OHL Priority Draft Rule Changes???

[Sam14]

Here is some additional information to this topic…


Why the OHL draft is about more than just picking the best player
Hamilton Spectator 2016

The OHL draft isn’t just about picking the best player. It’s about making sure the player you take is willing to sign.
A dozen or so years ago when Patrick Kane was a teenage phenom in American minor hockey, the Barrie Colts wanted to make him their first-round draft pick in the OHL Priority Selection.

Just one problem. He wouldn't commit to coming. Kane slipped all the way to the fifth round before being grabbed by the London Knights. After a year in United States National Development Program, he joined London.

"If a kid doesn't want to come to a franchise, he'll play the NCAA card," says Darrell Woodley who was director of player personnel for the Colts back then and is now head of OHL Central Scouting.

It's the tricky part of the league's draft. If a young man doesn't want to play for a particular franchise, he can tell the organization not to draft him. If he has his sights set on one or two favoured teams, he can tell everyone else to skip him.

If they don't listen to his wishes and call his name anyway, he'll go play in the NCAA, the United States Hockey League, or in the United States National Development Program, leaving the team that took him high and dry.
"It definitely happens," Woodley says.

 

[Otto]

Here is some additional information to this topic…


Why the OHL draft is about more than just picking the best player
Hamilton Spectator 2016

The OHL draft isn’t just about picking the best player. It’s about making sure the player you take is willing to sign.
A dozen or so years ago when Patrick Kane was a teenage phenom in American minor hockey, the Barrie Colts wanted to make him their first-round draft pick in the OHL Priority Selection.

Just one problem. He wouldn't commit to coming. Kane slipped all the way to the fifth round before being grabbed by the London Knights. After a year in United States National Development Program, he joined London.

"If a kid doesn't want to come to a franchise, he'll play the NCAA card," says Darrell Woodley who was director of player personnel for the Colts back then and is now head of OHL Central Scouting.

It's the tricky part of the league's draft. If a young man doesn't want to play for a particular franchise, he can tell the organization not to draft him. If he has his sights set on one or two favoured teams, he can tell everyone else to skip him.

If they don't listen to his wishes and call his name anyway, he'll go play in the NCAA, the United States Hockey League, or in the United States National Development Program, leaving the team that took him high and dry.
"It definitely happens," Woodley says.

Except a) The rules have changed since then and the player can be traded and compensatory picks are given and b) you are still assuming that every player who decommits and joins the OHL is a manipulator but every kid who decommits and them commits to another school is simply changing their mind. and c) the OHL was far better off with Patrick Kane in it than out of it.

 

[dirty12]

Quite the contrary, in fact. The importance to scouting will grow exponentially in this system. With players declared and available to all teams, there is no guessing or draft games being played, failed scouting and drafting will expose those teams who management team has their team buried at the bottom of the standings consistently. There would no more excuses.

If you think there are only 1 or 2 players a year using the ncaa card you better check your sources. The Antonio Stranges draft manipulation was disgraceful.

You are correct in saying that kids change their mind, but not sure how this system limits them? The player always has the choice as to which league they want to play in. If they want to play in the ohl they enter the draft. If they want to play ncaa they sign with the university. That seems straight forward!

First thing is Stranges was believed good enough to play anywhere he/agent/parents wanted. Lucky for the OHL, London was the first choice ...because it has proved to be the best place for kids’ development
It was sort of a ‘perfect storm’ for Stranges and London having 1st & 3rd selections in the 2nd round of a loaded draft. London gambled that Stranges would still be there to take just before Flint who in turn selected Power. They were right.
That ‘disgraceful draft manipulation’ imo, is on the teams picking 6-20.
Soo, [Hamilton, Kitchener (each with two 2nds)] could have selected Stranges, then flip him to London for a package just as good as the Cuylle trade. That would have replenished picks used to go for it last season.

 

[member 71782]

No one is saying that kids don't pick their spot at times, it happens but trying to stop it is a losing battle that will do more harm than good.

No franchise wants to be turned down or miss out on a player they want to draft but forcing kids who have options to accept a situation they don't want to be in will not get them to report which leads to a drop off in talent league wide. Once that happens the league becomes a less desirable destination for all high end players which will only continue to make things worse.

What's more important to you as a fan?

Having a league with the best talent or having a league made up of lesser talent that will do as you wish?

That is the real question.

Is it about seeing kids follow the ideas of how things should work according to you regardless of the quality of talent or is about seeing a league with the best possible talent and as teams go through their ups and down that talent ending up spread across the league to different teams in one way or another.

If the league really wanted to ice the best product under the current CHL structure they would contract, drop down to 16 teams, cut the draft down to 10 rounds and eliminate a lot of kids who are never likely to play in the league from the equation. That would reduce the number of spots available for players as well as the number of opportunities available to be selected and the resulting centralization of talent would increase the level of competition thus making all teams in the league more desirable and thus likely cutting down on draft manipulation.

