Kitchener Rangers 2021-22 Season Thread (Part 3)

[Purple Phart]

On the subject of finding a new coach, perhaps consideration should be given to recruiting one from the Jr. B ranks, who has demonstrated a winning culture and environment ? By that, I mean an individual whose team has either won, or was a consistently serious competitor to win the Sutherland Cup. They'd have experience in dealing with the age cohort, since Jr B and Major Jr. A are basically the same.

 

[LDN]

On the subject of finding a new coach, perhaps consideration should be given to recruiting one from the Jr. B ranks, who has demonstrated a winning culture and environment ? By that, I mean an individual whose team has either won, or was a consistently serious competitor to win the Sutherland Cup. They'd have experience in dealing with the age cohort, since Jr B and Major Jr. A are basically the same.

Colin Martin?

 

[Tim Wallach]

On a note related to the discussion of "going for it" next year and development, NHL Central Scouting released their midterm rankings today and there are 7 Knights ranked and 0 Rangers. So remind me again how we're going to be better positioned to go for it next year or even the year after?

Something systemic in the scouting/drafting/development has to change.

 

[Box Score Watcher]

On a note related to the discussion of "going for it" next year and development, NHL Central Scouting released their midterm rankings today and there are 7 Knights ranked and 0 Rangers. So remind me again how we're going to be better positioned to go for it next year or even the year after?

Something systemic in the scouting/drafting/development has to change.

Somewhat surprised Jacob Leblanc didn’t get listed toward the bottom of the list. Having nobody else isn’t really surprising. Perhaps Martin could join the bottom of the list if he continues and progresses in the second half of the season

 

[Tim Wallach]

Somewhat surprised Jacob Leblanc didn’t get listed toward the bottom of the list. Having nobody else isn’t really surprising. Perhaps Martin could join the bottom of the list if he continues and progresses in the second half of the season

Oh, I'm not surprised they have low representation. I'm just using it as a reminder of where we're at. Some seem to think we'll be well positioned next year or after, but we'd have to make up serious ground for that to be true.

I am also surprised Jacob Leblanc isn't on there, but I wonder if he is suffering from scouts' overall attitude towards this organization right now? I have it on first-hand authority that scouts don't think much of our coaching.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

On a note related to the discussion of "going for it" next year and development, NHL Central Scouting released their midterm rankings today and there are 7 Knights ranked and 0 Rangers. So remind me again how we're going to be better positioned to go for it next year or even the year after?

Something systemic in the scouting/drafting/development has to change.

Central scouting doesn't mean that much (at least certainly not to NHL teams, especially by mid season) and Knights players always get a bit of an extra edge simply for being Knights...which usually is very useful for them when they figure out one is a dud or under performer and get a good return for him based on rankings like this. We'd likely have 1 if Parsons wasn't a late Bday and J Leblanc arguably deserves to be there.

There's often a bit of doom and gloom around here this time of year if the team isn't where we wanted it, and it's not, but I'm just glad for once we finally had a decent sell off in a "meh" year. I don't disagree with everything but it's feeling a bit over blown at this particular point in time to me.

If we're always looking at London and deciding when to go, we'd never go for it. I lived in London for a couple years and it was fun watching them and cheering for them (when not playing Kitchener of course). If I ever get to the point where I'm more preoccupied with London and how Kitchener isn't London, I'll just get the OHL pack and take few trips a year down there and be a Knights fan. It's easier than hoping Kitchener becomes another London.

 

[MatthewsMoustache]

On a note related to the discussion of "going for it" next year and development, NHL Central Scouting released their midterm rankings today and there are 7 Knights ranked and 0 Rangers. So remind me again how we're going to be better positioned to go for it next year or even the year after?

Something systemic in the scouting/drafting/development has to change.

6 Rangers draft picks ranked. We’ve known for some time that they are going to need Mesar and/or Odelius to report, if not 2 other high end imports.

