OA Goalies Don't Count?

[HockeyPops]

Credit to @RayzorIsDull for first posting this, but this could be an interesting change.

Click to read more...

 

[ohloutsider]

Credit to @RayzorIsDull for first posting this, but this could be an interesting change.

If my memory serves me correct this was a talking point around 2919/2020 season. It was discussed along with some of the changes they adapted for the imports. Re- giving first year imports a trade window if they were not happy with their present team. The OA goalie as a not an OA makes sense as far as goalie development goes. It seems to take longer for the goalies to hone their trade. I think it is a good idea.

 

[OMG67]

If my memory serves me correct this was a talking point around 2919/2020 season. It was discussed along with some of the changes they adapted for the imports. Re- giving first year imports a trade window if they were not happy with their present team. The OA goalie as a not an OA makes sense as far as goalie development goes. It seems to take longer for the goalies to hone their trade. I think it is a good idea.

I agree. When you consider how few North American Goalies play starting roles at the NHL Level, you have to think there needs to be some sort of development change.

 

[Generalsupdates]

I agree. When you consider how few North American Goalies play starting roles at the NHL Level, you have to think there needs to be some sort of development change.

But would lead to younger Ontario goalies not playing in the OHL, which would have them start going other routes to play at 16/17. Losing younger goalies to NCAA and USHL isn't going to help a developmental change if you ask me

 

[OMG67]

But would lead to younger Ontario goalies not playing in the OHL, which would have them start going other routes to play at 16/17. Losing younger goalies to NCAA and USHL isn't going to help a developmental change if you ask me

Most goalies aren’t starting in the OHL until at least 18.

My personal opinion is 16 year old goalies should be playing Midget AAA as starters as much as possible. Then at 17, move to Jr A/B or OHL of good enough.

I can’t remember the last time the 67s played a 16 or 17 year old 25+ games.

OHL teams will and can still sign their young goalies either way.

So with the exception of the 2 or 3 that get picked in the top 3 rounds annually, it should change anything much.

If a goalie is good enough to turn pro at 20, he will. If the goalie is a pivotal player and can’t turn pro for whatever reason, he’d stay as an OA anyway.

All that said, the 67s have Cranley (StL), Donoso and Mackenzie. If the 67s keep Cranley as an OA next year if StL is ok with it, they’d have Donoso at 19 and Mackenzie at 18. But it would be reasonable to assume each goalie would get one year as a starter provided they all deserve it. That isn’t a lot different than now for the average starting goalie.

EDIT: I should add that it doesn't look good for Canadian goalies right now. There really aren’t many playing in the NHL as starters. Clearly there is an issue. The CHL barred Import goalies for a while to increase opportunity for Canadian goalies but that didn’t last very long. Something needs to change so this seems it could be reasonable by raising the age eligibility bar so as to not rush goalie development as teenagers.

Looking at the top 25 NHL goalies in Wins this season, only two are an OHL goalie (Jack Campbell and Robin Lehner) and neither is Canadian.

 

[SarniaStingFan]

Another effect this would have is that you would add more OA players. This take a few opportunities away from 16 yr old players. This could be a positive or negative effect depending on who you are. I'd consider it positive because there's a lot of 16 you old players who could use more development but get forced into the O too early. This rule would allow more 16 yr Olds to play Jr A/B in their 1st season.

 

[three dog night]

Don’t like it

 

[HockeyPops]

If this happens, it might have the biggest impact in the WHL. That's the league that's waived the most CHL calibre goalies recently, as evidenced by the volume if those players having been picked up by OHL teams. Those players would likely have all found a home in the WHL if this rule had been in place.

 

[ohloutsider]

Another thought on this would be having more OA goalies playing would also raise the bar on the shooters. Harder to score so more development/challenge for the offensive players. I still see this as a win/win for players and teams as well as a better chance for them to get to the pro ranks after.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Most goalies aren’t starting in the OHL until at least 18.

My personal opinion is 16 year old goalies should be playing Midget AAA as starters as much as possible. Then at 17, move to Jr A/B or OHL of good enough.

