Jeremy Laura: DRW Prospect camp highlights, and pick your path

I agree on college. Gives the draftee most options, especially those not taken in top ten. CHL agreement with NHL is sometimes counter to the beat interests of players. Older guys that don’t make the big club are forced to play another year of junior. Not the best development route for so many. Belong in AHL.

College kids play against older, stronger competition. Have better balance of games to practices and weight room sessions, and ultimately can choose the organization that gives them the best opportunity to make the league if they don’t sign within college career. Add the benefits you discuss and I think it is best path.

I agree on college. Gives the draftee most options, especially those not taken in top ten. CHL agreement with NHL is sometimes counter to the beat interests of players. Older guys that don’t make the big club are forced to play another year of junior. Not the best development route for so many. Belong in AHL.

College kids play against older, stronger competition. Have better balance of games to practices and weight room sessions, and ultimately can choose the organization that gives them the best opportunity to make the league if they don’t sign within college career. Add the benefits you discuss and I think it is best path.
- 33eagle

Well said. The ability to put on weight/muscle is another huge plus.

The development of players was better in junior in decade's past, but that's no longer true, at least for D1 programs. They have better facilities, better nutrition, better coaching/skill development. There's just no comparison anymore as the junior teams can't compete financially. Having said that, at the D1 level, they are really not student athletes anymore. Most of their classes are online and they spend most of their waking hours at the rink, and, for high recruits, a good portion of them transitioned to online school in probably middle school or shortly after. There are several programs in Michigan. The AAA players who are NCAA/CHL/USHL prospects are now transitioning to full-time athletes at a younger age. Probably 1/3 of my son's 14U team went to TPH at some point during their HS years.

The line between amateur and pro is getting smaller and smaller, and the age at which athlete essentially become pros, is getting younger and younger. It'll produce better athletes, but the game is becoming out of reach for far too many families (in Canada too), and the long-term risk is, less youth players = less life-long fans of the game. Canada is really at risk as just in the past 9 years, they've gone from 7% of citizens being foreign born, to 24%, and they aren't coming from countries that traditionally embrace hockey. In addition, players and programs aren't getting the support from government they once did.

Canada is really at risk as just in the past 9 years, they've gone from 7% of citizens being foreign born, to 24%, and they aren't coming from countries that traditionally embrace hockey. In addition, players and programs aren't getting the support from government they once did.
- bluelineenforcer

But I thought humans are all just blank slate social constructs?

But I thought humans are all just blank slate social constructs?
- jfkst1

Please tell me that’s not copyright protected. Perfect band name

The development of players was better in junior in decade's past, but that's no longer true, at least for D1 programs. They have better facilities, better nutrition, better coaching/skill development. There's just no comparison anymore as the junior teams can't compete financially. Having said that, at the D1 level, they are really not student athletes anymore. Most of their classes are online and they spend most of their waking hours at the rink, and, for high recruits, a good portion of them transitioned to online school in probably middle school or shortly after. There are several programs in Michigan. The AAA players who are NCAA/CHL/USHL prospects are now transitioning to full-time athletes at a younger age. Probably 1/3 of my son's 14U team went to TPH at some point during their HS years.

The line between amateur and pro is getting smaller and smaller, and the age at which athlete essentially become pros, is getting younger and younger. It'll produce better athletes, but the game is becoming out of reach for far too many families (in Canada too), and the long-term risk is, less youth players = less life-long fans of the game. Canada is really at risk as just in the past 9 years, they've gone from 7% of citizens being foreign born, to 24%, and they aren't coming from countries that traditionally embrace hockey. In addition, players and programs aren't getting the support from government they once did.
- bluelineenforcer

I agree on the gap, and I hate to sound like a money jerk but pro teams look at ELC vs 2m - 4m vet. The sport is getting younger for a variety of reasons but those “sweeteners” are the capable league minimum or the vet who was bought out who still has rubber on the tires. The expense is very real. At least one of the programs in Detroit is 20k+. What Canada has done so much better is the cheap to free skating and development. Minnesota has enough lakes and a good climate to provide a lot of outdoor options. Rinks cost a chunk to get into. Sometimes feels like the most cost prohibitive sport for kids (unless you have a polo league)

The best development route for one player is not going to be the same as another. That being said, I think for most American players (and a handful of Canadians) the USHL-NCAA route is probably going to make the most sense for a lot of reasons.

Elite prospects can play USHL/NTDP as early as 16 and get comparable quality of competition to CHL (possibly even on par with or ahead of the QMJHL). They can then move on to NCAA as young as 17/18 (higher caliber than CHL) until they're ready to jump to the NHL/AHL, whenever that might be.

Non-elite prospects and late bloomers can start USHL after high school/prep school/youth hockey, potentially play there until 20/21, and then get a full four years of NCAA eligibility after that. So they have all the way until age 25 or so to figure out whether they have the chops and desire to embark on a pro career, or do something else with their lives (and have a college degree to support them).

The CHL route is still potentially great for guys who are tracking toward being high first-round picks/elite NHLers. You're getting the highest standard of play for your age 16/17 seasons, in a league that is focused primarily on pro development (rather than preparing for college), then can jump to the NHL as a teenager.