 

[Tim Wallach]

Central scouting doesn't mean that much (at least certainly not to NHL teams, especially by mid season) and Knights players always get a bit of an extra edge simply for being Knights...which usually is very useful for them when they figure out one is a dud or under performer and get a good return for him based on rankings like this. We'd likely have 1 if Parsons wasn't a late Bday and J Leblanc arguably deserves to be there.

There's often a bit of doom and gloom around here this time of year if the team isn't where we wanted it, and it's not, but I'm just glad for once we finally had a decent sell off in a "meh" year. I don't disagree with everything but it's feeling a bit over blown at this particular point in time to me.

If we're always looking at London and deciding when to go, we'd never go for it. I lived in London for a couple years and it was fun watching them and cheering for them (when not playing Kitchener of course). If I ever get to the point where I'm more preoccupied with London and how Kitchener isn't London, I'll just get the OHL pack and take few trips a year down there and be a Knights fan. It's easier than hoping Kitchener becomes another London.

And I just used London as an example. It's not a preoccupation so much as a reality. They're in our division. If we can't compete with them, we can't compete. But I could have used a variety of other teams as well. The point is we'd have to leapfrog several teams who are currently better situated than us to go for it next year. And that's a reality to consider. That's all.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

And I just used London as an example. It's not a preoccupation so much as a reality. They're in our division. If we can't compete with them, we can't compete. But I could have used a variety of other teams as well. The point is we'd have to leapfrog several teams who are currently better situated than us to go for it next year. And that's a reality to consider. That's all.

Our board has a preoccupation with London, I think it's hard to deny (not just you specifically).

I don't really see many fans here that think we can contend next year; some seem to argue with themselves about it from time to time but consensus seems to land on next year being a massive ?. I think the only time that really came up was in mentioning not having Cajan as an OA and Import IF it is a go for it year (and my opinion was that we shouldn't use an OA and Import slot on him either way; go for it or not).

 

[rangersblues]

Central scouting doesn't mean that much (at least certainly not to NHL teams, especially by mid season) and Knights players always get a bit of an extra edge simply for being Knights...which usually is very useful for them when they figure out one is a dud or under performer and get a good return for him based on rankings like this. We'd likely have 1 if Parsons wasn't a late Bday and J Leblanc arguably deserves to be there.

There's often a bit of doom and gloom around here this time of year if the team isn't where we wanted it, and it's not, but I'm just glad for once we finally had a decent sell off in a "meh" year. I don't disagree with everything but it's feeling a bit over blown at this particular point in time to me.

If we're always looking at London and deciding when to go, we'd never go for it. I lived in London for a couple years and it was fun watching them and cheering for them (when not playing Kitchener of course). If I ever get to the point where I'm more preoccupied with London and how Kitchener isn't London, I'll just get the OHL pack and take few trips a year down there and be a Knights fan. It's easier than hoping Kitchener becomes another London.

Is it possible Knight's players always get an edge because they're always at or near the top of the standings or is it just coincidence?

I don't think anyone thought we'd realistically be at the top this season. But it is a little disconcerting how little many of our players have developed yet again.

 

[Tim Wallach]

Our board has a preoccupation with London, I think it's hard to deny (not just you specifically).

I don't really see many fans here that think we can contend next year; some seem to argue with themselves about it from time to time but consensus seems to land on next year being a massive ?. I think the only time that really came up was in mentioning not having Cajan as an OA and Import IF it is a go for it year (and my opinion was that we shouldn't use an OA and Import slot on him either way; go for it or not).

I would still argue it's not a preoccupation at all. It's just an obvious comparison when they're our closest competition.

Is it possible Knight's players always get an edge because they're always at or near the top of the standings or is it just coincidence?

I don't think anyone thought we'd realistically be at the top this season. But it is a little disconcerting how little many of our players have developed yet again.

I think London players definitely benefit from scouting bias but that's partly because scouts are confident they get good development there. I have heard a few scouts openly talk about that.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

Is it possible Knight's players always get an edge because they're always at or near the top of the standings or is it just coincidence?

