Draft Lottery Thought...

[sbpointer]

With the draft lottery tonight and after reading a lot of the negativity felt about the 8th seed on the Sarnia and Erie boards and being a fan of a team that in this century hasn't had a sniff of the number one overall pick I got thinking why punish success or at least mediocracy. I get the attempt at parity but the draft isn't helping that you see the same teams drafting the top picks consistently. Instead of only having non playoff teams in the lottery why not have everyone with a weighted ballot system 20th place has 20 chances down to the Hamilton Spectator Trophy winner having 1. After first overall is determined by the lottery everyone else drafts in order.
Thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[Wolfman Jack]

With the draft lottery tonight and after reading a lot of the negativity felt about the 8th seed on the Sarnia and Erie boards and being a fan of a team that in this century hasn't had a sniff of the number one overall pick I got thinking why punish success or at least mediocracy. I get the attempt at parity but the draft isn't helping that you see the same teams drafting the top picks consistently. Instead of only having non playoff teams in the lottery why not have everyone with a weighted ballot system 20th place has 20 chances down to the Hamilton Spectator Trophy winner having 1. After first overall is determined by the lottery everyone else drafts in order.
Thoughts?

For selfish reasons I was hoping Erie would finished in a playoff spot leaving Sarnia out. That way Sudbury would of had a higher second pick since then own Sarnia's pick. But they will just have to wait four picks later. Some good ones will be had in the early part of the second round IMO.

WJ

 

[cupcrazyman]

For selfish reasons I was hoping Erie would finished in a playoff spot leaving Sarnia out. That way Sudbury would of had a higher second pick since then own Sarnia's pick. But they will just have to wait four picks later. Some good ones will be had in the early part of the second round IMO.

WJ

That 2nd Round Pick that was Sarnia's is now the Wolves 28th pick overall because of 1st Round Compensation picks to:

#14 Oshawa
#19 Saginaw
#21 Ottawa

 

[Generalsupdates]

With the draft lottery tonight and after reading a lot of the negativity felt about the 8th seed on the Sarnia and Erie boards and being a fan of a team that in this century hasn't had a sniff of the number one overall pick I got thinking why punish success or at least mediocracy. I get the attempt at parity but the draft isn't helping that you see the same teams drafting the top picks consistently. Instead of only having non playoff teams in the lottery why not have everyone with a weighted ballot system 20th place has 20 chances down to the Hamilton Spectator Trophy winner having 1. After first overall is determined by the lottery everyone else drafts in order.
Thoughts?

Because a bad team getting a generational talent can change an entire franchise. If you take the McDavid years away from Erie, that's a completely difference franchise with not much to be happy about.

The way the OHL is constructed now, you really should only be rebuilding for a year to a year and a half at the most. If you're rebuilding longer than that, then you're GM really botched a draft or two in a row.

 

[Mikeleelop]

Because a bad team getting a generational talent can change an entire franchise. If you take the McDavid years away from Erie, that's a completely difference franchise with not much to be happy about.

The way the OHL is constructed now, you really should only be rebuilding for a year to a year and a half at the most. If you're rebuilding longer than that, then you're GM really botched a draft or two in a row.

Does this lottery order apply to all rounds or just three first round? I’ve never seen a draft where the lottery results also continue in rounds 2 on

 

[cupcrazyman]

Does this lottery order apply to all rounds or just three first round? I’ve never seen a draft where the lottery results also continue in rounds 2 on

Every Round is the same order except for trades.

 

[BadgerBruce]

Because a bad team getting a generational talent can change an entire franchise. If you take the McDavid years away from Erie, that's a completely difference franchise with not much to be happy about.

The way the OHL is constructed now, you really should only be rebuilding for a year to a year and a half at the most. If you're rebuilding longer than that, then you're GM really botched a draft or two in a row.

Yes, there’s no doubt that franchise-changing potential exists.

But I’d argue that the true value of an exceptional status player is increased attendance on the road. Even an average team drawing 3,500 per game can see a significant boost in single-game ticket sales when an exceptional status superstar is coming to town.

But the impact locally is less predictable.

When Sean Day joined Mississauga in 2013-14, the Steelheads went on to average just 2580 fans per game — 17th in the league.

