RW Taylor Raddysh - Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds, OHL (2016, 58th, TBL)

Butchered

I'm with Kuch
Apr 30, 2004
6,338
1
+64 as well, super impressive. NHL ready as early as next season?

I don't see there being a spot for him honestly. I suppose you can throw him on the 4th line, but I think they'd prefer him to get big minutes in the minors or in Syracuse if he's eligible.
 

Leon Draisaitl

German Gretzky
Jun 26, 2014
1,169
405
I don't see there being a spot for him honestly. I suppose you can throw him on the 4th line, but I think they'd prefer him to get big minutes in the minors or in Syracuse if he's eligible.

Don't think he is. Will be interesting to see what his point total will be for Erie next year (assuming he doesn't make the NHL roster). DeBrincat and Strome won't be there anymore.
 

PG Canuck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2010
62,741
23,893
Tough situation if he either has to be in the NHL or CHL. He really has nothing to prove in junior after a year like this.
 

Butchered

I'm with Kuch
Apr 30, 2004
6,338
1
Tough situation if he either has to be in the NHL or CHL. He really has nothing to prove in junior after a year like this.

Agreed. Kind of a bummer spot for him to end up in, especially since it's likely TB will protect Killorn now.

Killorn-Stamkos-Drouin
Palat-Johnson-Kucherov
Erne-Point-Callahan
Paquette-Namestnikov-Brown

Even past them you have guys like Peca, Richard, Vermin in Syracuse that would likely get looks to fill gaps over Raddysh. He's probably behind some other junior players as well that would get looks like Howden, Stephens, etc.

I think it'll be a bonus to see how he does without his current linemates though.
 

boredmale

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 13, 2005
42,363
6,930
I still am surprised Raddysh feel to the bottom of the 2nd. I figured he would have been picked 25-40ish
 

93LEAFS

Registered User
Nov 7, 2009
33,841
20,905
Toronto
Tough situation if he either has to be in the NHL or CHL. He really has nothing to prove in junior after a year like this.
Being asked to carry the team after they lose Strome, Debrincat, Cirelli and his brother leaves him with a lot to prove. He's far from outgrown the CHL. Granted, with Erie's losses he is probably traded to a powerhouse mid-season.
 

PG Canuck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2010
62,741
23,893
Being asked to carry the team after they lose Strome, Debrincat, Cirelli and his brother leaves him with a lot to prove. He's far from outgrown the CHL. Granted, with Erie's losses he is probably traded to a powerhouse mid-season.

So essentially there isn't much point then, if he's going to be moved.
 

93LEAFS

Registered User
Nov 7, 2009
33,841
20,905
Toronto
So essentially there isn't much point then, if he's going to be moved.
There is, better players than Raddysh has benefitted from spending another season in the OHL. It's actually quite rare for a guy to be above the OHL and not NHL ready. Raddysh isn't one of those guys.
 

Get North

Registered User
Aug 25, 2013
8,472
1,364
B.C.
Not every prospect that has a good year in the CHL have outgrown the CHL. There is nothing wrong with giving a prospect an extra year to develop in the minors. Raddysh has to work on his skating, he hasn't carried a line in the OHL yet, and even though he will never be a line driver because his talents are around hockey IQ, shooting, and creating short offensive plays, but he can still learn a lot by being given the opportunity to carry a line in the OHL. It will probably develop his offensive game more.
 

Dhockey16

Registered User
Jun 23, 2011
414
159
Erie, Pennsylvania
Better prospects than Raddysh have played two post draft years in Junior.

What does that have to do with him being in a tough situation? The CHL or NHL rule is fantastic for fans of junior hockey like myself but it's awful for the players. If I was a less selfish person and didn't have a junior hockey team in my city I'd be hoping to see some of these players go to Europe for their 19 year old season. No moral justification for forcing a player talented enough to play and make $$$ in the 'A work for free for CHL owners. In fact, most CHL players have to pay a a few grand a year from their (parents) pockets. Not a fan of any rule that limits a player's earning potential based on an arbitrary restriction like age.
 

Dhockey16

Registered User
Jun 23, 2011
414
159
Erie, Pennsylvania
Not every prospect that has a good year in the CHL have outgrown the CHL. There is nothing wrong with giving a prospect an extra year to develop in the minors. Raddysh has to work on his skating, he hasn't carried a line in the OHL yet, and even though he will never be a line driver because his talents are around hockey IQ, shooting, and creating short offensive plays, but he can still learn a lot by being given the opportunity to carry a line in the OHL. It will probably develop his offensive game more.

There's a difference between forcing and "giving".
 