I don't think anyone thought we'd realistically be at the top this season. But it is a little disconcerting how little many of our players have developed yet again.

I looked at the top 3 rounds of that draft year and it's pretty under whelming in general. I'm not saying we have a great crop, but it looks like a shit load of guys haven't really developed very well from that draft. J Leblanc and Parsons looks solid, Pugliesse looks surprisingly good. Swick imo looks like what I expected; a project (didn't expect much from him until his 3rd year of eligibility, which is next year).
London gets an edge because they have an excellent track record and a more in depth development program than any other team in the league. Not sure why we don't have something like that because it seems like we're one of the few other teams in the league with the resources to do so, but we don't have independent ownership that can mold things as they see fit.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

I would still argue it's not a preoccupation at all. It's just an obvious comparison when they're our closest competition.



I think London players definitely benefit from scouting bias but that's partly because scouts are confident they get good development there. I have heard a few scouts openly talk about that.

Well I guess we just disagree. The amount of London discussion supersedes simply discussing our teams closest rival fairly often (which is debatable at this point, I'd say London would consider other teams their closest rival before us at this point).

A full time Head Coach is the main thing we need right now. I just hope MM see's he's not the guy at this point and gets someone who can be, letting him focus on GM duties.

 

[Fischhaber]

I would still argue it's not a preoccupation at all. It's just an obvious comparison when they're our closest competition.

I think London players definitely benefit from scouting bias but that's partly because scouts are confident they get good development there. I have heard a few scouts openly talk about that.

I've had the fortune of speaking with a couple of NHL scouts at games in the Soo and they have said the same thing in general terms. They didn't say city names, but the implication was that they would take a slightly less talented player on a consistently good team over a slightly more talented player on a team with a less robust record of development. London is an interesting case because they are head and shoulders above the league at talent acquisition, but rather average or poor at development on the whole. A great many of their drafted players are slam dunk NHL draftees before they even set foot on OHL ice.

The league's top goal scorer right now is an 8th round pick. Was it just destiny and good scouting or did the team play a big role in that?

Do bad teams consistently pick the wrong guys in the first round or do they ruin the development of players who would have been great elsewhere? These questions always intrigue me.

 

[MatthewsMoustache]

I've had the fortune of speaking with a couple of NHL scouts at games in the Soo and they have said the same thing in general terms. They didn't say city names, but the implication was that they would take a slightly less talented player on a consistently good team over a slightly more talented player on a team with a less robust record of development. London is an interesting case because they are head and shoulders above the league at talent acquisition, but rather average or poor at development on the whole. A great many of their drafted players are slam dunk NHL draftees before they even set foot on OHL ice.

The league's top goal scorer right now is an 8th round pick. Was it just destiny and good scouting or did the team play a big role in that?

Do bad teams consistently pick the wrong guys in the first round or do they ruin the development of players who would have been great elsewhere? These questions always intrigue me.

The OHL draft is free agency for the top players. It’s hard to judge some teams drafting because we don’t know who was truly available to them at each pick. And on the other hand it’s hard to judge teams like the Knights drafting because they can pick whoever just about whenever.

 

[rangersblues]

I've had the fortune of speaking with a couple of NHL scouts at games in the Soo and they have said the same thing in general terms. They didn't say city names, but the implication was that they would take a slightly less talented player on a consistently good team over a slightly more talented player on a team with a less robust record of development. London is an interesting case because they are head and shoulders above the league at talent acquisition, but rather average or poor at development on the whole. A great many of their drafted players are slam dunk NHL draftees before they even set foot on OHL ice.

The league's top goal scorer right now is an 8th round pick. Was it just destiny and good scouting or did the team play a big role in that?

Do bad teams consistently pick the wrong guys in the first round or do they ruin the development of players who would have been great elsewhere? These questions always intrigue me.

