Ottawa 67s 2024 25 Season Thread Part Iii

[Larionov]

I never thought that Mews was going to Michigan - I thought for sure that was just an idle threat, so here is as good a place as any to admit that I got that one wrong. And, to be fair to James Boyd, moving Mews for whatever he could get for him was the right move in light of this development. This helps the Calgary Flames a bit also in that they aren't under any pressure to get Mews signed next June - he stays their property for as long as he stays at Michigan.

Saw the news today that it looks as if all three leagues are in favour of expanding the number of import players to three. The question now is, can they find 60 more import players to fill the spots across the three leagues who are good enough to compete and are willing to come here...

 

[beastintheeast]

I never thought that Mews was going to Michigan - I thought for sure that was just an idle threat, so here is as good a place as any to admit that I got that one wrong. And, to be fair to James Boyd, moving Mews for whatever he could get for him was the right move in light of this development. This helps the Calgary Flames a bit also in that they aren't under any pressure to get Mews signed next June - he stays their property for as long as he stays at Michigan.

Saw the news today that it looks as if all three leagues are in favour of expanding the number of import players to three. The question now is, can they find 60 more import players to fill the spots across the three leagues who are good enough to compete and are willing to come here...

Thed plan and what they want is ot to draft 3 players it isto get 3 players in their line up. No one is ging to draft 3 players in a year hell they can;t draft 2 competitive players in the same draft

Teams are either going to draft a 16 17 year old each year int eh first round or you are gong to see more trades

Imagine London if they had access to another top European player.

Ottawa willhave Ekberg this yer hoepfuly we get another good player and then the following year we have another. Thatis the way it is going towork

OR

Ottawa wants to go for it they already have 2 good imports and the best player availabel art the dealdine is an import . They can now for it. Bad nes is that it is going to take away another spot for a Canadian kid toplay and develop.

It is also going to make the cost of these plaeyrs more interesting

 

[dirty12]

Less than great imports will be available to fill quotas for teams that choose to, I think. It might be particularly helpful this season as it seems there might be a real shortage of good OAs worth trading for.

 

[OMG67]

Less than great imports will be available to fill quotas for teams that choose to, I think. It might be particularly helpful this season as it seems there might be a real shortage of good OAs worth trading for.

I think the added Import will likely be a result of lessened OAs available as well as help address issues of potential expansion.

 

[mianjo]

67'S 2 U18 Selections

1
3
Ottawa
Torrance, Declan
LW
6.02
185
Toronto, ON
Toronto Marlboros U18 AAA
2
24
Ottawa
Cowan, Carter
RW
5.11.5
178
Toronto, ON
Toronto Nationals U18 AAA

 

[dirty12]

I think the added Import will likely be a result of lessened OAs available as well as help address issues of potential expansion.

It seems a lot to allow without at least a year to plan. I think Barrie will make out like bandits.
Think I’d prefer 5 combined imports and OAs; and option of an OA goalie that does not count against the quota.

 

[OMG67]

It seems a lot to allow without at least a year to plan. I think Barrie will make out like bandits.
Think I’d prefer 5 combined imports and OAs; and option of an OA goalie that does not count against the quota.

You could call it a roster augmentation allotment or something like that. Roll in the number of allowable underage players as well.

But, I am fully supportive of adding an OA goalie to the allotment.

 

[beastintheeast]

Less than great imports will be available to fill quotas for teams that choose to, I think. It might be particularly helpful this season as it seems there might be a real shortage of good OAs worth trading for.

I think there are going to be a few avail but I don't think they are going to be able to pass this for this years draft.

But the challenge is that there has to be the players avail to draft. Take a look at the number of teams tha pass on the 2nd round or get Korbler like talent

 

[OMG67]

I think there are going to be a few avail but I don't think they are going to be able to pass this for this years draft.

But the challenge is that there has to be the players avail to draft. Take a look at the number of teams tha pass on the 2nd round or get Korbler like talent

Yeah but don’t focus on that. Focus on leaving it to the teams to do what they feel they need to do depending on their competitive cycle. There are teams that will have no 2nd, 3rd, 4th round picks in a draft because of making a push. We should not be concerned about a team having only a 1st and 5th round picks in the Priority Selection. Additionally, we should not be concerned if a team decides to bulk up on mature Imports and requires three to be replaced all in one season. It is up to the teams to manage it, not us to criticize the potential for teams to mismanage it.

 

[beastintheeast]

Yeah but don’t focus on that. Focus on leaving it to the teams to do what they feel they need to do depending on their competitive cycle. There are teams that will have no 2nd, 3rd, 4th round picks in a draft because of making a push. We should not be concerned about a team having only a 1st and 5th round picks in the Priority Selection. Additionally, we should not be concerned if a team decides to bulk up on mature Imports and requires three to be replaced all in one season. It is up to the teams to manage it, not us to criticize the potential for teams to mismanage it.

We agree on that I am just stating that the 3 import rule is not a draft hing as much as a developemtn and trade thing like anything else.

The oly thing that upsets me is that it is going to take away frm the number of Canadian kids tht get a shot.

 

[OMG67]

We agree on that I am just stating that the 3 import rule is not a draft hing as much as a developemtn and trade thing like anything else.

The oly thing that upsets me is that it is going to take away frm the number of Canadian kids tht get a shot.

It won’t if the turnover is quicker. If players don’t stay in the league quite as long because they forego an OA season to play NCAA earlier, then the opportunities for North Americans is not reduced, only their time is reduced. The added Import would fill the time more so than an actual roster spot.

