How Does London Do It?

[Donnie740]

I’ve never understood the ridiculous excuse for piss-poor mismanagement that junior teams need to have cyclical pattern of “going all in” for a championship run and then becoming a bottom feeder for a few years until they can rebuild for another “all in” season or two.

How is it possible that London never goes through years of being down-and-out bottom feeders?

In the past two decades, London has finished with more than 100 points TEN (10) times. In addition, they’ve finished with 99 points in THREE (3) other seasons.

There’s only been FOUR (4) times in the last 20 seasons that London finished with less than 92 points and “worst” season was 73 points.

London has NEVER missed the playoffs in the past 20 seasons and they’ve finished lower than 4th overall in their conference only twice in two decades. And they’ve been to the Memorial Cup FIVE (5) times during that span.

For those struggling with mathematical computations, London finishes first overall in their conference 50% of the time and goes to the Memorial Cup 25% of the time.

After the past two seasons of playing in the OHL finals followed by a Memorial Cup appearance, the “cyclical” theory would expect London to be bereft of draft picks and selling off what’s left of their 19 year old players.

But over the next two drafts, London still has THREE (3) second round picks and THREE (3) third round picks.

So how does London do it? Is Dale Hunter an exponentially superior coach? Is Mark Hunter an infinitely superior GM? Is it because they don’t have a clueless owner meddling in things?

Instead of foolishly overpaying for an overrated one-and-done 19 year old with a one dimensional game like Oshawa did, London spends their draft capital to acquire a 16 year old stud defenceman like Sam Dickinson followed by a similar trade the very next year for 17 year old Hank Brzustewicz.

Click to read more...

 

[Dhockey16]

The Hunters was the best thing that ever happened for the Knights and the best thing that ever happened to the Hunters. It was a great investment - London has all the built-in advantages as a market, and they opened a new building right around the time the Hunters bought the team. None of it works if Mark and Dale aren't good hockey minds, and they both are of course. They probably don't even have to pay players what other clubs would have to pay (they can and do still do this, as every club does). They have such a well-earned reputation for player development and winning that guys want to go there. The only near comparables really are Halifax and Quebec in the Q. Maybe Portland or Regina in the W. But London still the best of the best.

 

[Buttsy]

It’s certainly possible to duplicate the Knights model and actually Ottawa a few years ago I thought was on their way to doing it until the NHL scooped up there coach and some of the management team. The consistency of having Dale and Mark is definitely a key to the success of the team year in and year out. They are NHL calibre but Dale prefers the kids and being home and Mark understandably will only go if the situation is 125% his way. Also if one of them currently thinks he is worthy of a raise he just gives himself one?
I will say as a fan I think it’s kinda crappy when you see a kid who came into your city as a youngster develop and mature and then in his final season of Junior he gets traded for a boat load of draft picks and a player or two? Just seems a little shitty for the kid and the fans paying the bills? Would far rather see Easton Cowan, Oliver Bonk or Sam Dickenson leave for the NHL as a Knight.

 

[Generalsupdates]

It’s certainly possible to duplicate the Knights model and actually Ottawa a few years ago I thought was on their way to doing it until the NHL scooped up there coach and some of the management team. The consistency of having Dale and Mark is definitely a key to the success of the team year in and year out.

That's one of the hardest parts when you're not the top league and/or paying people the most money. The great young coaches/GMs leave for greener pastures like the NHL/AHL, etc. LDN got lucky with them doing that and not having success at the next level so coming back and dominating in the OHL and being okay with staying there for the rest of their career. Gives them stability and the same messaging year in and year out which is massive in this league

 

[RangerNation]

1. Knowledgeable people (hockey AND business)
2. Full Control over the team
3. Long term commitment.
= Profit & Success.

 

[Juniorhockeyguru]

The Hunters was the best thing that ever happened for the Knights and the best thing that ever happened to the Hunters. It was a great investment - London has all the built-in advantages as a market, and they opened a new building right around the time the Hunters bought the team. None of it works if Mark and Dale aren't good hockey minds, and they both are of course. They probably don't even have to pay players what other clubs would have to pay (they can and do still do this, as every club does). They have such a well-earned reputation for player development and winning that guys want to go there. The only near comparables really are Halifax and Quebec in the Q. Maybe Portland or Regina in the W. But London still the best of the best.