I think it's a rather simple observation which teams players improve the most from the beginning of the season to the end. Especially with junior players that have such a high curve.

I'm not sure many would evaluate London at average to poor at player development.

 

[GeoBlue]

I would still argue it's not a preoccupation at all. It's just an obvious comparison when they're our closest competition.

They are probably our 3rd closest competition if you are talking distance from Kitchener. If you are talking about organizational strategies and development, one needs to add many, many, many more miles to that distance. There are other teams that are doing far better than us these days.

 

[Tim Wallach]

They are probably our 3rd closest competition if you are talking distance from Kitchener. If you are talking about organizational strategies and development, one needs to add many, many, many more miles to that distance. There are other teams that are doing far better than us these days.

What I really meant was they're consistently our stiffest in-division competition. But I'm happy to toss London out of the conversation if that helps some posters. It really isn't about them. It's about using comparators that give you a sense of where you stand. And we can't evaluate Kitchener in a vacuum as we tend to do on here and just say "well, so and so is returning, so we'll be good." It's only relevant when considering where other contenders stand. And if some stand clearly above us, which they do right now, that doesn't bode well.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

Leave London in the conversation, it doesn't help or hurt I just find the obsession this board has with the Knights to be a little much and veer into "little brother" syndrome at times, rather than mere rival-discussion. . Some disagree with me about that! That's ok! I'm happy to lay off that point if it helps some posters.
I'm not singling anyone out either, there are several posters who sometimes can't talk about the Rangers without a doom and gloom mentality because we aren't London (we aren't going to be for awhile, stating the obvious is a bit redundant at some point).

I also kind of think at some point the hardcore fans (the STH and followers of every game) have to vote with their wallets. I think there is still currently enough STH loyalty and will always be enough casual fans (despite the on ice product, the Rangers brand seems strong still) to fill the seats. It's sort of similar to how the Leafs had/have been for decades now; the fans will be in the seats regardless of the on ice product so there is seemingly little motivation to make drastic change.
Unlike the Leafs, a significant chunk of STH drop offs would have a much bigger impact on team finances...and this last 5-8 years is the first time in a while that the wait list/demand for season tickets is at a low point compared to the 2000s and early 2010s.
In seasons where the team doesn't meet my entertainment expectations, I'm happy to just watch the game at home, rather than give the Rangers my ticket and concession money.

 

[Fischhaber]

I think it's a rather simple observation which teams players improve the most from the beginning of the season to the end. Especially with junior players that have such a high curve.

I'm not sure many would evaluate London at average to poor at player development.

It's hard to make an objective assessment given their huge number of late round hits on college commits that were already destined for the NHL, but here's a quick summary of how many top 3 round picks made any serious developmental strides with the Knights. The most borderline guys I left off were the likes of Billy Moskal and Doug Blaisdell, who were not obvious development successes.

2012: 0/4
2013: 1/3 (Marner)
2014: 1/5 (Jones)
2015: 2/3 (Bouchard, Thomas)
2016: 1/4 (Foudy)
2017: 1/3 (Perrott)

The list is littered with guys like Tyler Nother, Emanuel Vella, Mitchell Kreis, Ryan Bangs, Lucas Rowe, and a whole bunch of others who didn't even make the OHL.

Max Jones likely wasn't available to teams, but I left him anyways. That snapshot contains 22 top 3 round picks, meaning less than one third of top picks had any serious developmental success with the Knights.

There have absolutely been some non college commits in later rounds that have had success, most notably Brett Brochu, but it's hardly a group that sets them apart from other teams.

A couple of other teams for reference:

Greyhounds 10/15 ( McCann, Spinozzi, Speers, White, Senyshyn, Katchouk, Raaymakers, Gettinger, Hayton, Calisti)

Rangers 9/19 (MacInnis, Mascherin, Bunnaman, Hall, Merieles, Garrefa, Vallati, Damiani, Vukojevic)

Included in the misses were traded players like Anthony Salinitri, Liam Hawel, Hayden Fowler, Ben Gleason, Matt Schmalz, and Grayson Ladd.