BigGreenAlum

Registered User
May 4, 2007
163
5
What does that have to do with him being in a tough situation? The CHL or NHL rule is fantastic for fans of junior hockey like myself but it's awful for the players. If I was a less selfish person and didn't have a junior hockey team in my city I'd be hoping to see some of these players go to Europe for their 19 year old season. No moral justification for forcing a player talented enough to play and make $$$ in the 'A work for free for CHL owners. In fact, most CHL players have to pay a a few grand a year from their (parents) pockets. Not a fan of any rule that limits a player's earning potential based on an arbitrary restriction like age.

+1 to this comment. Remember roughly half (50%) of NHL players are from the CHL, a third (33%) from the NCAA and a sixth (17%) from Europe. So HALF of future NHLers are not restricted by the rule that protects CHL owners pockets at the expense of player development. If a player is good enough for the ECHL, AHL, NCAA, Europe, etc, at 18 they should not be held back - or at least be allowed to try out for those teams sent back to the CHL if not ready (except for the NCAA of course).

NHL teams, when allowed, do exactly this with their players. The NHL or CHL rule is like saying MLB draftees need to play Rookie A ball or in MLB, no option to have a normal development curve of going High Level A, AA, AAA and then the majors. The CHL risks players going alternate routes if they don't adjust. The notion the CHL will implode is ludicrous and the recent Rick Westhead articles on TSN prove CHL owners are crying poor for no real reason. The USHL and Euro teams deal with uncertainty of player pools every year and survive fine as they have to. The CHL would be no different.
 

93LEAFS

Registered User
Nov 7, 2009
33,841
20,905
Toronto
+1 to this comment. Remember roughly half (50%) of NHL players are from the CHL, a third (33%) from the NCAA and a sixth (17%) from Europe. So HALF of future NHLers are not restricted by the rule that protects CHL owners pockets at the expense of player development. If a player is good enough for the ECHL, AHL, NCAA, Europe, etc, at 18 they should not be held back - or at least be allowed to try out for those teams sent back to the CHL if not ready (except for the NCAA of course).

NHL teams, when allowed, do exactly this with their players. The NHL or CHL rule is like saying MLB draftees need to play Rookie A ball or in MLB, no option to have a normal development curve of going High Level A, AA, AAA and then the majors. The CHL risks players going alternate routes if they don't adjust. The notion the CHL will implode is ludicrous and the recent Rick Westhead articles on TSN prove CHL owners are crying poor for no real reason. The USHL and Euro teams deal with uncertainty of player pools every year and survive fine as they have to. The CHL would be no different.
The league wouldn't implode, but it probably changes the developmental pattern of players, which is why it might be better to keep the top 19 years olds in the CHL (especially if you make the ECHL an option). How many kids have come straight out of the USHL and been NHL ready in the past decade? Not a single one, the closest is Girgensons who played his D+1 in the AHL. Maybe someone like Jones, Eichel or Matthews could have done it, but the structure of the USNTDP is so different than a USHL team that it isn't quite comparable due to there NCAA exhibition games.

We also haven't seen one kid come out of European jr leagues and be NHL ready, but it is a common occurrence among CHL players. You start removing any player who might be competent in the AHL (which could be 20 to 30 18/19-year-olds every year). This drastic altering the system that provides about half of the NHLers to start catering to individual players seems quite short sighted. Take someone like Marner if he doesn't get to play against guys like Nurse, Koekkoek, DeAngelo, Bigras, and McKeowan does it require he possibly spends his 19-year-old in the AHL and actually delays his development (and in theory, also a year of NHL salary and an ELC year?).

In the end, it might not even be beneficial to the players or the NHL. Taking top talent that isn't NHL ready before their 20, most likely just puts a further developmental onus on NHL teams and extra investment in their own minor leagues.

Not only that but having players play against a higher level of competition, particularly draft eligibles, eliminates some risk of scouting, as it raises overall competition level of the league. Most scouts want to see how players excel against tougher competition, as it allows them more ability to project the player as levels get harder. Having the NHL draft age in the middle age-group of CHL eligibility helps achieve this.
 
Last edited:

BigGreenAlum

Registered User
May 4, 2007
163
5
The league wouldn't implode, but it probably changes the developmental pattern of players, which is why it might be better to keep the top 19 years olds in the CHL (especially if you make the ECHL an option). How many kids have come straight out of the USHL and been NHL ready in the past decade? Not a single one, the closest is Girgensons who played his D+1 in the AHL. Maybe someone like Jones, Eichel or Matthews could have done it, but the structure of the USNTDP is so different than a USHL team that it isn't quite comparable due to there NCAA exhibition games.