Regina??? lol huh? More like Kelowna.

 

[Buttsy]

The great young coaches/GMs leave for greener pastures like the NHL/AHL, etc.

The league is not just a development league for players. Coaches, Management and Officials are generally speaking here for development and moving on / up once they gain experience. And YES advantage London in not having to deal with this in the same way other teams do. Will say however Dale’s dabble in the NHL with Washington however IMO cost us a Memorial Cup but such is the case.

 

[OMG67]

You need to have “excess” that you trade to other teams that are less effective. London doesn’t need to sell “graduating” players to add future assets. They draft well and then trade younger excess players for extra picks. They then use their solid reputation and those excess picks to trade for additional 1st round defected players like HB and Dick.
They also have decades of relationships built in the hockey community where they always have high contributing Imports.
The main point has already been highlighted. You can’t have 20 OHL teams with career OHL management and coaching. The OHL is a development league for players AND management/coaches. The natural progression provides opportunity to move up. They do.
London is an outlier franchise where it isn’t fair to hold up against others as a comparable.
Teams generally don’t need to break themselves to compete. Teams can be competitive by slowly stockpiling assets and then leverage those assets in one season. Then the following season they can trade a player away and restock back to a respectable level. They isn’t a guarantee for them to “bottom out.”
Oshawa will make a run this year. They will trade Senneke next year and with the returning roster, they will still be competitive, make the playoffs and be entertaining for their fans.

 

[StingUpdates]

As Gens said it's a massive break/luxury they have the consensus best coach, maybe ever & one of the best GMs ever every single season. If Jusse Ahokas decided he wanted to coach JR the next 25 years good chance Kitchener would be great more often than not. Oshawa I'm sure would be humming along like last yr if Laxdal was still coach. Saginaw has been damn good since Lazary took over for the most part. North Bay just had 3 terrific seasons in a row under the same GM/coach. Feel like Brampton/Mississauga have drafted & developed very well the last 5-6 years under the same staff/management. Hamilton/Brantford the same.

Continuity is so massive in Jr hockey & the ones that have it seem to be ran & perform the best. The ones that don't (Sarnia for a long time, Kingston, Sudbury, Windsor lately, Niagara, Flint their first 5-6 years, Petes pre Wilson/Oke) are looked at like a circus/mess often.

Good example to me is Alabama in football. Nick Saban is the best college coach ever. They always got the guys they wanted. Took guys from other teams. Always were coached the best. Always played in the big games. The moment he retired you had guys de-commit & they don't look the same at all this season or have that same aura/feel to them. You'd see that with LDN had Mark gotten an NHL GM job & Dale wanted to be an NHL HC.

On top of that nobody is more experienced then them & it shows so much. They take younger GMs & coaches to the cleaners every season. That LDN team 2 years ago had zero business being in the OHL finals on paper. But, Dale thoroughly out coached more skilled teams in Kitchener & Sarnia. Their systems are the best. Team D is the best. Special teams always elite no matter the talent level. They always make trades where you immediately think WTF is that other team thinking?! Rarely overspend. Always get proper if not ridiculous value for assets.

Then they get the best luxury of it all every single player wants to play for them. Their championship team last year was headlined by guys (Bonk, Dickinson, George, Cowan) who told other teams no or that they were going NCAA. Do I think they've done some shady business before & it's greatly benefited them? Absolutely, but not as much in the last decade because picking your team/avoiding some teams has become much more of a thing in all sports & they are far & away the #1 choice for 99% of kids & the ones that voice it tend to be elite.

I use to hate on it, a lot, but I've grown to respect it for the most part. Also brings me never ending pain it should've/could've been Sarnia when they had Mark Hunter as coach for 5 seasons before he became owner of London...

 

[sonic92]

Then they get the best luxury of it all every single player wants to play for them. Their championship team last year was headlined by guys (Bonk, Dickinson, George, Cowan) who told other teams no or that they were going NCAA. Do I think they've done some shady business before & it's greatly benefited them? Absolutely, but not as much in the last decade because picking your team/avoiding some teams has become much more of a thing in all sports & they are far & away the #1 choice for 99% of kids & the ones that voice it tend to be elite.

