How Does London Do It?

[Kingpin794]

Their blueprint is supported by owning the team and having a consistent couch/head office for 2 decades. More teams don't follow suit because that in itself is extremely hard to achieve. Then they have to be good at what they do on top of that.

Even outside of that. Try doing what they do. Draft high end Euros every time and get them to report 9/10 times. Try to get defected players to chose to sign with you. Try to get random NHL draft picks from older drafts to show up when you need them (might be easier to do now). Try to get 2nds and 3rds for your 4th liners. If anyone else tries this, they set their franchise up to be god awful because even good teams miss most of the time of those kind of plays. Its incredibly naïve, bordering on childish thinking to just assume anyone can emulate these things. Its like saying Superman is the model person and all you have to do is fly around the sun. Why don't you just fly around the sun? Don't you want to be the man of steel too?

 

[dirty12]

Right now; the management team, coach, and ability to recruit of Kitchener is as good as it gets in the OHL.

 

[Donnie740]

It’s incredibly naïve, bordering on childish thinking to just assume anyone can emulate these things.

How difficult is it to not get duped into overpaying 19yr olds who were high NHL draft picks?

If teams would stop making such foolishly misguided overpays like that, they’d be significantly better off.

You’ll never see London giving up a boatload of high draft picks and young players for 19yr old one-and-done guys like Ethan Del Mastro or Colby Barlow.

Instead, London uses those kind of picks to acquire high end 16yr olds like Sam Dickinson and Henry Brzustewicz.

 

[HockeyPops]

@Donnie740
I don't really understand this thread.
The first post is asking how London does it. Every subsequent post is attempting to shoot down any suggestions from other posters in attempt to answer your original post.
- stability/longevity
- recruiting
- relationships
- skill
- etc. etc. etc.

I guess the answer you are looking for is that 19 teams have completely incompetent staff, and would be better off hiring trained monkeys because emulating the London model is that easy.

 

[Kingpin794]

Adding 18/19 years olds isn't even some foolish thing to do like Donnie is saying. Petes 2023, Hamilton 2022, Guelph 2019, Hamilton 2018 and so on. There's a reason if you aren't London you pay up to contend. It works.

 

[Kingpin794]

And again this goes back to a childish way of thinking about sports. You can do everything right and you will still lose. Only one team wins and yours probably won’t be it. The sooner most sports fans make peace with this fact, the better off they will be. Just enjoy whatever sport you love. Savor the brief moments your team is succeeding. Most of the time, they won’t be. Stop trying to look for a way to be forever good. It’s not healthy or realistic.

 

[Ward Cornell]

And again this goes back to a childish way of thinking about sports. You can do everything right and you will still lose. Only one team wins and yours probably won’t be it. The sooner most sports fans make piece with this fact, the better off they will be. Just enjoy whatever sport you love. Savor the brief moments your team is succeeding. Most of the time, they won’t be. Stop trying to look for a way to be forever good. It’s not healthy or realistic.

Due to the low odds of your fav team winning, some fans can take some joy in seeing certain teams or fanbase lose. I rather be that fan than one that watch sports for online betting.

 

[Kingpin794]

Due to the low odds of your fav team winning, some fans take can take some joy in seeing certain teams or fanbase lose. I rather be that fan than one that watch sports for online betting.

Yeah that works too sometimes. I've found myself in that position more than once.

 

[HockeyPops]

Every team needs to bring in high quality players of the same birth year to supplement their priority draft picks if they want to contend. When was the last time a team won the OHL with only their own draft picks on the roster?

These players are added in different ways. Free agent signings, Import Draft selections, flyer picks that they get to report, or trading for players at various stages of their OHL careers.

Most teams add these players through trade at 18/19 years old, because teams understandably don't want to let go of good players at the beginning of their OHL career. However, some teams not named London do add players at 16 (eg Porter Martone).

Again, London did trade away a great player at the end of his OHL career at the trade deadline (Robert Thomas) in a year they weren't contending as other posters have pointed out, so why is it being suggested that this approach is wrong when other teams do this too?

London has also pissed away picks at the deadline for 19 year olds and not had success (2017 - Mitchell Stephens and Mitchell Van Sompel).

Other teams have also tried to bring in 16 year olds that wouldn't report elsewhere a la London with Dickinson and Brzustewicz. Windsor almost got past Hamilton in 2022 with Cuylle after he wouldn't report to Peterborough. Other teams have traded for the rights to good players but found that it is sometimes harder to get them to report than they thought (and London is not exempt from this either - William Moore comes to mind).

 

[dino200022]

I am not allowed to talk about London so I have no opinion.

I think there are a few things that factor in to this.

1. Consistency - The coach and gm own the team, kids and parents know EXACTLY what to expect when London drafts you. They are not going to sell you off, you will not have a new coaching/management staff every year. You are going to be playing in front of 9K every night. This could be a reason why some players play their London or bust card every now and again.

2. Location - One of the biggest cities in Ontario that does not have a professional team and does not have a pro team within a 2 hour drive. Hence we live for junior hockey, we can all afford junior hockey. If I wanted to take my kids to a Leafs game or two because I lived closer to Toronto I would be paying more for a single game than my season's tickets cost. So maybe folks that live closer to the GTA spend more money to watch the Pro's play and can't afford to attend junior games on a regular basis. Just thinking out loud?