 

[rangersblues]

It's hard to make an objective assessment given their huge number of late round hits on college commits that were already destined for the NHL, but here's a quick summary of how many top 3 round picks made any serious developmental strides with the Knights. The most borderline guys I left off were the likes of Billy Moskal and Doug Blaisdell, who were not obvious development successes.

2012: 0/4
2013: 1/3 (Marner)
2014: 1/5 (Jones)
2015: 2/3 (Bouchard, Thomas)
2016: 1/4 (Foudy)
2017: 1/3 (Perrott)

The list is littered with guys like Tyler Nother, Emanuel Vella, Mitchell Kreis, Ryan Bangs, Lucas Rowe, and a whole bunch of others who didn't even make the OHL.

Max Jones likely wasn't available to teams, but I left him anyways. That snapshot contains 22 top 3 round picks, meaning less than one third of top picks had any serious developmental success with the Knights.

There have absolutely been some non college commits in later rounds that have had success, most notably Brett Brochu, but it's hardly a group that sets them apart from other teams.

A couple of other teams for reference:

Greyhounds 10/15 ( McCann, Spinozzi, Speers, White, Senyshyn, Katchouk, Raaymakers, Gettinger, Hayton, Calisti)

Rangers 9/19 (MacInnis, Mascherin, Bunnaman, Hall, Merieles, Garrefa, Vallati, Damiani, Vukojevic)

Included in the misses were traded players like Anthony Salinitri, Liam Hawel, Hayden Fowler, Ben Gleason, Matt Schmalz, and Grayson Ladd.

It's hard to make an objective assessment given their huge number of late round hits on college commits that were already destined for the NHL, but here's a quick summary of how many top 3 round picks made any serious developmental strides with the Knights. The most borderline guys I left off were the likes of Billy Moskal and Doug Blaisdell, who were not obvious development successes.

2012: 0/4
2013: 1/3 (Marner)
2014: 1/5 (Jones)
2015: 2/3 (Bouchard, Thomas)
2016: 1/4 (Foudy)
2017: 1/3 (Perrott)

The list is littered with guys like Tyler Nother, Emanuel Vella, Mitchell Kreis, Ryan Bangs, Lucas Rowe, and a whole bunch of others who didn't even make the OHL.

Max Jones likely wasn't available to teams, but I left him anyways. That snapshot contains 22 top 3 round picks, meaning less than one third of top picks had any serious developmental success with the Knights.

There have absolutely been some non college commits in later rounds that have had success, most notably Brett Brochu, but it's hardly a group that sets them apart from other teams.

A couple of other teams for reference:

Greyhounds 10/15 ( McCann, Spinozzi, Speers, White, Senyshyn, Katchouk, Raaymakers, Gettinger, Hayton, Calisti)

Rangers 9/19 (MacInnis, Mascherin, Bunnaman, Hall, Merieles, Garrefa, Vallati, Damiani, Vukojevic)

Included in the misses were traded players like Anthony Salinitri, Liam Hawel, Hayden Fowler, Ben Gleason, Matt Schmalz, and Grayson Ladd.

It's hard to make an objective assessment given their huge number of late round hits on college commits that were already destined for the NHL, but here's a quick summary of how many top 3 round picks made any serious developmental strides with the Knights. The most borderline guys I left off were the likes of Billy Moskal and Doug Blaisdell, who were not obvious development successes.

2012: 0/4
2013: 1/3 (Marner)
2014: 1/5 (Jones)
2015: 2/3 (Bouchard, Thomas)
2016: 1/4 (Foudy)
2017: 1/3 (Perrott)

The list is littered with guys like Tyler Nother, Emanuel Vella, Mitchell Kreis, Ryan Bangs, Lucas Rowe, and a whole bunch of others who didn't even make the OHL.

