 draft
      fiasco
      >
      >
      >> What fiasco, they got a third line player and a guy that was a WHA
      > super
      >> star! That had a lot to do with their dynasty?


      >The fiasco was that this first "open" draft got manipulated to where
      >the top three teams in the league got 7 of the 13 picks.

      Thanks to the idiotic trading of a pick to Boston and oddly enough of
      the top 5 first rounders that year 2 had no careers to speak of, one was
      a WHA super star, one a good offensive defenceman that Minny foolishly
      traded away, and the other a third liner. The best payer of that year? A
      skinny diabetic kid named Clarke that went 17th overall! The second
      best? Probably the NHL's all time worst dressed man, Butch Goring who
      made it to 51st!
      So what I meant was in the long run it ended up no "fiasco" and in fact
      had very little to do with the Hab success of the 1970's. And that the
      cultural selections contributed very little to any success in the long
      term hence the myth that they "had the rights to the top two French kids
      in Quebec" created their dynasty was just that, a myth. Had it went on
      it would have. But it didn't and in part because of clubs growing weary
      of Montreal NOT using the selections for the first several years. And
      interestingly enough, they didn't really fight losing it nor really seem
      to care. There was no battle here. And the Habs were right, they didn't
      need it, witness the dynasty that they produced by shrewd trading for
      picks and good management.

      To see the impact of good management and how it was what made Montreal
      tick you have to go no farther than the Habs themselves. When we leave
      the Pollack era into the Grundman era there were no more shred trades,
      hair brained draft picks and the team went down hill. Grundman wasn't a
      hockey man, unlike Pollack or Selke before him. Serge Savard did better
      but then we come to Rejean Houle in the 90's and things went worse.

      As for all of the picks that they accumulated, other teams could have
      done the same but simply didn't. They didn't. Boston did to a degree and
      take note the Bruins also won as a result and would have won more if not
      for the WHA. Toronto made a wreck of their farm system under Stafford
      Smythe on the eve of expansion cutting their player pool, Detroit after
      Jack Adams left allowed theirs to fall into disrepair hence of the O 6
      they were both destined to go down.

      Interestingly enough only three other clubs aside from the Flyers even
      looked at Clarke...Detroit (who's western guy BEGGED them to take him)
      New York and Montreal. So I guess we again see "les Habitants son la",
      the Habs are there while other teams were missing the boat and screaming
      about the cultural picks as a fig leaf for their own internal failings.

      It was good to get rid of the rule at that point. Even the Habs saw
      that. It would have been a problem in the future. But up to that point,
      the rule in reality had less impact on the fortunes of the NHL than did
      the quality of management. The Habs only yielded one player who would
      ever wear a Cup ring from it. They didn't even gain a ton out of the
      rest (except a draft pick to not to claim Tardif prior to the expansion
      draft from Quebec allowing them to put another guy on their initial four
      man list and it was not a 1st rounder as I recall.




      To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
      hockhist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • William Underwood
      They were with the Wings as of 1965. ... From: francz [mailto:francz39@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 1:24 PM To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
      Message 2 of 17 , Sep 4, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        They were with the Wings as of 1965.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: francz [mailto:francz39@...]
        Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 1:24 PM
        To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [hockhist] Re: Dynasties and Territorial Rights to Prospects


        --- Karkoski James <austin@...> wrote:
        > > TORONTO:
        > Manitoba -?; Quebec-Trois Rivieres; Alberta-Edmonton
        > ML; SJHL-Flin Flon

        James

        What season/s did the Leafs sponsor Flin Flon? I
        thought that in the late fifties they were affiliated
        with the Rangers (Ted Hampson, Mel Pearson, Duane
        Rupp), and at the end of sponsorship in the
        mid-sixties it was the Red Wings (Tom Gilmore, Cal
        Purinton, Larry Klewchuk, Gerry Hart).

        Thanks,

        Rob

        francz39@...