Shane Wright in Kingston? In 2018-19 — the season BEFORE they landed Shane Wright — the team’s average attendance was 3128 per game, good for 14th in the league. In 2019-20, WITH Shane Wright, they averaged just 2968 — a decline of 168 paying customers per game — and dropped two places to 16th in league attendance.

And then there’s the Connor McDavid-led Erie Otters, which filed for bankruptcy on April 08, 2015, just a few days before the team opened their second round playoff series against London. McDavid left Erie for the NHL after that season and the club was sold via the bankruptcy process.

Don’t get the wrong idea — I’ve no doubt whatsoever that players granted exceptional status are big draws on the road. I’d buy tickets to see a 15 year old phenom when his team comes to my town. But at home? The history tells us that attendance numbers aren’t always so sunny.

 

[OMG67]

The reality is the perception of “Exceptional player status” is just that, a perception. There are no posted metrics or criteria that need to be met. It really comes down to a decision based on…. I don’t know.

This is the problem with the Exceptional Player Status. There are no true metrics that anyone can really point to. It comes across as another political appointment just like all the other trashy politics in competitive youth hockey.

This is why I’ve suggested that there should be a set standard of criteria that needs to be met for a player to enter the OHL Priority Selection early.

My recommendation to be eligible for early selection:
1> The player must have played AAA Bantam U-16 as a 14 year old
2> The player chooses to enter the OHL Draft early. They aren’t simply just eligible. They need to declare.
3> The player is only eligible to be picked in the 1st round.
4> The player cannot be traded until the following season when other first round picks become eligible after the New Year’s window opens
5> Teams are unable to declare the player defected f the player refuses to report. Their only opportunity for compensation is through trade as per #4.

I believe this is a viable means of getting rid of the exceptional Player Status while being open and transparent. If a player is strong enough to be picked int he first round, clearly the player is capable of playing in the league. Players declaring for the draft should/would report to the team that drafted them since they would be ineligible to be traded until 18 months later. Why enter the draft for the purpose of doing it early and then sit out of th league for 18 months. Conversely, why would a team draft a player they know they cannot sign without any sort of safety net For defected players.

I would imagine only a very small handful of players would actually be eligible to declare for the draft early and only a small fraction of those players would actually be picked annually.

This would effectively allow OHL teams to make the determination of whether they feel the player is capable and can contribute as opposed to some Wizard of Oz board behind a curtain making decisions in a vacuum with zero transparency.

 

[dirty12]

Why draft a player that will not report? The Petes & Firebirds turned years of reporting issues including 3rd overall into contenders. Claiming a player defective then trading that player also worked well for Niagara, Kingston, Owen Sound … The defect rule is a great equalizer; leave it alone.
The U18 draft was created to keep undrafted kids from quitting hockey after minor midget. Drafting 20 bantam age players that will get little minutes in their first OHL season is a terrible idea for minor hockey imo.

 

[OMG67]

Why draft a player that will not report? The Petes & Firebirds turned years of reporting issues including 3rd overall into contenders. Claiming a player defective then trading that player also worked well for Niagara, Kingston, Owen Sound … The defect rule is a great equalizer; leave it alone.
The U18 draft was created to keep undrafted kids from quitting hockey after minor midget. Drafting 20 bantam age players that will get little minutes in their first OHL season is a terrible idea for minor hockey imo.

Who suggested there would be 20 Bantam aged players getting drafted?

In a good year, you’d see maybe three or four. In some years there would be zero.

If you restrict them to being first round picks, no one is going to draft an inferior 14 year old over a much better 15 year old.

 

[dirty12]

Who suggested there would be 20 Bantam aged players getting drafted?

In a good year, you’d see maybe three or four. In some years there would be zero.

If you restrict them to being first round picks, no one is going to draft an inferior 14 year old over a much better 15 year old.

Restricting an underage age to one round will no doubt make teams reach for the younger kid. That was proven in the previous draft format where ‘under aged’ players were restricted to first two rounds, and proven by the NHL draft where first time eligibles dominate early rounds based on perceived upside.

 

[rangersblues]

The reality is the perception of “Exceptional player status” is just that, a perception. There are no posted metrics or criteria that need to be met. It really comes down to a decision based on…. I don’t know.