Max Jones likely wasn't available to teams, but I left him anyways. That snapshot contains 22 top 3 round picks, meaning less than one third of top picks had any serious developmental success with the Knights.

There have absolutely been some non college commits in later rounds that have had success, most notably Brett Brochu, but it's hardly a group that sets them apart from other teams.

A couple of other teams for reference:

Greyhounds 10/15 ( McCann, Spinozzi, Speers, White, Senyshyn, Katchouk, Raaymakers, Gettinger, Hayton, Calisti)

Rangers 9/19 (MacInnis, Mascherin, Bunnaman, Hall, Merieles, Garrefa, Vallati, Damiani, Vukojevic)

Included in the misses were traded players like Anthony Salinitri, Liam Hawel, Hayden Fowler, Ben Gleason, Matt Schmalz, and Grayson Ladd.

That's a nice analytical synopsis you did. People from Soo are obviously good at that. Dubas taught you well.

In 2012 you left out Alex Broadhurst and Owen MacDonald. MacDonald was an integral part of the Memorial Cup team. Hunter could put his 3rd line out vs other teams top lines to shut them down and pitch in the odd goal freeing up Dvorak, Marner and Tkachuk to play against other teams lower lines. Further down the draft they picked Centorame who they turned into a big trade bounty. Also JJ Piccinich and Christian Dvorak who I'm sure you'll find reasons that they don't count. This is only one draft.

I know which list of players I'd rather take a run at a championship with. I'm not only talking about top 3 rounds draft picks though.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

That's a nice analytical synopsis you did. People from Soo are obviously good at that. Dubas taught you well.

In 2012 you left out Alex Broadhurst and Owen MacDonald. MacDonald was an integral part of the Memorial Cup team. Hunter could put his 3rd line out vs other teams top lines to shut them down and pitch in the odd goal freeing up Dvorak, Marner and Tkachuk to play against other teams lower lines. Further down the draft they picked Centorame who they turned into a big trade bounty. Also JJ Piccinich and Christian Dvorak who I'm sure you'll find reasons that they don't count. This is only one draft.

I know which list of players I'd rather take a run at a championship with. I'm not only talking about top 3 rounds draft picks though.

He's talking about London drafting AND developing guys, Broadhurst and Piccinich were drafted and came over in their 4th year of eligibility, each. They did the bulk of their developing in non-Knights programs (unless you count JJ coming back as an OA and failing to earn a contract with the Leafs after being drafted in the 4th round as "development").

Macdonald was very good 3rd line center who excelled given a role and playing that role in a limited way...but I kind of doubt that if you have criticism of the Rangers scouting, that he would be considered a "successful" 2nd round pick with a career high of 37 points.

That Knights Mem Cup team made the standard cable package in London maybe the best value of any I've ever had lol.

 

[rangersblues]

He's talking about London drafting AND developing guys, Broadhurst and Piccinich were drafted and came over in their 4th year of eligibility, each. They did the bulk of their developing in non-Knights programs (unless you count JJ coming back as an OA and failing to earn a contract with the Leafs after being drafted in the 4th round as "development").

Macdonald was very good 3rd line center who excelled given a role and playing that role in a limited way...but I kind of doubt that if you have criticism of the Rangers scouting, that he would be considered a "successful" 2nd round pick with a career high of 37 points.

That Knights Mem Cup team made the standard cable package in London maybe the best value of any I've ever had lol.

I would have loved to have a 3rd line centre that did what MacDonald accomplished shutting down top lines during London's last Memorial Cup run. He shut down Strome and Debricat completely if I recall. There's a lot more to being a successful hockey player than putting the puck in the net, although that line did manage some timely goals along the way.

That's exactly what Tim Wallach was saying Deboer did that made him so successful. He got the most out of your abilities that you excelled at. That doesn't necessarily have to be scoring. That happens in successful teams.