We also haven't seen one kid come out of European jr leagues and be NHL ready, but it is a common occurrence among CHL players. You start removing any player who might be competent in the AHL (which could be 20 to 30 18/19-year-olds every year). This drastic altering the system that provides about half of the NHLers to start catering to individual players seems quite short sighted. Take someone like Marner if he doesn't get to play against guys like Nurse, Koekkoek, DeAngelo, Bigras, and McKeowan does it require he possibly spends his 19-year-old in the AHL and actually delays his development (and in theory, also a year of NHL salary and an ELC year?).

In the end, it might not even be beneficial to the players or the NHL. Taking top talent that isn't NHL ready before their 20, most likely just puts a further developmental onus on NHL teams and extra investment in their own minor leagues.

The point is they shouldn't be restricted and NHL teams can determine for their players what is the best team to play on post draft. If they are ready for higher level play at 18 or 19 they should not be impeded, which is the case for 50% of future NHLers (non CHL picks). Move them up, if they are good enough they stay, if not ready move them back down. Happens everywhere else in the world of hockey (and other sports) and makes for a more gradual development curve and avoids the NHL too soon train wrecks - Virtanen and Lazar recently - forced on teams.

Your Marner analogy - what about delaying the development of the 19 year olds you mention? Would they be better off against 16 and 17 year olds (including elite talents like Marner) or cutting their teeth in the AHL against men if they are ready? I assert you are stalling the 19 year olds more than helping the 16 year olds. Is it really wise for such potential NHLers to be held back and be the oldest players on their team in the CHL? NHL teams disagree as when players are under their control and not bound by the CHL rule, they routinely move players up along a gradual development curve. I am sure the Coyotes would have preferred Strome play in a man's league this year just like Christian Fischer who was majority AHL and a few NHL games - and Keller has those same options next year.
 
Last edited:

93LEAFS

Registered User
Nov 7, 2009
33,841
20,905
Toronto
The point is they shouldn't be restricted and NHL teams can determine for their players what is the best team to play on post draft. If they are ready for higher level play at 18 or 19 they should not be impeded, which is the case for 50% of future NHLers (non CHL picks). Move them up, if they are good enough they stay, if not ready move them back down. Happens everywhere else in the world of hockey (and other sports) and makes for a more gradual development curve and avoids the NHL too soon train wrecks - Virtanen and Lazar recently - forced on teams.

Your Marner analogy - what about delaying the development of the 19 year olds you mention? Would they be better off against 16 and 17 year olds (including elite talents like Marner) or cutting their teeth in the AHL against men if they are ready? I assert you are stalling the 19 year olds more than helping the 16 year olds. Is it really wise for such potential NHLers to be held back and be the oldest players on their team in the CHL? NHL teams disagree as when players are under their control and not bound by the CHL rule, they routinely move players up along a gradual development curve. I am sure the Coyotes would have preferred Strome play in a man's league this year - Keller has that option next year even if it is the AHL.
I think teams that draft high would prefer they have more immediate impact players, which the current system helps develop. NHL teams also have encouraged Euro's they draft to go the CHL route (Rubtsov, Kuokannen from the last draft).

More likely, this leads to more kids staying in the minors longer and alters the development pattern. It just might slightly change who it benefits.

It's also not like these kids don't have a choice. They agree to these terms when they enter the league, and most high-end kids are already consulting with agents and making informed decisions. They know going in, this is the deal, and they take it. To change it now, would be selfish on their part, as they would have benefitted from this system, but not returned the favor.

Virtanen was a development mess, and was rushed. He probably should have stuck in juniors. I've yet to see any of these hybrid development guys make an impact. Let's see A. Nylander, Milano, or Honka become a success before we start thinking of overhauling a developmental system that seems to be working perfectly fine.

About what NHL teams prefer, obviously, they will act selfishly when it suits them developmentally. But, long-term, drastically altering the league that provides 50% of its talent (and generally a significant portion of their top players who enter the league as teenagers) doesn't seem worth the risk.

Realistically, Marner would be financially harmed significantly more than Strome if he wasn't NHL ready and was put in the AHL this year. he would have earned about 100k in the AHL and would not have earned any of his NHL bonuses or accrued a year towards NHL free agency. Marner being NHL ready at 19, probably got him about 2m a year in NHL bonuses (including basic salary). That is way bigger than the 100k Strome lost out on (because he still got his signing bonuses and a couple weeks of NHL salary).
 