        _______________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
        http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush



        To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
        hockhist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • francz
        ... They were both SJHL teams. I was in Joe Daley s Sportscards store in Winnipeg back in 1993 and talked with Joe about his junior days. (He asked me where
        Message 3 of 17 , Sep 5, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- William Underwood <wausport@...>
          wrote:
          > >> DETROIT: same structure as above.
          > >Manitoba-Weyburn; maritimes-Fredericton
          > They did sponsor Weyburn but it is in Saskatchewan.
          > The Manitoba team was Flin Flon who I believe
          > actually played in the SJHL too.

          They were both SJHL teams. I was in Joe Daley's
          Sportscards store in Winnipeg back in 1993 and talked
          with Joe about his junior days. (He asked me where I
          was from, I told him Flin Flon, and that got things
          started!) He said when he was playing junior, the Red
          Wings were putting their better prospects in Weyburn,
          and the lesser lights got shipped up to Flin Flon.
          But he still didn't like the bus rides up there. I
          later worked in Trail with Kenny Koshey, whose junior
          career began with Weyburn during their first Red Wings
          season.

          Rob Swiniarski

          francz39@...





          _______________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
          http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
        • Karkoski James
          ... The guy that threw me was Dave Parenteau, who played in the Leaf s pro affiliate in Tulsa in 64-65 who played junior in Flin Flon that season. He also was
          Message 4 of 17 , Sep 5, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            On 2004.9.5, at 02:23 AM, francz wrote:

            >
            > --- Karkoski James <austin@...> wrote:
            >>> TORONTO:
            >> Manitoba -?; Quebec-Trois Rivieres; Alberta-Edmonton
            >> ML; SJHL-Flin Flon
            >
            > James
            >
            > What season/s did the Leafs sponsor Flin Flon? I
            > thought that in the late fifties they were affiliated
            > with the Rangers (Ted Hampson, Mel Pearson, Duane
            > Rupp), and at the end of sponsorship in the
            > mid-sixties it was the Red Wings (Tom Gilmore, Cal
            > Purinton, Larry Klewchuk, Gerry Hart).
            >

            The guy that threw me was Dave Parenteau, who played in the Leaf's pro
            affiliate in Tulsa in 64-65 who played junior in Flin Flon that season.
            He also was in both the CPHL and WHL the next year in the Leaf's chain.
            So, he was definitely a Leaf's guy.


            Checking around on the Bombers, another guy with them is Ken Turlik who
            was Bruin property, another guy is Ken Block who was Ranger property.
            So, it make me wonder if it was a pool affliated team and other teams
            were kicking in to help them out.


            Bill was right, Melville is the SJHL team for the Leafs. And, since he
            did mention that the Leaf's were sharing with the Bruins, then it would
            explain Turlik.


            James
          • Karkoski James
            ... Makes you wonder, they could have been sponsoring all of them. What list do you have? ... Buying Perry Sound got Orr s name on a negotiation list that said
            Message 5 of 17 , Sep 5, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              On 2004.9.5, at 02:38 AM, William Underwood wrote:
              >> Fort William;
              >
              > Nope. Columbus Canadien Junior not classified on the list that I have
              > and I'm not even really sure where they were from.



              Makes you wonder, they could have been sponsoring all of them. What
              list do you have?

              >
              > The hitch is that they didn't own the rights to all players in those
              > areas, only those who played on affiliate clubs, signed C Forms AND
              > were
              > protected plus anyone who signed a C Form and were on another club.
              >
              >> Thinking about how the B's got Orr's rights, you probably wouldn't use
              > all your affiliations just in case a "must have" player came up
              >> someplace.
              >
              > No, the reason was that you didn't want to write a check. Just buying
              > Parry Sound would not have gotten them Orr unless he signed that
              > magical
              > C Form.
              >


              Buying Perry Sound got Orr's name on a negotiation list that said he
              could only play pro with a contract offered by the Bruins. In effect,
              it had "drafted" him. Signing the "C" form meant that the Bruins
              "owned" him under the reserve clause.