Now if junior hockey fans really wanted to see the best on the ice every night you could have 20 markets across Canada and the US come together to form a super junior league, a true mini NHL for junior players that would see drafting from Canada, the US and Europe, all the highest level junior talents brought together in one single league. That would probably reduce draft manipulation quite a bit, the vast majority of CHL players would never play at that level but the majority of high end players would and would likely make a dent in the NCAA commits as well.

There's lots of ways to reduce the draft manipulations that get so many worked up when the reality is, by percentage there are very few doing it, probably less than 5% if not much lower.

 

[PhlyerPhanatic31]

Every team has the same option to pick ANY player after the 1st overall pick. The manipulation theory is for the tinfoil hat wearing masses

 

[comment ca va]

Teams have to do a better job of convincing players to commit.

London will always be able to attract top talent and an OHL with a winning London team and a full Bud is good for league revenues.

Lucas Rowe probably felt like he won the lottery on draft day when he was selected by London.
I suspect he and his camp don't feel that way any more.

What does everyone think about allowing teams to compensate players?
NCAA considers them to be professionals
For example, Flint owner is a billionaire so if he was willing to pay some money he could lure an OA or two who aren't playing much to leave the AHL or ECHL.
Salary cap could limit the rich teams from getting rediculous. Might cause some of the smaller teams to fold, oh well.

 

[member 71782]

Teams have to do a better job of convincing players to commit.

London will always be able to attract top talent and an OHL with a winning London team and a full Bud is good for league revenues.

Lucas Rowe probably felt like he won the lottery on draft day when he was selected by London.
I suspect he and his camp don't feel that way any more.

What does everyone think about allowing teams to compensate players?
NCAA considers them to be professionals
For example, Flint owner is a billionaire so if he was willing to pay some money he could lure an OA or two who aren't playing much to leave the AHL or ECHL.
Salary cap could limit the rich teams from getting rediculous. Might cause some of the smaller teams to fold, oh well.

Teams definitely have to do a better job, it comes down to where their interest lies, putting out a top rate product or simply making as much off the fans as possible with as little investment as possible.

Any league has their "super teams" and London is the leader in the OHL right now in terms of ongoing success. They weren't always at the top and one day there will be other franchises that fit that bill. If there are no "top teams" that can show consistent success then the quality of the league becomes questionable. Does winning come down to a matter of luck every year or are there teams that can do it year in and year out.

Sometimes it can be do you really want what you wish for? Don't know if Rowe was happy to be drafted by London or not, it's irrelevant really but one of the pitfalls of being drafted to a constantly top flight team is getting lost in the shuffle or lack of playing time which, depending on the mental strength of the kid can be tough to overcome and affect other parts of their game. If I had a kid playing hockey at this level I don't know that London would be the best option unless they were an absolutely elite/sure fire player. With so much depth it can be tough to crack a line up while on a slightly less successful team more opportunities may come their way. Most kids have to work for it and if you are in an organization that is always deep with high end names hard work will only take you so far if name recognition comes into play at all. Not a shot at London, they do things well but not the best situation for every player that may take a bit more time. We also know slower developing kids or later round picks can get lost in the lower ranks so if you don't make it your first year your chances grow slimmer.

No problem with compensation but it should not be a wide open bidding style. These players have short careers in the OHL and they are the product so there should be a piece of the pie coming their way. Anytime an athlete is the product at the centre of a business model the idea of amateur athlete is questionable at best. A set wage for all athletes, increases for years of service makes sense. A small signing bonus and a cut of merchandising related to their name or allowing sponsors to compensate for promotions. The problem with compensation is not how well to do an owner is but the business models used to run these franchises and in the case of the CHL the mindset of the ownership groups. The business models are developed on having non paid talent. Paying the players would completely change the business models and make a number of franchises non viable regardless of the personal wealth of any owners which could lead to some franchises going away, which isn't a bad thing IMO.

NCAA is the perfect example of why players who generate revenue should be compensated. They make billions while the players get very little in return.

A wage cap instead of a salary cap and that wage should include the education package as part of the compensation but that education package, if it is never used should go the player at the end of their career. While some will point out that the education helps a lot of players who never go pro, and rightfully so those who never used it saw no real benefit from the league while the league itself along with their former teams benefitted greatly from their service. Minimum wage where the education makes up part of that wage in lieu of strictly cash would be the best way to go. Any signing bonuses should be standard, prevents the "unfair advantage" argument and performance style bonuses should be league paid, a cash payout along with the end of year trophies for various achievements. It sounds like a lot but its not really that much and when you consider how many businesses who need to make a profit can't rely on unpaid labour the idea that a business model can be generated where the entire success of it depends on unpaid labour including any and all profits that go into an owners pocket is questionable at best.

I also think a wage for the players would further provide incentive to organizations to get their act together in terms of making themselves more attractive, they would have much more at stake and with some things like bonuses players would have more incentive to put themselves into an environment that increases their ability to capitalize on those bonuses and they may not be on a team with the largest concentration of talent on their roster.

 

[EON]

This topic comes up seemingly every year with the same tired arguments over and over again, that's enough.