04-23-2019, 01:41 PMztevans Wrote: Seriously, I'm not trying to demand perfection from HO.  I've been there.  But literally just compare these two posts.

04-22-2019, 09:24 PMNobody Wrote:

As many people now know (thanks @JSS...) The St. Louis Scarecrows used a pick in the S46 draft that they did not possess. The S46 pick was traded to the Colorado Raptors in exchange for the rights to a player.  This error was not caught until recently. As it has been stated in the past, it falls on the team to ensure that picks are tracked correctly. This was made even more clear during the changeover of our pick tracker. 

The punishment for this offence is as follows. The Scarecrows will give up their next non reddit 3rd round pick to cover the S46 pick that they should not have had, The Colorado Raptors will NOT receive this pick. In addition the Scarecrows will forfiet an additional 3rd round non reddit pick.

02-14-2018, 11:02 PMstorm Wrote: Hello everyone,

In the past few days the SMJHL Head Office has noticed two instances of teams being punished with a loss of a pick, and then using that pick for drafting or transactions. These teams are not at fault, however, as it was our duty to ensure the draft pick tracker as well as other facets of the SMJHL were updated properly to ensure a situation like this wouldn't arise. While we're incredibly embarrassed by this whole situation, we still have a responsibility to rectify our past mistakes.The picks in question are Halifax's S40 3rd round selection, as well as Kelowna's S39 3rd round selection.  After speaking with the two current GM's of the teams in question, and some lengthy discussion in the Head Office, we decided the best course of action was to forfeit the teams S42 3rd round selection, and should S42 be a reddit draft (since 3rd's in reddit drafts have much more value), we'd be willing to shift that pick to S43.

Again, this is a situation we're deeply embarrassed by and we're actively taking measures to ensure something like this doesn't happen again.


Thanks for your time.

The first one assumes no blame on the part of HO or the pick tracker for not properly tracking picks even though the pick tracker is a league-paid job.  The first one even goes as far as to shame a GM who has brought the situation to public right after the lack of a timely resolution.

The second one displays shame and an acknowledgement that, if HO had done its job properly, we wouldn't be having this issue.  The second indicates a proper discourse between all parties to reach an amicable solution and a pledge by HO to do better in the future rather than shovel the responsibility on GMs.

1. I wasn't a member of HO when the older case was made public, but as far as I can tell, HO failed to notify the pick tracker of the forfeited picks. I'm not sure, if I had come to the same conclusion that the teams were at no fault there, though. 

2. It's nice of you that you did the pick tracker's job for free before it existed, but as I understand it, the job was created so HO wouldn't have to do that anymore. If we did it anyway, why have the job at all?