              > I'm not so sure about the Watson case but it was long before there was
              > such a rule. There was no draft and no restriction on teams signing
              > French players. Now he DID play on a Montreal sponsored team... but I
              > think that the writer had the two Phils confuse, it was Myre with the
              > very non French seeming name who DEFINITELY had an issue in the 60's.
              >


              I think that you are wrong on this part about the Cultural Selection
              starting with the '63 Draft. Why would it start then in the first place
              unless there was some historical basis for it? I seem to remember it
              being started when the Canadiens were struggling in the late 30s on the
              ice and at the gate, and it was instituted as a way to prop them up. I
              don't have the time to run off and start finding references to it now,
              but it is something that I'll keep on the plate.


              >
              >> The fiasco was that this first "open" draft got manipulated to where
              >> the top three teams in the league got 7 of the 13 picks.
              >
              > Thanks to the idiotic trading of a pick to Boston and oddly enough of
              > the top 5 first rounders that year 2 had no careers to speak of,


              Well, Montreal had a history of trading for draft picks, how did they
              end up getting Lafleur anyway? How bad was the problem of the
              expansion teams trading draft picks for warm bodies? The league made it
              a rule that Buffalo and Vancouver couldn't trade their picks. It speaks
              volumes about how scant the talent was the NHL left out there for the
              original expansion teams.

              >

              > So what I meant was in the long run it ended up no "fiasco" and in
              > fact
              > had very little to do with the Hab success of the 1970's


              I am not arguing about the Hab's success, I'm just interested in the
              system that the developed players worked and how the players moved
              around in it.


              On 2004.9.5, at 05:59 AM, J.P. Martel wrote:

              > I'd be curious to find out the exact differences between those
              > A, B, and C forms.


              Fred Glover in one the Cleveland Baron's books is quoted, " I knew that
              you could break and "A" contract after a year. They had to renew it
              every year if you didn't turn pro. But once you signed a "C" form, your
              rights were gone and you were stuck with the reserve clause."


              The Jean Beliveau book is a great read on how the "system" of signing
              players worked. He never signed a "C" form.


              James
            • Karkoski James
              ... What did I just write at the end of the last post? I meant to say that since Turlik with the Bruins and Parenteau with the Leafs were with Flin Flon that
              Message 6 of 17 , Sep 5, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                On 2004.9.5, at 02:23 AM, francz wrote:

                >
                > --- Karkoski James <austin@...> wrote:
                >>> TORONTO:
                >> Manitoba -?; Quebec-Trois Rivieres; Alberta-Edmonton
                >> ML; SJHL-Flin Flon
                >
                > James
                >
                > What season/s did the Leafs sponsor Flin Flon? I
                > thought that in the late fifties they were affiliated
                > with the Rangers (Ted Hampson, Mel Pearson, Duane
                > Rupp), and at the end of sponsorship in the
                > mid-sixties it was the Red Wings (Tom Gilmore, Cal
                > Purinton, Larry Klewchuk, Gerry Hart).
                >
                > Thanks,
                >


                What did I just write at the end of the last post? I meant to say that
                since Turlik with the Bruins and Parenteau with the Leafs were with
                Flin Flon that it was the co-sponsored team that Bill mentioned Toronto
                had with Boston.


                James
              • J.P. Martel
                ... At the beginning of the team (not sure if it was the very first year), the Habs had the right to sign all French players that they wanted, before the other
                Message 7 of 17 , Sep 5, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  > --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, Karkoski James <austin@t...>
                  > wrote:
                  >
                  > I think that you are wrong on this part about the Cultural
                  > Selection starting with the '63 Draft. Why would it start then
                  > in the first place unless there was some historical basis for
                  > it? I seem to remember it being started when the Canadiens were
                  > struggling in the late 30s on the ice and at the gate, and it
                  > was instituted as a way to prop them up. I don't have the time
                  > to run off and start finding references to it now,
                  > but it is something that I'll keep on the plate.

                  At the beginning of the team (not sure if it was the very first
                  year), the Habs had the right to sign all French players that
                  they wanted, before the other teams were allowed to sign any
                  French player left over. On the other side, the Canadiens were
                  not allowed to sign any non-French player. They broke this rule
                  themselves in the 1911-12 season (NHA) by acquiring Frank Pud
                  Glass, the former captain of the Wanderers. The other NHA teams
                  protested, but decided to let go. At the beginning of the next
                  season, the rule was changed and allowed the Canadiens to hire
                  two non-French players, while the other teams were allowed two
                  French players. Not sure when that rule was repealed, but by
                  the 1916-17 season, I can see many English names in the Canadiens
                  line-up.