This is the problem with the Exceptional Player Status. There are no true metrics that anyone can really point to. It comes across as another political appointment just like all the other trashy politics in competitive youth hockey.

This is why I’ve suggested that there should be a set standard of criteria that needs to be met for a player to enter the OHL Priority Selection early.

My recommendation to be eligible for early selection:
1> The player must have played AAA Bantam U-16 as a 14 year old
2> The player chooses to enter the OHL Draft early. They aren’t simply just eligible. They need to declare.
3> The player is only eligible to be picked in the 1st round.
4> The player cannot be traded until the following season when other first round picks become eligible after the New Year’s window opens
5> Teams are unable to declare the player defected f the player refuses to report. Their only opportunity for compensation is through trade as per #4.

I believe this is a viable means of getting rid of the exceptional Player Status while being open and transparent. If a player is strong enough to be picked int he first round, clearly the player is capable of playing in the league. Players declaring for the draft should/would report to the team that drafted them since they would be ineligible to be traded until 18 months later. Why enter the draft for the purpose of doing it early and then sit out of th league for 18 months. Conversely, why would a team draft a player they know they cannot sign without any sort of safety net For defected players.

I would imagine only a very small handful of players would actually be eligible to declare for the draft early and only a small fraction of those players would actually be picked annually.

This would effectively allow OHL teams to make the determination of whether they feel the player is capable and can contribute as opposed to some Wizard of Oz board behind a curtain making decisions in a vacuum with zero transparency.

I'm pretty sure all of your criteria are met via the interview process. I don't think a player that wouldn't report or wouldn't be drafted in the first round would even be considered. If they apply for exceptional player status, they are obviously declaring themselves eligible.

 

[HockeyPops]

Not sure where these suggestions for change are stemming from. I don't think the exceptional status process is broken...

 

[OMG67]

Restricting an underage age to one round will no doubt make teams reach for the younger kid. That was proven in the previous draft format where ‘under aged’ players were restricted to first two rounds, and proven by the NHL draft where first time eligibles dominate early rounds based on perceived upside.

That isn’t proven at all. In fact, Sean Day wasn’t the 1st overall pick. There were two players picked ahead of him.

The first three rounds were reserved for the underage players but back then we had three underage players playing on each team as part of their roster construction. Just for the sake of curiosity, I went back to 1996 just to check the ages of the first rounders. 7 of the 17 players taken in the first round were 1979 birthdates. The underage players were 1980 birthdates. So, even when the rosters were constructed to allow for three underage players with three rounds designated where you can draft them, teams still drafted many 17 year olds.

The reality is, if we took this year’s Priority Selection and allowed teams to draft U-15’s, you are suggesting that guys like Spence would be 2nd round picks and teams would just gravitate to 14 year olds by default. I find that to be absurd. Teams will always pick best available player (that will report).

I think we can all agree there are only a small handful of players that would benefit from playing OHL hockey at 15. I believe the OHL teams would also agree, especially when it is unusual for their current 2nd round picks to make significant impact as rookies. Even a small percentage of 1st rounders struggle year one.

I don’t understand the logic of picking a 14 year old for the sake of picking a 14 year old because, well, why not, even considering you have a 4 year eligibility window before they are eligible to play AHL. Why would a team willingly draft and sign a 14 yea role and watch him leave at 18 for the AHL unless they thought the player would be an immediate impact rookie? It makes no sense otherwise. You’d then have to change the rules in some manner where the player doesn’t necessarily play for the OHL team and remains an affiliate player year one with no service time and that would defeat the whole purpose of players applying to play OHL.

 

[OMG67]

Not sure where these suggestions for change are stemming from. I don't think the exceptional status process is broken...

I feel it is broken. It is not transparent at all. It doesn’t serve the best interest of the players. When players feel they need to leave the Province for Prep schools or Europe to play at a competitive level, it presents a gap in the Hockey Canada model.

Of course, we can’t please everyone and I understand that but the change that would be required wouldn’t be obtrusive and would result in a more transparent process.

In my mind if a player is capable of playing an impactful role at the OHL level, we should allow the player to play. Giving individual OHL teams the opportunity to make that decision based on what they feel is right for their franchise is the most fair way.

So if there are two other players that would be for sure 1st round picks as U-15’s and typical first round picks do play an impactful role on their team, then why would we block those players from playing OHL hockey?