I can’t remember the last time the 67s played a 16 or 17 year old 25+ games.

OHL teams will and can still sign their young goalies either way.

So with the exception of the 2 or 3 that get picked in the top 3 rounds annually, it should change anything much.

If a goalie is good enough to turn pro at 20, he will. If the goalie is a pivotal player and can’t turn pro for whatever reason, he’d stay as an OA anyway.

All that said, the 67s have Cranley (StL), Donoso and Mackenzie. If the 67s keep Cranley as an OA next year if StL is ok with it, they’d have Donoso at 19 and Mackenzie at 18. But it would be reasonable to assume each goalie would get one year as a starter provided they all deserve it. That isn’t a lot different than now for the average starting goalie.

EDIT: I should add that it doesn't look good for Canadian goalies right now. There really aren’t many playing in the NHL as starters. Clearly there is an issue. The CHL barred Import goalies for a while to increase opportunity for Canadian goalies but that didn’t last very long. Something needs to change so this seems it could be reasonable by raising the age eligibility bar so as to not rush goalie development as teenagers.

Looking at the top 25 NHL goalies in Wins this season, only two are an OHL goalie (Jack Campbell and Robin Lehner) and neither is Canadian.

I can't exactly speak to the culture within other countries, but I get a strong sense that u20 hockey is just so much more heavily glamorized compared to elsewhere, and because of this we see so much more of an urgency to find a place in a u20 league rather than a more natural progression through a u18 level. A lot of these kids earn spots in major junior or tier II because of the promise they show but then only see half the workload (or less) than would get in u18. It just seems like these others countries have their u16/18/20 hockey and mostly have their kids play with their peer group unless they force their way up.

I doubt it flies with the CHL but I think it would be in hockey canada's best interest to further limit u18 spots in major junior, and create an elite u18 program similar to the US model. Two or maybe four rosters worth of 16/17 year olds that would live/study/train in an academy type setting and play a full season's worth of games made up of intersquads matches against each other, exhibitions versus tier II teams and perhaps sandbagging some top u18 tournaments. Especially when it comes to our goalie issue in Canada, I can't help but wonder how much some of them and therefore the program would benefit if a group of top 16/17 year old goalies were brought along in that type of environment versus maybe seeing 15-20 games per season as a backup on a junior team.

 

[OMG67]

I can't exactly speak to the culture within other countries, but I get a strong sense that u20 hockey is just so much more heavily glamorized compared to elsewhere, and because of this we see so much more of an urgency to find a place in a u20 league rather than a more natural progression through a u18 level. A lot of these kids earn spots in major junior or tier II because of the promise they show but then only see half the workload (or less) than would get in u18. It just seems like these others countries have their u16/18/20 hockey and mostly have their kids play with their peer group unless they force their way up.

I doubt it flies with the CHL but I think it would be in hockey canada's best interest to further limit u18 spots in major junior, and create an elite u18 program similar to the US model. Two or maybe four rosters worth of 16/17 year olds that would live/study/train in an academy type setting and play a full season's worth of games made up of intersquads matches against each other, exhibitions versus tier II teams and perhaps sandbagging some top u18 tournaments. Especially when it comes to our goalie issue in Canada, I can't help but wonder how much some of them and therefore the program would benefit if a group of top 16/17 year old goalies were brought along in that type of environment versus maybe seeing 15-20 games per season as a backup on a junior team.

I definitely cannot disagree with this from purely a development standpoint.

Of course there are players that are clearly capable. But, are there four 16 year olds per team capable of contributing meaningfully right away? How many 17 year olds can truly contribute - 4? 5?

It is definitely a league where the more experienced/older teams have a competitive advantage.

The challenge would be in having enough quality players to ice a roster. Some age level will be difficult at some point annually for each franchise. Restricting eligibility even more may exacerbate the challenges.

U16 - 2
U17 - 2(U16) + 5
O19 - 3 + Goalie

That leaves 12-13 roster spots for 18 and 19 year olds.