BigGreenAlum

Registered User
May 4, 2007
163
5
I think teams that draft high would prefer they have more immediate impact players, which the current system helps develop. NHL teams also have encouraged Euro's they draft to go the CHL route (Rubtsov, Kuokannen from the last draft).

More likely, this leads to more kids staying in the minors longer and alters the development pattern. It just might slightly change who it benefits.

It's also not like these kids don't have a choice. They agree to these terms when they enter the league, and most high-end kids are already consulting with agents and making informed decisions. They know going in, this is the deal, and they take it. To change it now, would be selfish on their part, as they would have benefitted from this system, but not returned the favor.

Virtanen was a development mess, and was rushed. He probably should have stuck in juniors. I've yet to see any of these hybrid development guys make an impact. Let's see A. Nylander, Milano, or Honka become a success before we start thinking of overhauling a developmental system that seems to be working perfectly fine.

About what NHL teams prefer, obviously, they will act selfishly when it suits them developmentally. But, long-term, drastically altering the league that provides 50% of its talent (and generally a significant portion of their top players who enter the league as teenagers) doesn't seem worth the risk.

Realistically, Marner would be financially harmed significantly more than Strome if he wasn't NHL ready and was put in the AHL this year. he would have earned about 100k in the AHL and would not have earned any of his NHL bonuses or accrued a year towards NHL free agency. Marner being NHL ready at 19, probably got him about 2m a year in NHL bonuses (including basic salary). That is way bigger than the 100k Strome lost out on (because he still got his signing bonuses and a couple weeks of NHL salary).

Again, the main point I argue is NHL teams should have the choice to do as they see fit with players drafted (and especially players that have signed pro contacts). Likewise players and their agents should have a seat at the table in that discussion. If the player is not ready, send them back down to the CHL from the AHL or ECHL or Europe - the rules don't have to be as rigid as the current CHL-NHL agreement. Freedom of player movement prevents the Virtanen pitfall.

The CHL can do as it sees fit but when half of their drafted NHL prospects can play where the NHL deems best and the other half is bound to the CHL via NHL-CHL agreement, I suspect this will be an ongoing issue and there will be pressure on the CHL going forward to change.

Players and agents will make those decisions under current rules but with more and more U20 players playing "pro" and the continued trend to a younger NHL average age, I suspect NHL teams will want to control all their drafted prospects as they see fit, not just 50% of them as it is now. The pipeline to the NHL has changed from the CHL virtual monopoly position of a generation ago. Time will tell if they make a change - or are forced to make a change - going forward.
 

93LEAFS

Registered User
Nov 7, 2009
33,841
20,905
Toronto
Again, the main point I argue is NHL teams should have the choice to do as they see fit with players drafted (and especially players that have signed pro contacts). Likewise players and their agents should have a seat at the table in that discussion. If the player is not ready, send them back down to the CHL from the AHL or ECHL or Europe - the rules don't have to be as rigid as the current CHL-NHL agreement. Freedom of player movement prevents the Virtanen pitfall.

The CHL can do as it sees fit but when half of their drafted NHL prospects can play where the NHL deems best and the other half is bound to the CHL via NHL-CHL agreement, I suspect this will be an ongoing issue and there will be pressure on the CHL going forward to change.

Players and agents will make those decisions under current rules but with more and more U20 players playing "pro" and the continued trend to a younger NHL average age, I suspect NHL teams will want to control all their drafted prospects as they see fit, not just 50% of them as it is now. The pipeline to the NHL has changed from the CHL virtual monopoly position of a generation ago. Time will tell if they make a change - or are forced to make a change - going forward.
Virtanen wasn't above the CHL. He just wasn't good. It doesn't prevent the problem, he just probably fails in the AHL (as he has done most of this year). Players will bust, having this movement doesn't make it any less likely. It also probably makes drafting higher risk, as they aren't playing against high-level competition.

You are changing the whole chain of development. It could work and be better, but is it really worth the risk to what is currently the system that produces the most NHLers, and a significant portion of its best players.

These agents/advisors know what they are dealing with when they start advising these kids at 16. If they don't want this conflict, then start directing their kids to the USHL. If not, accept the positives of facing better competition at a younger age, but potentially being trapped if you aren't good enough.

If NHL teams don't like the current agreement, there would be noises about them encouraging kids (and the agents that advise them) to go the USHL/JR A. route. So far, that isn't happening. They are complaining in retrospect, wanting the best of both sides, which isn't possible. It will give an advantage to a 2 year window of kids, then present a bunch of different problems of kids less ready for the next step. Making it less likely teams at the bottom of the draft can draft kids who will make an immediate impact in 2 years.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->