                  The rule that came in the 30's and could be considered the second
                  coming of the "cultural selection" was the 50-mile rule, giving
                  each team the rights to players inside a 50-mile radius of their
                  arena (with certain conditions that Bill explained a few months
                  ago). This rule was definitely favorable to the Canadiens, the
                  Maple Leafs, and the Red Wings (who got the players from Windsor),
                  while it gave the Bruins and the Rangers rights to players based in
                  the Atlantic Ocean (the Blackhawks got Lake Michigan).

                  But that said, I side with Bill on this, the "true" cultural
                  Selection definitely started with the first amateur draft (1963), for
                  reasons that are fairly easy to guess: the Canadiens needed to
                  have a "French" appeal for the fans. Before the amateur draft,
                  the Habs had the 50-mile rule, and the sponsorship system to ensure
                  that they could stack up with Québec French-speaking players.
                  What also helped was the fact that, in those days, most Québec
                  kids would not have wanted to play with any other team (the enemy)
                  than the Canadiens. With the universal draft, all three of these
                  factors went out the window, so I can see Frank Selke arguing with
                  the other GM's to give him this "advantage" to make sure the team
                  kept its cultural appeal. To be honest, I would not be surprised
                  to learn that the other teams agreed with the suggestion fairly
                  easily. After all, it was only going to give Montréal two Québec
                  players per year, and not necessarily the best two (drafting is
                  always a bit of a gamble) instead of all the Québec players.

                  >
                  > Well, Montreal had a history of trading for draft picks, how did
                  > they end up getting Lafleur anyway?

                  On May 22, 1970, they sent Ernie Hicke and their first round choice
                  in the 1970 amateur draft (Chris Oddleifson) to California in
                  exchange for the Golden Seals' first round choice in the 1971
                  amateur draft and, since that would have been an unfair trade,
                  they also got François Lacombe in the deal (but Lacombe ended
                  up being drafted by Buffalo in the 1970 expansion draft).

                  They did that trade with the assumption that California would
                  end up last in the standings at the end of the 1970-71 season.
                  When the Kings turned out to be weaker than expected, and
                  threatened to "steal" the last place away from the Golden Seals,
                  the Habs sent Ralph Backstrom to the Kings, in exchange for
                  Gord Labossiere and Ray Fortin, on January 26, 1971. That helped
                  the Kings sufficiently to keep them out of the cellar and give
                  the Habs the first choice in the draft. The Kings still got
                  Marcel Dionne, so it's not that bad.

                  If you have the book "Players" by Andrew Podnieks, check out the
                  entry for Ralph Backstrom. Almost the whole entry is dedicated to the
                  trade to the Kings. Kind of unfair for a guy who had a very solid
                  career (seven 20+ goal seasons).

                  This may seem like a lousy trade for the Golden Seals, but
                  at least Ernie Hicke was an NHL player. Now look at the trade that
                  gave the Canadiens the first choice in the 1980 draft, first
                  choice that could have given them WAYNE GRETZKY if the WHA had
                  folded before 1978-79, or at least Denis Savard if the scouts had
                  had more foresight.

                  On September 13, 1976, the Colorado Rockies obtained Ron Andruff
                  and Sean Shanahan from the Canadiens against cash, and the
                  switching of the 1980 first round draft choices between the two
                  teams if (and only if) the Canadiens finished ahead of the Rockies.
                  Perhaps the Rockies felt that Andruff and Shanahan would lift them
                  above the Habs? Andruff ended up playing 153 games in the NHL
                  and Shanahan 40.

                  J.-Patrice
                • Karkoski James
                  http://www.newyorkrangers.com/tradition/bio.asp?Player=Watson James
                  Message 8 of 17 , Sep 5, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                  • William Underwood
                    ... The 65-6 out of the Official NHL Six Era History. ... use ... could only play pro with a contract offered by the Bruins. In effect, it had drafted him.
                    Message 9 of 17 , Sep 6, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >>> Fort William;
                      >
                      > Nope. Columbus Canadien Junior not classified on the list that I have
                      >> and I'm not even really sure where they were from.