3. Location/Travel - London spends very few nights in hotels during their season. London/Kitchener/Guelph are kind of right in the middle of everything so their travel costs' are usually fair cheap meaning more money in the bank to spend on bigger and better things perhaps? Also they get to sleep in their own bed more often then not, and it sounds simple but I know how sleeping in a hotel feels and not very often do you wake up feeling refreshed and ready to go?

4. Drafting Theory ? - Year in and out we see London drafting smaller skilled players, they do not seem to worry too much about the size of a player. I can't speak for the other 19 teams but I constantly am seeing bigger players that take longer to develop and seem to be a step or two behind the play until their 19 year old year. So maybe that is it, once again just spitballing'

 

[Fergus31]

Even outside of that. Try doing what they do. Draft high end Euros every time and get them to report 9/10 times. Try to get defected players to chose to sign with you. Try to get random NHL draft picks from older drafts to show up when you need them (might be easier to do now). Try to get 2nds and 3rds for your 4th liners. If anyone else tries this, they set their franchise up to be god awful because even good teams miss most of the time of those kind of plays. Its incredibly naïve, bordering on childish thinking to just assume anyone can emulate these things. Its like saying Superman is the model person and all you have to do is fly around the sun. Why don't you just fly around the sun? Don't you want to be the man of steel too?

You and I traded posts a while ago on this very subject.

I agree that teams can’t copy London verbatim. However, I still wonder - can teams not aim for what DeBoer did in Kitchener/Plymouth, Vellucci in Plymouth, Kilrea in Ottawa, Todd in Peterborough? That is, having a perpetually competitive team. Granted, the latter two are older examples and may or may not be relevant anymore.

Am I out of my element by asking this question? Look at DeBoer’s Rangers from 01/02-07/08. 7 total seasons. Only 1 season under 80 points (after winning the OHL + Memorial Cup). 2 seasons 100 or more points, 4 seasons above 95 points. 6 seasons above 80 points. 2 OHL championships, 1 Memorial Cup championship. 1 Memorial Cup Finalist.

I’m just throwing this out to keep the discussion going, in a little different direction from the OP’s question, but is this unrealistic for a club to try to come close to DeBoer’s Rangers tenure? Forget about Hunter/London for a second.

 

[All the Answers]

You and I traded posts a while ago on this very subject.

I agree that teams can’t copy London verbatim. However, I still wonder - can teams not aim for what DeBoer did in Kitchener/Plymouth, Vellucci in Plymouth, Kilrea in Ottawa, Todd in Peterborough? That is, having a perpetually competitive team. Granted, the latter two are older examples and may or may not be relevant anymore.

Am I out of my element by asking this question? Look at DeBoer’s Rangers from 01/02-07/08. 7 total seasons. Only 1 season under 80 points (after winning the OHL + Memorial Cup). 2 seasons 100 or more points, 4 seasons above 95 points. 6 seasons above 80 points. 2 OHL championships, 1 Memorial Cup championship. 1 Memorial Cup Finalist.

You answered your own question. DeBoer did it in Kitchener for 7 years, was very successful and graduated to the NHL, where he's continued to be very successful. The only reason Peter wasn't gone in 5 was beacuse the Memorial Cup was in their back pocket. The cream rises to the top unless you don't want to and are happy doing the thing you love where you are (Hunter brothers). Sure you may catch lightning in a bottle on occasion like the Whalers and Rangers did withe Pete, but his time was always dated. Jussi in Kitchener may be the best coach in the league, working with what he has this year. Do I expect him to be here more than 4 years? Unfortunately not. Guys on his trajectory want the big time, and I don't blame him.

When you have great hockey minds who are content in their spot you are at a considerable advantage. You don't "re-learn" the league every 3 to 5 years. The OHL is a developmental league for everyone in all staff/player/official positions. It's not for London's GM/Coach. They had their learning/growing time 20+ years ago and can now write the book. The effect of that cannot be discredited.

 

[Kingpin794]

You and I traded posts a while ago on this very subject.

I agree that teams can’t copy London verbatim. However, I still wonder - can teams not aim for what DeBoer did in Kitchener/Plymouth, Vellucci in Plymouth, Kilrea in Ottawa, Todd in Peterborough? That is, having a perpetually competitive team. Granted, the latter two are older examples and may or may not be relevant anymore.

Am I out of my element by asking this question? Look at DeBoer’s Rangers from 01/02-07/08. 7 total seasons. Only 1 season under 80 points (after winning the OHL + Memorial Cup). 2 seasons 100 or more points, 4 seasons above 95 points. 6 seasons above 80 points. 2 OHL championships, 1 Memorial Cup championship. 1 Memorial Cup Finalist.

I’m just throwing this out to keep the discussion going, in a little different direction from the OP’s question, but is this unrealistic for a club to try to come close to DeBoer’s Rangers tenure? Forget about Hunter/London for a second.

I think the guys you mentioned there are more attainable models BUT even they didn't have 20 years of sustained success. If you're really on top of your game, I think you can be competitive for 4 out of 5 seasons. Then you might go into a lull for a couple and back to competitive for one or two. The days of being really good for a decade at a time I think are gone.