And yes I would be happy having MacDonald on my team especially playing the role he did with the other top calibre players that were developed by someone.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

I would have loved to have a 3rd line centre that did what MacDonald accomplished shutting down top lines during London's last Memorial Cup run. He shut down Strome and Debricat completely if I recall. There's a lot more to being a successful hockey player than putting the puck in the net, although that line did manage some timely goals along the way.

That's exactly what Tim Wallach was saying Deboer did that made him so successful. He got the most out of your abilities that you excelled at. That doesn't necessarily have to be scoring. That happens in successful teams.

And yes I would be happy having MacDonald on my team especially playing the role he did with the other top calibre players that were developed by someone.

Eh from what I recall watching that run (as a Leaf fan living in London I watched every game for Marner) I think that's giving him a little too much credit. The 1st line played a ridiculous amount of minutes, I recall some Knights fans suggesting too many at times, the 2nd line was no slouch either. He didn't get enough ice time, nor did that line, to get credit for shutting down Strome and Debrincat, the top 2 lines did it well too. Dvorak and Marner were excellent two way players in that run and Marner was a big PK force.
If you had Owen Macdonald on your team and he didn't win a memorial cup for your team, based on his body of work, I don't think you'd have the same extremely high view of him for where he was selected.

Anyway, I already pointed out why Broadhurst and Picchinich were irrelevant to what Fischaber was talking about, even though I disagree with him that London is "average" at development; they are clearly very very good at it and even better at identifying when they can't build a player further and ship him out before his value tanks.

 

[Fischhaber]

That's a nice analytical synopsis you did. People from Soo are obviously good at that. Dubas taught you well.

In 2012 you left out Alex Broadhurst and Owen MacDonald. MacDonald was an integral part of the Memorial Cup team. Hunter could put his 3rd line out vs other teams top lines to shut them down and pitch in the odd goal freeing up Dvorak, Marner and Tkachuk to play against other teams lower lines. Further down the draft they picked Centorame who they turned into a big trade bounty. Also JJ Piccinich and Christian Dvorak who I'm sure you'll find reasons that they don't count. This is only one draft.

I know which list of players I'd rather take a run at a championship with. I'm not only talking about top 3 rounds draft picks though.

I set out some reasonable parameters (top 3 rounds) so I didn't spend 12 hours doing this and stuck with them. I'll accept an argument for Owen MacDonald, but it doesn't really change the results. I expect more from a second round pick on a team that is supposedly above average at developing players.

Dvorak was a fine player and developed well, but also a high end first round talent that was taken in the 8th round. It's doubtful that any other team had the resources to get him to turn down his full ride scholarship from the University of Wisconsin. It's highly unlikely that doesn't make the NHL if the Rangers somehow drafted and signed him, for example. Piccinich, another high end US college commit didn't even end up making the NHL, despite being expected to do so.

Centorame spent 4 seasons of his career with the Owen Sound Attack, so I would hardly call that a development win. The two best Canadian players drafted by London after the 3rd round in that span were Aidan Jamieson and Alex Formenton, admittedly a huge success. That still doesn't constitute an above average development haul over a 6 year span.

Compare that to our other teams, the Rangers with Mike Petizian and Nick McHugh, or the Greyhounds with Hayden Verbeek, Michael Bunting, Conor Timmins, Mac Hollowell, Morgan Frost, and Tye Kartye.

Developing one star and a couple of role players from the Canadian draft pool in 6 years is hardly a remarkable achievement. It's actually well below average.

London destroys the league in terms of recruitment and and asset management, while also doing quite well in trades.

Player development is a different story. It's unequivocally a big weakness that they are below average at.

Conclusion:

If you're a young player that isn't already at the very top of your draft class, it is most certainly not a team that you want to go to if you want to reach your full potential. The facts bear that out quite conclusively.

If you are a top flight American prospect with his ticket punched to an NHL contract that wants to be treated like royalty and win a lot of games then there isn't any question where you want to go. That's why we see so many players do just that, providing by far the main reason for their success.