                      >Makes you wonder, they could have been sponsoring all of them. What
                      >list do you have?

                      The 65-6 out of the Official NHL Six Era History.
                      >
                      >> The hitch is that they didn't own the rights to all players in those
                      > areas, only those who played on affiliate clubs, signed C Forms AND
                      > were
                      > protected plus anyone who signed a C Form and were on another club.
                      >
                      >> Thinking about how the B's got Orr's rights, you probably wouldn't
                      use
                      > all your affiliations just in case a "must have" player came up
                      >> someplace.
                      >
                      > No, the reason was that you didn't want to write a check. Just buying
                      > Parry Sound would not have gotten them Orr unless he signed that
                      > magical
                      >> C Form.
                      >


                      >Buying Perry Sound got Orr's name on a negotiation list that said he
                      could only play pro with a contract offered by the Bruins. In effect,
                      it had "drafted" him. Signing the "C" form meant that the Bruins
                      >"owned" him under the reserve clause.

                      Correct, I didn't word that well What I meant was he wasn't in the
                      proverbial "bag". The problem would then hit at 18 when they might own
                      his rights but he also would still not be under any real obligation to
                      play for them on their terms. The C form cemented you into the transfer
                      into pro hockey. It opened you up to a hold out on terms plus they would
                      have to have found a way to protect him at 20 while he wasn't actually
                      playing. You are correct that the C form's power is another myth,
                      sponsorship pulled in the original rights.

                      But there still is an issue here. Sponsorship cost money and you only
                      had so many slots. So you couldn't just buy a team every time you saw a
                      guy in some hamlet. Therefore you had to get the guy to go to a team
                      where you had sponsorship and sign him to play there. Hence much of
                      Canada was not covered by sponsorship. And in a big city more than one
                      team might sponsor teams. Witness Winnipeg in the mid 60's, the Bruins,
                      Rangers and Leafs all had a presence there. Plus there were independent
                      clubs where a player wasn't on anyone's list.

                      The issue to get a guy's rights was the sponsorship list but the
                      lynchpin for a smooth signing and a cementing of the deal was the C
                      form. If he didn't sign one he might hold out for an A form
                      or...gulp...a B form. Now did players do this? No. Because agents were
                      not there to force the issue. Much like teams failing to go into
                      Montreal for years and sign the numerous players who were not on
                      Montreal lists until they were older or do like teams did in Toronto and
                      seek to sign sponsorships there with the Habs permission.

                      And I offer a few reasons as to why they did not.

                      1-For years Boston and Chicago had financial problems limiting their
                      ability to afford vast systems. The men at the top were of English stock
                      and the strongest junior competition was in Ontario, hence they
                      gravitated to teams in Ontario and if there was any western background,
                      the west.
                      2-Plain old prejudice. Most GM's were not French nor did they speak it.
                      The language factor plays a role even today. I dealt with a coach once
                      for whom I cold have delivered several Russian players but he said
                      !@#$%^& how will I talk to them". And prejudice and stereo types do
                      exist. The NHL brass was mostly anglophone. So there no doubt was a lack
                      of connections and comfort with Quebec. Heck, we even have Stafford
                      Smythe quoted as telling Punch Imlach "French Canadians do not represent
                      our market." That tells us how open minded he was toward Quebec.


                      >> I'm not so sure about the Watson case but it was long before there
                      was
                      > such a rule. There was no draft and no restriction on teams signing
                      > French players. Now he DID play on a Montreal sponsored team... but I
                      > think that the writer had the two Phils confuse, it was Myre with the
                      > >very non French seeming name who DEFINITELY had an issue in the 60's.
                      >


                      >I think that you are wrong on this part about the Cultural Selection
                      starting with the '63 Draft. Why would it start then in the first place
                      >unless there was some historical basis for it?

                      The historical basis was that the Habs were originally founded as a
                      French Canadian team.

