Defected Players

[Otto]

Eh, I'm not sure the current system is working either. The league is very top-heavy, and I don't really see that changing under the current rules.

Market sizes are an issue, too. There is virtually no system that I can think up where London is on the same playing field as Sudbury/NB etc. I won't deny that London (Hunter's) have gotten to where they are through mostly hard work and doing things that no other clubs are willing/able to do, but you must also admit that geography plays a huge role.

If this league is going to stay at 20 teams - which for me isn't a given - I think something must be done to even the playing field a bit.

Defected players are just a part of a much larger problem, IMO.

6 different champions in the last 6 years, and 12 different finalists.

The Pete's won 3 titles in a row from 78-80.. since then there have only been 4 cities that have won back to back titles (Kitchener 81/82, Sault 91/92, Windsor 09/10, London 12/13)

There's more parity now then there was in the 70's

 

[fishfan51]

If players can dictate where they're going to play.... why have a draft at all?

 

[RoyalCitySlicker]

6 different champions in the last 6 years, and 12 different finalists.

The Pete's won 3 titles in a row from 78-80.. since then there have only been 4 cities that have won back to back titles (Kitchener 81/82, Sault 91/92, Windsor 09/10, London 12/13)

There's more parity now then there was in the 70's

Fair enough....I should have looked closer. That said, a lot of those finalists take their one year shot and then disappear.

Also, you never touched on the fact that location provides a huge advantage (and disadvantage) to some teams. Any solution for that? Or should those teams move?

 

[Otto]

Fair enough....I should have looked closer. That said, a lot of those finalists take their one year shot and then disappear.

Also, you never touched on the fact that location provides a huge advantage (and disadvantage) to some teams. Any solution for that? Or should those teams move?

I'd be curious as to how much location actually provides a huge advantage. I know it gets talked about a lot as to what London or Kitchener may have over say Sudbury, but again, Sault Ste. Marie and Peterborough were once dominant, so what's changed? They haven't moved.

It's about team management a lot more than location. Be the team that players want to play for. It's no different in the OHL then in any other sports league.

 

[Otto]

If players can dictate where they're going to play.... why have a draft at all?

Because 99.75% of the players don't dictate where they are going to play. That's another reason why it makes no sense to change a rule for the 1 or 2 players that may do it.

 

[dirty12]

I'd be curious as to how much location actually provides a huge advantage. I know it gets talked about a lot as to what London or Kitchener may have over say Sudbury, but again, Sault Ste. Marie and Peterborough were once dominant, so what's changed? They haven't moved.

It's about team management a lot more than location. Be the team that players want to play for. It's no different in the OHL then in any other sports league.

That is true in up cycles. But, players always want to be in New York, south Florida & California.

 

[aresknights]

That is true in up cycles. But, players always want to be in New York, south Florida & California.

They are talking about location helping dictate success.

And that's why Florida teams are always so successful in pro sports. Oh wait a second......

Cali.... Ok some good pro teams but any more successful than other regions? Probly not. (Definitely not)
Heck they lost 2 football teams only to finally get them back.
FLA and Cali sound great, but location alone hasn't produced anything close to consistent winners as your example might suggest

NY. Hit and miss as far as success. Yes the Yankees had a great stretch but that was more $ driven than location imo based on that era of MLB.

Lots of other factors play larger roles than location.

 

[dirty12]

They are talking about location helping dictate success.

And that's why Florida teams are always so successful in pro sports. Oh wait a second......

Cali.... Ok some good pro teams but any more successful than other regions? Probly not. (Definitely not)
Heck they lost 2 football teams only to finally get them back.
FLA and Cali sound great, but location alone hasn't produced anything close to consistent winners as your example might suggest

NY. Hit and miss as far as success. Yes the Yankees had a great stretch but that was more $ driven than location imo based on that era of MLB.

Lots of other factors play larger roles than location.

I stated players want to be in south Florida or California & New York regardless of recent success. Compensation being equal of course. That was in response to Otto saying be the place players want to be. Players want to be where they will be noticeable and where the amenities are. For 16 year olds, it’s also very much about what the parents want.
We’ve seen players report and accept trades to Soo & NB when winning. We’ve seen players refuse to report and demand out when losing for both. Kitchener, London, and Windsor haven’t had many reporting issues for a long time.

 

[Otto]

I stated players want to be in south Florida or California & New York regardless of recent success. Compensation being equal of course. That was in response to Otto saying be the place players want to be. Players want to be where they will be noticeable and where the amenities are. For 16 year olds, it’s also very much about what the parents want.
We’ve seen players report and accept trades to Soo & NB when winning. We’ve seen players refuse to report and demand out when losing for both. Kitchener, London, and Windsor haven’t had many reporting issues for a long time.

Right, which pretty much backs up my point.

 

[RoyalCitySlicker]

Yes, London is a great franchise. It's also in a great city, with many amenities and things to do for a 16-20 year old. It's a first class team that operates out of a first class city. They have a top notch school aligned with them...a great College and University in town....entertainment, nightlife etc.