Have to wonder how the NCAA (potentially) allowing in major junior players will affect that strategy going forward.

 

[Millpond]

1. Knowledgeable people (hockey AND business)
2. Full Control over the team
3. Long term commitment.
= Profit &

I’ve never understood the ridiculous excuse for piss-poor mismanagement that junior teams need to have cyclical pattern of “going all in” for a championship run and then becoming a bottom feeder for a few years until they can rebuild for another “all in” season or two.

How is it possible that London never goes through years of being down-and-out bottom feeders?

In the past two decades, London has finished with more than 100 points TEN (10) times. In addition, they’ve finished with 99 points in THREE (3) other seasons.

There’s only been FOUR (4) times in the last 20 seasons that London finished with less than 92 points and “worst” season was 73 points.

London has NEVER missed the playoffs in the past 20 seasons and they’ve finished lower than 4th overall in their conference only twice in two decades. And they’ve been to the Memorial Cup FIVE (5) times during that span.

For those struggling with mathematical computations, London finishes first overall in their conference 50% of the time and goes to the Memorial Cup 25% of the time.

After the past two seasons of playing in the OHL finals followed by a Memorial Cup appearance, the “cyclical” theory would expect London to be bereft of draft picks and selling off what’s left of their 19 year old players.

But over the next two drafts, London still has THREE (3) second round picks and THREE (3) third round picks.

So how does London do it? Is Dale Hunter an exponentially superior coach? Is Mark Hunter an infinitely superior GM? Is it because they don’t have a clueless owner meddling in things?

Instead of foolishly overpaying for an overrated one-and-done 19 year old with a one dimensional game like Oshawa did, London spends their draft capital to acquire a 16 year old stud defenceman like Sam Dickinson followed by a similar trade the very next year for 17 year old Hank Brzustewicz.

In a word, money.

 

[Donnie740]

The main point has already been highlighted. You can’t have 20 OHL teams with career OHL management and coaching. The OHL is a development league for players AND management/coaches. The natural progression provides opportunity to move up. They do.

Let’s not confuse experience with competence.

Marty Williamson has been in the OHL for 15 years and has never been to a Memorial Cup. Corky Cooper has been in the OHL for 15 years and has Kingston topping out as a middle of the conference team. Stan Butler has been in the OHL for 26 years and has made it to the league finals only ONE (1) season. Roger Hunt been in the OHL for 14 years and still got completely fleeced on the Barlow trade.

Where are these guys going in their hockey careers? Nowhere. They’re essentially career whipping boys for London and the Hunters. This is as good as it gets for them. Maybe we need to acknowledge that they’re in the OHL because they’re not good enough for the NHL - - or even the AHL.

I appreciate your optimism about Oshawa’s fortunes for the foreseeable future, but they’re clearly headed down to the bottom feeders next year.

Interesting that your first reaction for Oshawa is to trade away Sennecke next year to replenish their wasted draft picks and young prospects. Compare that situation to London - - did the Hunters ever contemplate trading away Easton Cowan this year for draft picks and prospects? Not even for one nanosecond.

As I’ve pointed out numerous times, it’s painfully obvious that Oshawa has a glaring lack of depth this year - - due in large part to the hopelessly misguided Barlow trade.

When they lose Ritchie and Barlow next year, they’ll have little to nothing left behind Sennecke, Buckley and Owen Griffin up front. Without Sennecke next year, the only thing Oshawa will be challenging for is the first overall pick in the priority draft.

Meanwhile, London carries on as the perineal powerhouse of the league. How is that possible?

 

[OMG67]

Let’s not confuse experience with competence.

Marty Williamson has been in the OHL for 15 years and has never been to a Memorial Cup. Corky Cooper has been in the OHL for 15 years and has Kingston topping out as a middle of the conference team. Stan Butler has been in the OHL for 26 years and has made it to the league finals only ONE (1) season. Roger Hunt been in the OHL for 14 years and still got completely fleeced on the Barlow trade.

Where are these guys going in their hockey careers? Nowhere. They’re essentially career whipping boys for London and the Hunters. This is as good as it gets for them. Maybe we need to acknowledge that they’re in the OHL because they’re not good enough for the NHL - - or even the AHL.