                      >I seem to remember it
                      being started when the Canadiens were struggling in the late 30s on the
                      ice and at the gate, and it was instituted as a way to prop them up. I
                      don't have the time to run off and start finding references to it now,
                      >but it is something that I'll keep on the plate.

                      As JP explains it was the 50 mile rule but as I have explained that rule
                      only held water if clubs didn't; come into that territory and sign
                      players or ask to set farm teams up there. But the issue was that the
                      team had been
                      set up to be a French Canadian team.

                      Did the 50 mile rule offer an advantage. Sure! You had an ability to set
                      up teams in your area and since you were the local club they were the
                      glamour teams. Could you block other teams from coming into the area or
                      control it? Sure. And would your clubs exert power on local leagues
                      board of directors? Yes. But, on the other hand teams didn't refuse each
                      other teams in their area as long as they were paid to do so. And did
                      good players escape the net when given the chance? Yes. thus while it
                      was certainly not a negative it wasn't an air tight web blocking talent
                      from leaving.

                      What people have to also consider is this, the Norris family owned 2 NHL
                      teams flat out and had interest in a third. There were 4 teams in the
                      US, three of whom had little talent within their territory. There was
                      simply no way that a rule was going to be in effect that gave the two
                      Canadian teams an air tight access to their local talent in Canada's tow
                      largest population centers. Hence there was a hole, the 50 mile limit
                      only applied to sponsorship and could be pierced with permission.

                      Once more the rest of Quebec was not in it. Proof is in the pudding.
                      Pilote and Pronovost were never Montreal property and later Gilbert,
                      Ratelle, Marotte, J. Pronovost et al were not and all were not a part of
                      the draft system.

                      Plus how would you administer Montreal owning the rights to all French
                      kids or have a claim on two without the draft? You really couldn't. Even
                      early on, We see Lorne Chabot end up a Ranger...

                      Now the rules no doubt evolved over the years and I can't quote the
                      early rules as well. I know more about the post war era. But we do know
                      that as JP tells us the all French issue with Montreal ended early and
                      that we do see guys like Chabot on other teams. we also know that there
                      was no draft in that era. Hence how much of a real legislated monopoly
                      that Montreal ever had on Quebec talent is open for debate.

                      >
                      >>> The fiasco was that this first "open" draft got manipulated to where
                      >>> the top three teams in the league got 7 of the 13 picks.
                      >
                      >> Thanks to the idiotic trading of a pick to Boston and oddly enough of
                      >> the top 5 first rounders that year 2 had no careers to speak of,


                      >Well, Montreal had a history of trading for draft picks, how did they
                      end up getting Lafleur anyway? How bad was the problem of the
                      expansion teams trading draft picks for warm bodies? The league made it
                      a rule that Buffalo and Vancouver couldn't trade their picks. It speaks
                      volumes about how scant the talent was the NHL left out there for the
                      >original expansion teams.

                      Absolutely! And the fact that they did so and capitalized on it is just
                      a part of good management. Nobody HAD to make a trade with them. If
                      teams would have built on the draft or if teams would have waited them
                      out on some players (they couldn't protect everyone in the Intra League
                      draft) we wouldn't have seen this. Similarly, the other O 6 could have
                      made trades to develop a draft, and to draft wiser, they did neither
                      which is why Boston and Montreal won and they didn't.

                      But St Louis was also a bit to blame here believe it or not. why? They
                      built this veteran laden team (actually again they flat out had food
                      management) and other teams felt that they had to "keep up". Scotty
                      Bowman and Lynn Patrick were quite adept at luring this guy or that out
                      of retirement and became the class of the western division. Again, teams
                      should have waited out the blues more than they did. Take note, Philly
                      did just that, they won two Cups in the 70's, while the Seals and Kings
                      et al got suckered into one bad deal after another.

                      >

                      >> So what I meant was in the long run it ended up no "fiasco" and in
                      > fact
                      >> had very little to do with the Hab success of the 1970's


                      >I am not arguing about the Hab's success, I'm just interested in the
                      system that the developed players worked and how the players moved
                      >around in it.