Compare that to some of the smaller cities....North Bay, Sudbury, Erie, Saginaw, Flint....the list goes on. They can't get to that level because their cities just aren't big enough to get the sponsorships, charge the same for tickets, get the big crowds, sell the same amount of merchandise etc etc. Because of that they can't improve their programs enough to get to be where the big 3 or 4 are, and therefore certain players don't want to report and the cycle continues.

It's disingenuous to think that its up to some wealthy owner to come in and empty his pockets in order to try to infuse a team with enough money to get their programs up to snuff with the London/Kitchener/Winsdor's of the league. It's just not going to happen in those small cities...they'd be lighting their money on fire.

To say that location is the reason these teams are good is simplistic and incorrect. It is however a big part of it, IMO, and that doesn't even address the fact that many parents where the population is concentrated (southern ont) are not too thrilled with sending their kids 6+ hours north or west, not to mention to the USA.

 

[Otto]

Yes, London is a great franchise. It's also in a great city, with many amenities and things to do for a 16-20 year old. It's a first class team that operates out of a first class city. They have a top notch school aligned with them...a great College and University in town....entertainment, nightlife etc.

Compare that to some of the smaller cities....North Bay, Sudbury, Erie, Saginaw, Flint....the list goes on. They can't get to that level because their cities just aren't big enough to get the sponsorships, charge the same for tickets, get the big crowds, sell the same amount of merchandise etc etc. Because of that they can't improve their programs enough to get to be where the big 3 or 4 are, and therefore certain players don't want to report and the cycle continues.

It's disingenuous to think that its up to some wealthy owner to come in and empty his pockets in order to try to infuse a team with enough money to get their programs up to snuff with the London/Kitchener/Winsdor's of the league. It's just not going to happen in those small cities...they'd be lighting their money on fire.

To say that location is the reason these teams are good is simplistic and incorrect. It is however a big part of it, IMO, and that doesn't even address the fact that many parents where the population is concentrated (southern ont) are not too thrilled with sending their kids 6+ hours north or west, not to mention to the USA.

Again, London has always had a lot of what you described. What's changed since the 90's when London was a mediocre to poor team? The biggest change has been new and consistent management.

Sudbury and Flint in particular are notorious for having ownership issues. I don't ever recall Plymouth being touted as a team where players wouldn't report.

 

[Kingpin794]

Yes, London is a great franchise. It's also in a great city, with many amenities and things to do for a 16-20 year old. It's a first class team that operates out of a first class city. They have a top notch school aligned with them...a great College and University in town....entertainment, nightlife etc.

Compare that to some of the smaller cities....North Bay, Sudbury, Erie, Saginaw, Flint....the list goes on. They can't get to that level because their cities just aren't big enough to get the sponsorships, charge the same for tickets, get the big crowds, sell the same amount of merchandise etc etc. Because of that they can't improve their programs enough to get to be where the big 3 or 4 are, and therefore certain players don't want to report and the cycle continues.

It's disingenuous to think that its up to some wealthy owner to come in and empty his pockets in order to try to infuse a team with enough money to get their programs up to snuff with the London/Kitchener/Winsdor's of the league. It's just not going to happen in those small cities...they'd be lighting their money on fire.

To say that location is the reason these teams are good is simplistic and incorrect. It is however a big part of it, IMO, and that doesn't even address the fact that many parents where the population is concentrated (southern ont) are not too thrilled with sending their kids 6+ hours north or west, not to mention to the USA.

So Chris Osgood and Jim Devellano are lighting their money on fire in Saginaw? Too bad nobody told Cole Perfetti and Bode Wilde that, eh?

 

[RoyalCitySlicker]

Again, London has always had a lot of what you described. What's changed since the 90's when London was a mediocre to poor team? The biggest change has been new and consistent management.

Sudbury and Flint in particular are notorious for having ownership issues. I don't ever recall Plymouth being touted as a team where players wouldn't report.

I'd imagine stabe ownership with deep pockets was the main reason for London's turnaround. There may have been some other ways they turned around the franchise, but I haven't mentioned them, nor will I. It's old news and not important here.

So Chris Osgood and Jim Devellano are lighting their money on fire in Saginaw? Too bad nobody told Cole Perfetti and Bode Wilde that, eh?

No, kudos to the two of them. Let's see what happens in a year or two...certainly the early returns are good.

That said, if you had the money, would you see it as a wise investment to buy some of the other teams I listed? I know I wouldn't and I think that's why those teams have ownership issues.

Anyway, I didn't comment in order for people to get their backs up about their favourite teams. I'm sorry I seem to have hit a nerve.

Perhaps it isn't as important as I had thought, but I think it's more important that some are willing to admit...especially those from those "have" markets.

Enjoy your day folks.