Maybe a true AAA Midget (U18) league with fewer teams would provide the league necessary to accomplish what you are suggesting. Only Major Junior and NCAA Prospects playing in that league at 16/17. The problem is you’d also be holding back some pretty good JrA calibre players from playing at the JrA level as well. The 67’s had Cooper Foster play for the Soo Thunderbirds in the NOJHL and win the MVP at 16 years old. I don’t think we want a player like that toiling away in Midget.

I don’t have the right answer, that is for sure.

 

[OMG67]

Another effect this would have is that you would add more OA players. This take a few opportunities away from 16 yr old players. This could be a positive or negative effect depending on who you are. I'd consider it positive because there's a lot of 16 you old players who could use more development but get forced into the O too early. This rule would allow more 16 yr Olds to play Jr A/B in their 1st season.

I’m not sure it will have a big of an effect in that regard.

There are about five OA goalies in the OHL this year. I think that is the average give or take on an annual basis. So, even if there are more than 5 on any given year, even 20, it still only reduces an average of five 16 year olds in the league with OA Goalies taking the roster spot of a younger player.

The NHL will probably still operate as they normally do. If the goalie is good enough to play Pro, they will pull the goalie into the Pro ranks and develop them themselves. If the goalie is good enough to be a starter, most teams keep the goalie anyway. The only reason not to is management of OA Spots or to open a starting spot for a solid younger goalie the team feels is as good.

Do I think 20 teams will keep an OA? Maybe they will roster one if they feel they have the roster spot to do so. It is an easy safety net and the kid gets another scholarship year so he may be ok with being a backup or a 3rd string for that tradeoff. But, outside that, I doubt there would be more than 10 OA goalies actually playing at least a platoon role. That would be up from 5 now. So, five additional meaningful players? Give or take….

 

[Millpond]

It won't happen next season .

 

[rangersblues]

Most goalies aren’t starting in the OHL until at least 18.

My personal opinion is 16 year old goalies should be playing Midget AAA as starters as much as possible. Then at 17, move to Jr A/B or OHL of good enough.

I can’t remember the last time the 67s played a 16 or 17 year old 25+ games.

OHL teams will and can still sign their young goalies either way.

So with the exception of the 2 or 3 that get picked in the top 3 rounds annually, it should change anything much.

If a goalie is good enough to turn pro at 20, he will. If the goalie is a pivotal player and can’t turn pro for whatever reason, he’d stay as an OA anyway.

All that said, the 67s have Cranley (StL), Donoso and Mackenzie. If the 67s keep Cranley as an OA next year if StL is ok with it, they’d have Donoso at 19 and Mackenzie at 18. But it would be reasonable to assume each goalie would get one year as a starter provided they all deserve it. That isn’t a lot different than now for the average starting goalie.

EDIT: I should add that it doesn't look good for Canadian goalies right now. There really aren’t many playing in the NHL as starters. Clearly there is an issue. The CHL barred Import goalies for a while to increase opportunity for Canadian goalies but that didn’t last very long. Something needs to change so this seems it could be reasonable by raising the age eligibility bar so as to not rush goalie development as teenagers.

Looking at the top 25 NHL goalies in Wins this season, only two are an OHL goalie (Jack Campbell and Robin Lehner) and neither is Canadian.

I agree partially with what you're saying. Most 16 year old goalies shouldn't be in the OHL. But I don't think AAA Midget is the answer either. Most of the shooters they would be going up against aren't ever going to be OHL calibre players. They need a higher level of competition to hone their skills.

 

[Generalsupdates]

I agree partially with what you're saying. Most 16 year old goalies shouldn't be in the OHL. But I don't think AAA Midget is the answer either. Most of the shooters they would be going up against aren't ever going to be OHL calibre players. They need a higher level of competition to hone their skills.

AAA midget is brutal for 90% of the teams. Only a handful of teams actually take it serious and provide any development for the next level

 

[sbpointer]

The GOJHL is a great place to develop a 16 y/o goalie

 

[beastintheeast]

How would this affect the draft, or would it?


The challenge I have is the supposed difference between developing at the junior level.

I think that it is an option that teams could have.