 

[HockeyPops]

If you have a u15 that will go top 5 with their birth year, they will go first round if drafted with kids a year older. GMs will spend a late first round pick no question to get that talent in their system a year earlier. Doesn't make it right for the kid or for hockey.

 

[OMG67]

If you have a u15 that will go top 5 with their birth year, they will go first round if drafted with kids a year older. GMs will spend a late first round pick no question to get that talent in their system a year earlier. Doesn't make it right for the kid or for hockey.

If the kid wants to declare himself eligible AND a team feels he can play and are willing to use a first round pick on the player, then why should either of us suggest that is wrong?

We need to remember that players would need to declare themselves eligible. It is great for the player because they can play AHL a year earlier and the teams need to know that any player they pick as a U-15 is pretty much guaranteed gone at 18….or earlier if they are capable of NHL after their 3rd season.

 

[dirty12]

That isn’t proven at all. In fact, Sean Day wasn’t the 1st overall pick. There were two players picked ahead of him.

The first three rounds were reserved for the underage players but back then we had three underage players playing on each team as part of their roster construction. Just for the sake of curiosity, I went back to 1996 just to check the ages of the first rounders. 7 of the 17 players taken in the first round were 1979 birthdates. The underage players were 1980 birthdates. So, even when the rosters were constructed to allow for three underage players with three rounds designated where you can draft them, teams still drafted many 17 year olds.

The reality is, if we took this year’s Priority Selection and allowed teams to draft U-15’s, you are suggesting that guys like Spence would be 2nd round picks and teams would just gravitate to 14 year olds by default. I find that to be absurd. Teams will always pick best available player (that will report).

I think we can all agree there are only a small handful of players that would benefit from playing OHL hockey at 15. I believe the OHL teams would also agree, especially when it is unusual for their current 2nd round picks to make significant impact as rookies. Even a small percentage of 1st rounders struggle year one.

I don’t understand the logic of picking a 14 year old for the sake of picking a 14 year old because, well, why not, even considering you have a 4 year eligibility window before they are eligible to play AHL. Why would a team willingly draft and sign a 14 yea role and watch him leave at 18 for the AHL unless they thought the player would be an immediate impact rookie? It makes no sense otherwise. You’d then have to change the rules in some manner where the player doesn’t necessarily play for the OHL team and remains an affiliate player year one with no service time and that would defeat the whole purpose of players applying to play OHL.

Actually, what I am saying is that in year two of 15 yr olds being allowed in round 1, teams would overwhelmingly favour the new ‘underage players’.
Three rounds; thought it was two. So more teams than at that time would be all over the earlier age in first round given only one chance right? The way I see it is; teams would not select a 16 yr old in top 4-7 after 20 teams passed on that player at 15. Teams with early 2nd or multiple 2nds would wait until round 2, 3…15 to select 16 yr olds so as to not miss their one opportunity to select a player not yet passed on.
Removing up to 20-15 yr olds would have a very negative impact on development of minor midgets imo

 

[HockeyPops]

Teams are not looking out for what's best for these kids. I do not feel that this would be any kind of a fix for a perceived flaw in today's system.

Still don't see what's wrong with the current system.

 

[OMG67]

We will have to agree to disagree. I don’t think teams will purposefully pick players not ready knowing they will be gone to the AHL early. The only players picked will be those that will play right away in a meaningful role.

Back when they could pick underage players they didn’t see the first round let alone the first three rounds filled with U-16’s, nor would we see U-15s fill the 1st round.

Keep in mind that only the U-15s that played AAA at the U-16 level would be eligible to even opt into the draft under my proposal. How many U-15s playing at the U-16 level are impactful at AAA? Maybe a handful.

Then consider size differences etc and only the special players would play. Essentially that would mean they’d be using their first round pick on affiliate players and burn a year of eligibility on the process. I don’t see how that makes any sense at all.

 

[OMG67]

Teams are not looking out for what's best for these kids. I do not feel that this would be any kind of a fix for a perceived flaw in today's system.

Still don't see what's wrong with the current system.