 

[EON]

It's mostly about management, and this coming from a fan of a team in a "have not" market. London was trash in the '90s and players probably didn't want to go there, now everyone wants to go there because they are managed well and consistently push players to upper levels.

Why has SSM been so successful recently? It's a small city and deals with the worst travel issues in the league, yet they land top end talent. It's because they are managed well and push talent through their system.

Fans complaining that the league is "tilted" towards big market teams like London/Windsor/Kitchener etc. should take a look at the management of their team first.

 

[RoyalCitySlicker]

It's all about management, and this coming from a fan of a team in a "have not" market. London was trash in the '90s and players probably didn't want to go there, now everyone wants to go there because they are managed well and consistently push players to upper levels.

Why has SSM been so successful recently? It's a small city and deals with the worst travel issues in the league, yet they land top end talent. It's because they are managed well and push talent through their system.

Fans complaining that the league is "tilted" towards big market teams like London/Windsor/Kitchener etc. should take a look at the management of their team first.

No argument there. The management team in the Royal City is a disaster. Unless the goal is to line the owner's pockets....which they seem to be excelling in.

 

[Otto]

No argument there. The management team in the Royal City is a disaster. Unless the goal is to line the owner's pockets....which they seem to be excelling in.

That's exactly what I've been saying

 

[RoyalCitySlicker]

That's exactly what I've been saying

Lol. All I'm saying is that it's a bigger factor than you think it is, IMO.

Not that you're wrong about it

 

[EON]

Lol. All I'm saying is that it's a bigger factor than you think it is, IMO.

Not that you're wrong about it

I guess maybe I could rephrase a bit.

It's not 100% on management but it's certainly mostly on management. Sure, if a prospect is choosing between say SSM and London he's probably choosing London because of the financial resources and location. But I don't really think you can expect the league to account for all of these differences. It's similar to how some fans in major cities are complaining about the tax differences in NHL contracts now (see the Nikita Kucherov extension).

At the end of the day a small market team can succeed if run well.

 

[BigBuck]

I guess maybe I could rephrase a bit.

It's not 100% on management but it's certainly mostly on management. Sure, if a prospect is choosing between say SSM and London he's probably choosing London because of the financial resources and location. But I don't really think you can expect the league to account for all of these differences. It's similar to how some fans in major cities are complaining about the tax differences in NHL contracts now (see the Nikita Kucherov extension).

At the end of the day a small market team can succeed if run well.

Exactley, Fix the Programs on and off the ice and parents will be happy to send their kids there.

 

[Snipes 29]

Eh, I'm not sure the current system is working either. The league is very top-heavy, and I don't really see that changing under the current rules.

Market sizes are an issue, too. There is virtually no system that I can think up where London is on the same playing field as Sudbury/NB etc. I won't deny that London (Hunter's) have gotten to where they are through mostly hard work and doing things that no other clubs are willing/able to do, but you must also admit that geography plays a huge role.

If this league is going to stay at 20 teams - which for me isn't a given - I think something must be done to even the playing field a bit.

Defected players are just a part of a much larger problem, IMO.

David Branch does nothing to stop this sort of thing? The teams fans of a team that a player defects should refuse to buy season tickets.then may be the GM , is replaced? But I do agree these loopholes are bad for the game. Cuylle and camp never gave a reason? this is not fair to fans who pay good money for tickets. sickening shamefull

 

[Kingpin794]

this is not fair to fans who pay good money for tickets. sickening shamefull

 

[stickhandle]

A separate draft for Americans might help alleviate some of the problem

 

[Otto]

A separate draft for Americans might help alleviate some of the problem

So you want 4 drafts??

 

[PhlyerPhanatic31]

Fans complaining that the league is "tilted" towards big market teams like London/Windsor/Kitchener etc. should take a look at the management of their team first.

Why? ...it's so much easier to play the victim in today's society

 

[member 71782]

If the team someone cheers for isn't an attractive organization to report to, no rules can change a kid's mind on reporting until the organization makes improvements.

If geography is the issue no rules will change a kid's mind.

If rule changes are made to force a kid to play where they don't want to the kid still won't report and the quality of the entire league will suffer causing more kids to go elsewhere.

Changes in compensation I think should happen, the whole league shouldn't support the cost of acquiring a player who will report to some teams but not others.

Teams and the league should do more in a combined effort to make all teams desirable destinations.

The only way to get all kids to report to whatever team drafts them is improvement of the quality of the on ice product/off ice development.

The only way to eliminate the geography issue is to move the teams that kids regularly won't report to or eliminate those teams through contraction, neither of which most fans would want to see.

When kids have choices forcing them to act against their wishes won't improve the situation, it will make it worse and eventually lead to the overall product declining and teams/the league as is becoming unsustainable.

If you support an organization that kids don't want to report to, it may suck to hear it but unless that organization can change it no one else can do it for them. If there's no interest from high end kids to play there the fan base will stop supporting the product and eventually that team will move or fold.