I appreciate your optimism about Oshawa’s fortunes for the foreseeable future, but they’re clearly headed down to the bottom feeders next year.

Interesting that your first reaction for Oshawa is to trade away Sennecke next year to replenish their wasted draft picks and young prospects. Compare that situation to London - - did the Hunters ever contemplate trading away Easton Cowan this year for draft picks and prospects? Not even for one nanosecond.

As I’ve pointed out numerous times, it’s painfully obvious that Oshawa has a glaring lack of depth this year - - due in large part to the hopelessly misguided Barlow trade.

When they lose Ritchie and Barlow next year, they’ll have little to nothing left behind Sennecke, Buckley and Owen Griffin up front. Without Sennecke next year, the only thing Oshawa will be challenging for is the first overall pick in the priority draft.

Meanwhile, London carries on as the perineal powerhouse of the league. How is that possible?

Opinions vary.

You can choose to measure the success and failure of a franchise against London (ignoring their advantages) but it does nothing to further the issue.

There are 20 teams in the league. Someone has to finish last.

 

[ohloutsider]

Let’s not confuse experience with competence.

Marty Williamson has been in the OHL for 15 years and has never been to a Memorial Cup. Corky Cooper has been in the OHL for 15 years and has Kingston topping out as a middle of the conference team. Stan Butler has been in the OHL for 26 years and has made it to the league finals only ONE (1) season. Roger Hunt been in the OHL for 14 years and still got completely fleeced on the Barlow trade.

Where are these guys going in their hockey careers? Nowhere. They’re essentially career whipping boys for London and the Hunters. This is as good as it gets for them. Maybe we need to acknowledge that they’re in the OHL because they’re not good enough for the NHL - - or even the AHL.

I appreciate your optimism about Oshawa’s fortunes for the foreseeable future, but they’re clearly headed down to the bottom feeders next year.

Interesting that your first reaction for Oshawa is to trade away Sennecke next year to replenish their wasted draft picks and young prospects. Compare that situation to London - - did the Hunters ever contemplate trading away Easton Cowan this year for draft picks and prospects? Not even for one nanosecond.

As I’ve pointed out numerous times, it’s painfully obvious that Oshawa has a glaring lack of depth this year - - due in large part to the hopelessly misguided Barlow trade.

When they lose Ritchie and Barlow next year, they’ll have little to nothing left behind Sennecke, Buckley and Owen Griffin up front. Without Sennecke next year, the only thing Oshawa will be challenging for is the first overall pick in the priority draft.

Meanwhile, London carries on as the perineal powerhouse of the league. How is that possible?

Because they trade high end players like Robert Thomas when they have to restock the cupboards. All teams including London do it.

 

[the dog]

 

[dirty12]

Because they trade high end players like Robert Thomas when they have to restock the cupboards. All teams including London do it.

When they have to, that is a key difference; some teams and many fans, feel the need to move the most valuable trade assets when not a prohibitive favourite rather than move around a few assets to give their team a chance of going deep into the playoffs consistently.
Another issue is some teams will completely empty the vault to make a really good team marginally better.

 

[Kingpin794]

Recruiting.

They recruit better than anyone else. High end imports every year. Defected players on the regular. Higher hit rate on Americans/college threats. And after they've convinced some mid round guy to sign, they flip him for assets when he can't move up their deep line up. It allows them to never have to go full sell or full buy for that matter.

This isn't a model anyone else can try to replicate. It's not reasonable to try and act that way. If you want to be realistic in what you ask of your GM, you want them to bring in a high end import every other year. Maybe try for a defected player every 5 years. Get a NCAA kid every 2/3 years.

So then I know Donnie would ask, "Well why don't teams just up their game on recruiting these players." I think its a bit of a placebo effect. High end players want to play for winners and winners have high end players. Guys hear London and think that they're going to get there and be turned into these NHL stars because that just what the Knights do. But if you plopped Easton Cowan in Peterborough his whole career, he'd still be a star OHL player. Talented players will, in most cases, develop into what they will be independent of what junior team gets a hold of them. The knights have the mystique though. The mental aspect of being in London can be discounted.

All that being said, one day the Hunters won't be running the show. Whoever takes over for them will have some residual success but they will come back to the mean in time. Going to be one hell of a 30 years though when they're done.