The issue with the system is transparency. With a sport filled with dirty politics, why is one player granted exceptional status and another comparable player is not? There is no metric in place just the personal evaluation of a few dudes that apparently know what’s best for the players. None of those people have a vested interest in the players. For all we know, those people purposely hold players back because they want to keep players in their existing leagues which has nothing to do with the best interest of the player.

When criteria is secret or simply subjective, it leads to mistrust. THAT is the problem with the current system.

 

[HockeyPops]

I mean, you just described every single process associated with competitive hockey, starting from novice on up. I still don't see this particular process as especially egregious.

 

[OMG67]

I mean, you just described every single process associated with competitive hockey, starting from novice on up. I still don't see this particular process as especially egregious.

It isn’t egregious but just because it isn’t egregious doesn’t mean it can’t be transparent and fair.

This process is neither transparent nor fair.

It is very possible that all players refused for exceptional player status would have proven the decision makers right and had been a flop and stunted their growth. How would I know? What I do know is there is no particular rhyme or reason documented as to what constitutes an exceptional player that is granted approval to play a year early.

As far as we know, the player is typically better than EVERY player in the advanced age group. But, should that be the requirement? That is the question. What if the player is the 5th best player and would be picked 5th overall because of where he slots in based on talent? Is that player not capable of playing? Why? Why should that player play with inferior talent at a lower level and not be challenged?…that is assuming there is such a player. I’m not arguing for any particular player, just the way the process is applied.

THAT is my point. At virtually every level of hockey, players capable play at the higher level. 18 year olds can play in the NHL with grown professional men. 14 year olds can play with 15 year olds. Hell, there are players that play more than two years ahead because of physical maturity and skill. But, for some reason, the gatekeepers require a 14 year old to be better than every 15 year old before they can play Major Junior? A player can be better than 75% of the players taken in the 1st round but he is too young?

If a player feels he is capable, has demonstrated capability because he’s played up a level already and his parents feel he is ready and an OHL team is confident enough to draft the player in the first round, why are three guys in a back room smarter than everyone else that actually have skin in the game?

 

[HockeyPops]

Just because something is not transparent, does not make it unfair.

I have known many kids playing up in minor hockey that never should have. I have known even more parents clamoring for their kids to play up. The problem right now is too many players being granted ES at various levels, not too few.

Parents can't always be trusted to see the bigger picture. Keeping up with the Joneses is a thing. OHL GMs are not looking out for these kids. I trust the current process.

 

[OMG67]

Just because something is not transparent, does not make it unfair.

I have known many kids playing up in minor hockey that never should have. I have known even more parents clamoring for their kids to play up. The problem right now is too many players being granted ES at various levels, not too few.

Parents can't always be trusted to see the bigger picture. Keeping up with the Joneses is a thing. OHL GMs are not looking out for these kids. I trust the current process.

Teams look out for their franchises best interest. Drafting a 14 year old for the sake of drafting a 14 year old as opposed to drafting the better 15 year old isn’t in their best interest. Assuming they will do it just because isn’t a valid argument. Assuming drafting a 14 year old is a detriment to the player also isn’t a valid argument. You need to be able to test the hypothesis.

I wholeheartedly disagree that the first round would be all 14 year olds being drafted. It makes absolutely no sense. Teams will draft the best available player that they feel will sign. If that player is a 14 year old then so be it.

The draft is a true hierarchy of competency. Those that are more competent will be at the top of the hierarchy and will be drafted earlier. It is not like teams are drafting players born between October 15 and December 31 because they get the guaranteed three years because of the NHL draft birthdate. They draft the best available player regardless of birthdate.

If a player is competent and compared to all other players is talented and mature enough to be drafted in the first round, I think it is up to the teams to make that determination. If the player isn’t ready and they draft the player then so be it. Everyone goes into it with eyes wide open. That is no different than a Owen Power choosing to play the additional year in NCAA before signing with the Sabres or Mathew Knies choosing to return to NCAA next year instead of signing with the Leafs. Players will make the choices they feel are in their best interests, good or bad. We have three comp picks this year because of players choosing to play in the USA instead of the OHL. You have 16 year old European players playing pro hockey in Europe instead of Major Junior in Canada. Many of the best European players in the NHL took that route.

Blocking options and thinking that is in the best interests of the players isn’t ideal. Restrictions eliminate possibilities they don’t create them.

That’s all I will say at this point.