Additionally, the goal is to develop players for the NHL and other Pro leagues. If adding an Import roster spot furthers that goal then we should do it, even if it comes at the expense of reducing roster spots for North American kids.

The other potential outcome is with more roster spots available, maybe more of the higher end European players come over and it elevates the quality of our league. I’m not sure if this would be a factor or not but it is something to consider.

 

[Larionov]

One of the rules I have always wanted is to not have an OA goalie count against your OA total. In other words, having a 20 year old goalie is a freebie, allowing you to have two skaters as your OAs. My theory is that goalies take longer to develop, so why not make the CHL a place where goalies can cook for an extra year?

 

[beastintheeast]

One of the rules I have always wanted is to not have an OA goalie count against your OA total. In other words, having a 20 year old goalie is a freebie, allowing you to have two skaters as your OAs. My theory is that goalies take longer to develop, so why not make the CHL a place where goalies can cook for an extra year?

On one hand I like your idea and yes it makes sense BUT if we look at the 67's if we hadnot had to shuffle Mack how much ice time would Nelson have gotten. Again I am not disagreeing there is a benefit to what you are saying.

I think it depends on what the plaeyrs are looking for. I think with the NCAA changes and teh possible Import changes that thigns are gong to get confusing.

Let's let the NCAA changes take effect and get used to them.

Also if the NHL is gong ot change the 2 year rule then let's let those chnges take effect then see what happens from there.

 

[OMG67]

On one hand I like your idea and yes it makes sense BUT if we look at the 67's if we hadnot had to shuffle Mack how much ice time would Nelson have gotten. Again I am not disagreeing there is a benefit to what you are saying.

I think it depends on what the plaeyrs are looking for. I think with the NCAA changes and teh possible Import changes that thigns are gong to get confusing.

Let's let the NCAA changes take effect and get used to them.

Also if the NHL is gong ot change the 2 year rule then let's let those chnges take effect then see what happens from there.

If that rule comes into play, you aren’t looking at even having 16 or 17 year old goalies in the league at all. You are looking at 18 - 20 year olds. Only the very elite goalies play earlier than that.

The point of the rule is specifically based on the fact it takes longer for goalies to develop and mature. If that is the case, you should not be lookong at goalies and skaters and try to equate them at the same age. You have to offset them by a full season.

In your scenario, you are looking at trying to give a 17 year old a bunch of developmental ice time. Under this rule, the 17 year old likely doesn’t even fit into the equation. The 17 year old plays Tier II.

 

[beastintheeast]

If that rule comes into play, you aren’t looking at even having 16 or 17 year old goalies in the league at all. You are looking at 18 - 20 year olds. Only the very elite goalies play earlier than that.

The point of the rule is specifically based on the fact it takes longer for goalies to develop and mature. If that is the case, you should not be lookong at goalies and skaters and try to equate them at the same age. You have to offset them by a full season.

In your scenario, you are looking at trying to give a 17 year old a bunch of developmental ice time. Under this rule, the 17 year old likely doesn’t even fit into the equation. The 17 year old plays Tier II.

So the NHL no longer drafts goalies is tht what you are saying. NAH you have to have the young players int eh game sorry I disagree.

 

[OMG67]

So the NHL no longer drafts goalies is tht what you are saying. NAH you have to have the young players int eh game sorry I disagree.

Not if almost all teams have an OA starter. Teams will likely have three in the chain. They will have the starter 19/20 year old which isn’t all that much different than now. The main difference is if the OA doesn’t count, there is no value decision required. It gives the goalies and NHL teams that extra year to allow the goalie to keep developing.

So, if most to all teams have an OA goalie, how does the 17 year old play? The OA graduates and then the 17 year old becomes the starter at 18 against OA’s across the league? Won’t happen. The only goalies that would play at 17 are the elite goalies.

This is a somewhat similar conversation to the 3 Import conversation. You have to build that perpetual cycle and stay on cycle as close as possible. You still draft the 16 year old goalie but only the absolute best would enter the league at 17 as the backup. I can see floating a 3rd goalie in and out to give them some seasoning. But, the only way the OA exemption for OA goalies works is when you have an 18/19 year old backup behind the 19/20 year old starter. A 17/20 backup/starter wouldn’t work. It breaks continuity.

The NHL drafts goalies after their 17yo season right now. It is RARE to have a starter as a 17 year old. NHL teams draft goalies mostly based on attributes. It really is a crap shoot at best. That wouldn’t change. There will always be that one guy like Ivankovic that serves as the exception. Even Nelson as a 17 year old this year is somewhat of an exception. He had an elite 16 year old season in Tier II. That is sooooo rare. Statistically speaking, him and MacK were pretty much side by side. I was REALLY impressed with Nelson’s rookie season. But, again, that is more the exception than the rule. If he were 1”-2” taller, I think he’d be relatively high on the draft lists but at 6’1”, it will be a little more difficult. NHL teams like that 6’3” height and bigger.

Anyway, first we need to see whether the rule changes. Then we need to see if the goalies stick around longer across the leagues. THEN, we would see if the age distribution of goalies would change and line up how I predict. I mean, if it does line up like I predict, there is no reason to make the rule change. If you aren’t starting an OA, then you are using one to be the backup. What good is that? It is even worse under your scenario. If you have a 19 year old starter and a 20 year old backup, where does even the 18 year old fit in?

Personally, I’d like to see goalies drafted after their 18yo season. That gives them three years in junior before NHL teams need to make the decision.