THE VAULT: OPEN UP HOCKEY'S LADDER OF DEVELOPMENT Let's take the money out of the player movement process, up or down the ladder.

In the past we talked about some of the problems with pay-to-play teams and even the oversight from sanctioning bodies. Well today we are going to jump up a few levels of play and talk about another issue that is clogging the developmental elevation process.

I think it’s ironic to hear team owners complain about the red-tape and hassle of calling up lower-level prospects during the season, then have to hear about the same guys not wanting to send another player up to the next level. 

This is yet another situation where junior hockey has allowed the wallets to retard natural development. Here’s an example of how it really should be.

That’s the way it should work…but it does not because there are tremendous clogs in the system. Most of those clogs are caused by egos and greed.

Coaches and team owners get too caught up in winning and the money grab to allow a player to bolt up the developmental ladder. The situation has become so ridiculous that there are good hockey people questioning if the system is functional at all.

How can we fix it? All of us in junior hockey need to step up and force a player acquisition system that is functional.

The issue is always going to be about money. Low level pay-to-play clubs are funded by the players. When a team loses players that have not paid in full, there is a decline in operational revenues. So, I can understand why those teams are hesitant.

Higher level teams should be able to bring players up from lower levels at any time.

The higher-level team should be able keep that player for up to five games during the assignments (and cover all transportation costs). At the time the player is rostered for a sixth game, the higher-level club should negotiate with the lower-level club to clear the player’s balance of the player fee. Or help that team secure a player that's willing to join the lower team to clear the balance.

There are several owners that would jump off a bridge before agreeing to such a policy. Aside from the actual player fee, these operators feel the higher-level club should have to pay a developmental premium for these prospects. That’s a completely selfish approach that hinders the flow of prospects between the levels of play.

Then there’s the practice of holding these amateur players hostage in an effort to extract cash. For example, there’s a player that has been sent home from his major junior team because the club decided to move into another direction.

Great, the player thinks, I can just go to another team. Not so fast kid, your former team wants $2,000 from any sanctioned team that might be interested in you.

It’s amazing how quickly a team loses interest when there’s that much money in play. Well, teams from the non-sanctioned leagues would love for the big clubs to continue to try that trick next season.

Elimination of the open drafts is another way for leagues to force operators into keeping their end of the bargain. In that scenario, players will flow to the best operators, forcing the other operators to either step up their game or drop to a lower level of play. The drafts simply pushes players to other options if they are unhappy with the team that has selected them. 

In the end, a change of ideology would be in the best interest for creating a true developmental system where players can easily be identified and moved up (or down) the ladder. Doing that would certainly be a change for the better, especially if the money is eliminated from the process.

That’s just my opinion, what’s yours?