Komets are looking for a new captain
Best wishes, Schrocky! I'm sure you will excel at whatever you choose to do in your future.
I, for one, will miss Schrocky's leadership, hustle and determination both on and off the ice. He has been a great leader for this team, despite what some of you may think. You certainly cannot question his commitment to this team over the past few years. He has given his heart and soul to this organization. My only wish is that the Komets management finds someone else as committed to making the Komets the best team in the ECHL.
We'll miss you Schrocky!
Dave Farrish joins Avalanche as assistant coach. Joel Martin returns to Kalamazoo. Any news from Sims in Evansville?
Trying not to beat a dead horse, but Schrock's retirement brings to mind and illustrates, again, the four player "veteran" rule as being absurd. Sure, for a while one could kind of understand it. Each "AA" league put it's own restrictions on their rosters. Each was a little different in terms of numbers, positions, and games played requirements. The ECHL has lauded itself as being the "developmental" league for the NHL...and it probably was, and is. But...
now it is the only "AA" league in existence. No more competing with the IHL or the CHL. As Europe begins to relax their restrictions on "foreign" players, an accelerated amount of players are looking into it, and some will definitely try. Nothing wrong with that.
But for the franchises of the ECHL, it just makes it harder.
I want to use Schrock as an example. There are plenty of Komet fans who are OK with the Schrock retirement. But there are also plenty who are disappointed. Here's the point...how does an individual franchise benefit when a guy retires whose presence would've sold a lot of tickets? I'm sure each franchise probably has the same decisions to make sometime...and look, there are a lot of reasons why Schrock made this decision. Injury, family, future, all sorts of things. But I will be left wondering if the "veteran" position wouldn't have come up in negotiations.
Everybody is saying nice things now. Schrock indicated he could've played another two seasons.
I think it's time the ECHL reviewed its veteran policy. The member franchises still have to abide by the salary cap, so why not raise the Vet rule? We'll never know if this had anything at all to do with the Schrock decision or what the K's would've done. And if not him, I'm sure other players have been affected by all ECHL franchises.
I, for one, think it's time the ECHL did something for its members and fans. With the status of minor league hockey at the present time, there are no competitors lurking. My suggestion would be to do something for your member franchises AND the fans (paying customers).
Alan, "in principle" I agree 100% with your comments, but... with the current salary cap the way it is, it keeps about 6-8 teams in the league with the ability to stay competitive and not lose a ton of money. If you raised the veteran rule to say 6, it may have to increase the cap which would put pressure on a number of those teams described above. Every team has somewhat similar expenses( payroll, work comp, travel costs, rent/utilities for the players etc)., but there is a very wide disparity with revenue between the teams. (Beyond me how Elmira can financially stay in a league along with a number of others) I think this aspect prevents the league from increasing the vet limit. IMO
We will still see teams come and go. Minor league hockey is always in a state of flux. The Komets are without a doubt one of the best run and successful minor league teams in ALL of minor league sports. We should be thankful as well as the Frankes being thankful for having some of the best and loyal fans anywere. Good for all of us brother.
I'm not sure that I agree with your reasoning, RG2. Your point about expenses and the vitality of franchises is always going to be true. However I'm not real sure that is the case here. (Look, I'm not anywhere near the "books" of an ECHL franchise and I assume you aren't either, so we simply have differing opinions which is exactly the purpose of a blog).
It just isn't the ECHL either (but the ECHL is more strict than the CHL and IHL). Being "old school" I've always wondered why leagues put good players out to pasture just because they've been good enough to play in a lot of games. (Quite frankly, the problem would be diminished somewhat by simply raising the number of games from the 260 mark to a higher level (say 360). The numbers are speculative and I don't want the ECHL to stop developing young talent. But I think it's hard to argue that franchises with familiar and favorite players help, not hinder, the franchise's bottom line.
My fear is that the ECHL's priority isn't about the individual members of their league. I'm pretty sure that they don't care about their fans. They care mostly about placating to the NHL-AHL and not much more than that. Just my opinion.
Alan, I was just giving a "possible" reason why they keep it a 4 vets.
Maybe the EC in ECHL should stand for "European Contracts, Have Left" BTW Christian Ouellet signs in France