                      I realize that but I think that in explaining the system, the myth needs
                      to addressed.

                      On 2004.9.5, at 05:59 AM, J.P. Martel wrote:

                      >> I'd be curious to find out the exact differences between those
                      >> A, B, and C forms.


                      >Fred Glover in one the Cleveland Baron's books is quoted, " I knew that

                      you could break and "A" contract after a year. They had to renew it
                      every year if you didn't turn pro. But once you signed a "C" form, your
                      >rights were gone and you were stuck with the reserve clause."

                      Hence the importance of that C form.

                      >The Jean Beliveau book is a great read on how the "system" of signing
                      >players worked. He never signed a "C" form.

                      YES IT IS! A GREAT BOOK! Big Jean was the one guy that REALLY used the
                      system to his benefit. But then again he also had leverage as he made
                      more money than the Habs were offering as an "amateur". Not everybody
                      had that situation. But it is interesting. Punch Imlach also goes into
                      some detail as to how the Habs got the league to go pro and remove that
                      window in one of his books.






                      To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
                      hockhist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                    • William Underwood
                      I still think that this must have to do with territory. But again, the rules in the 30 s were in fact different than the post war era that I discuss. I know
                      Message 10 of 17 , Sep 6, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I still think that this must have to do with territory. But again, the
                        rules in the 30's were in fact different than the post war era that I
                        discuss. I know that in the post war era there was no such rule, witness
                        Pronovost, Pilote et al. It is interesting food for thought!

                        Interestingly enough, Montreal did better in the post war era than the
                        pre war era. So, again we see farm systems come into play. Montreal
                        didn't have it s vaunted farm system nor dominance until the 1950's.

                        It would be interesting to see the rules from that era directly from a
                        league source. We know what they were as of the Golden Six Team era.
                        Montreal merely owned a bubble around the Forum and the same rules
                        applied to ALL players French or English. If you were on a sponsored
                        list you were owned otherwise you were not regardless where you were
                        from. We also know that the same rule applied in the 60's up to
                        expansion and that the Habs had the much vaunted but little used two
                        cultural selections in the new draft system. And that the draft rule
                        applied to any son of a French father born in Quebec, the FATHER'S
                        birthplace being the operative. And that this draft rule also lasted two
                        years into expansion with little effect.

                        But what we don't really have explained are those pre 1945 rules like
                        when Watson came up. It seems odd that the Habs owned all French players
                        yet lost Chabot early on. And at any rate whatever the rules were they
                        didn't give them much dominance, only 1 Cup in the 30's and 2 in the
                        20's.

                        I would like to know more about that era's rules. The answer would be in
                        the league by laws of the era. The league itself wrote a history
                        explaining their rules in the 6 team era. And we have a host of very
                        precise records and accounts of how players ended up where.

                        Now the question is do we have any real record of those BY LAWS, not
                        oral histories and folk lore. After all we have a ton of myths about
                        sponsorship form second level sources which are exploded when one reads
                        a pure account of by laws and when one looks at transactions and asks
                        questions. Such as how Parent, Ratelle and Gilbert avoided the Habs or
                        how Kelly and Lindsay played for St Mikes but were not originally Leafs.
                        And thanks to Central Registry being as thorough as they were post war,
                        we know that Pronovost or Pilot ewer ever Hab property according to
                        their career boxes. Thus we have a good understanding of the rule. The
                        totality of the facts gives it to us. We also get a good account of how
                        Oshawa ended up a Boston team in Leaf territory from OHA and NHL sources
                        explaining another limitation of the territorial rules. Plus we know the
                        evolution of the rules a bit better.

                        I'd LOVE to know exactly how it worked back then in the infancy of the
                        system. Keep on digging Jim, and I will too! I just have never seen a
                        really detailed account of the early NHL by laws pre war....


                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Karkoski James [mailto:austin@...]
                        Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 12:42 AM
                        To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [hockhist] Phil Watson, Scottish or Quebecois?


                        http://www.newyorkrangers.com/tradition/bio.asp?Player=Watson


                        James




                        To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
                        hockhist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.