But for the rest? For the solid but non-elite NHL prospects, it potentially means getting stuck in juniors at age 18/19/20 instead of being able to move on to a better league (NCAA or AHL). And the undrafted guys have it even worse, because even if they'd make great NCAA players (and that would give them their best chance at developing into a "late bloomer"), they are closed off from that route. At just 20/21, their options are now low level pro or Canadian collegiate.

If you're Canadian you can still choose the NCAA route (and many have, including elite prospects like Makar, Power, Celebrini, Fantilli) but it's a little more fraught. If you don't get one of the limited USHL spots for Canadian-born players (or simply choose not to move out of the country at age 16) you're stuck playing Junior A until you're ready for the NCAA. Makar notably took this route. Didn't seem to have any negative impact on him, but I can imagine for other players choosing to forgo the CHL at age 16/17 is a riskier choice (see Cholowski, Dennis, who ended up switching tracks back to the CHL anyway after his first year of NCAA hockey).

Personally i'm not a fan of picking NCAA players. Not because they can't produce good players...they can but because they come with more risks (them not signing to become UFAs and pick where they want to play) and they seem to be becoming entitled (higher 1st rounder). First that Flyers prospect Gauthier asking for a trade before he even played a pro game and now McGroarty doing the same and demanding NHL playing time even before he played a single pro game. This is a bad trend that seems to happen more and more.

Maybe i'm wrong but i can't remember the last time a CHL player refused to play for the team that drafted him before he even played a pro game. The only one that comes to mind is Eric Lindros.

Personally i'm not a fan of picking NCAA players. Not because they can't produce good players...they can but because they come with more risks (them not signing to become UFAs and pick where they want to play) and they seem to be becoming entitled (higher 1st rounder). First that Flyers prospect Gauthier asking for a trade before he even played a pro game and now McGroarty doing the same and demanding NHL playing time even before he played a single pro game. This is a bad trend that seems to happen more and more.

Maybe i'm wrong but i can't remember the last time a CHL player refused to play for the team that drafted him before he even played a pro game. The only one that comes to mind is Eric Lindros.
- dcz28

Here’s where I’m at in terms of that. I walk the line on it. Teams can sign undrafted players out of college or anywhere and opt not to sign someone but retain their rights. There is a loophole to being a UFA just by finishing school. Tampering happens, we know that. In terms of the CHL, you’re going from a low pro level to a higher pro level and the team can get you on an ELC and give you a signing bonus while you develop. A college player who blossoms in year 3 or 4 finds out that a few teams want to sign them and the offers are all the same (except for bonus schedule). At that point under the current system they have the right to pick. It sucks for the club, but it sucks for drafted players who are stuck watching undrafted players get signed.

This leads to the new twist. Scholarships don’t have to be claimed, room and board is supposed to be but isn’t. Regardless, if this NCAA shift kicks in to actual cash paid to players, do the ELC rules get a change. You can sign the prospect and let them keep playing in college. At least in the case of McGroaty the club was given a heads up and a chance to deal his rights. They’re not going to get much if McGroaty doesn’t agree to join the club (if anything) they want to do business with. The GMs used to hold all the cards, and agents are trying to get changes implemented so players can get to free agency more easily if the team isn’t doing anything with them. Right now NCAA players have a lot more sway along with non arbitration RFAs. It’s changed the entire landscape of “bridge deals”. Players know they are commodities more often than not (safe for the top shelf players) so I can’t blame them for exercising control when it comes their way. The other issue is, what if College or Pro jr is it? The player doesn’t advance. That’s where it feels like the biggest advantage lies for the NCAA route. They have a degree and relationships with pros. The pro player now has to create a new path. For the player, more often than not, I feel like the best route is college. For the team/GM, that isn’t always the case.

Here’s where I’m at in terms of that. I walk the line on it. Teams can sign undrafted players out of college or anywhere and opt not to sign someone but retain their rights. There is a loophole to being a UFA just by finishing school. Tampering happens, we know that. In terms of the CHL, you’re going from a low pro level to a higher pro level and the team can get you on an ELC and give you a signing bonus while you develop. A college player who blossoms in year 3 or 4 finds out that a few teams want to sign them and the offers are all the same (except for bonus schedule). At that point under the current system they have the right to pick. It sucks for the club, but it sucks for drafted players who are stuck watching undrafted players get signed.

This leads to the new twist. Scholarships don’t have to be claimed, room and board is supposed to be but isn’t. Regardless, if this NCAA shift kicks in to actual cash paid to players, do the ELC rules get a change. You can sign the prospect and let them keep playing in college. At least in the case of McGroaty the club was given a heads up and a chance to deal his rights. They’re not going to get much if McGroaty doesn’t agree to join the club (if anything) they want to do business with. The GMs used to hold all the cards, and agents are trying to get changes implemented so players can get to free agency more easily if the team isn’t doing anything with them. Right now NCAA players have a lot more sway along with non arbitration RFAs. It’s changed the entire landscape of “bridge deals”. Players know they are commodities more often than not (safe for the top shelf players) so I can’t blame them for exercising control when it comes their way. The other issue is, what if College or Pro jr is it? The player doesn’t advance. That’s where it feels like the biggest advantage lies for the NCAA route. They have a degree and relationships with pros. The pro player now has to create a new path. For the player, more often than not, I feel like the best route is college. For the team/GM, that isn’t always the case.
- Jeremy Laura

I don't see (Gauthier and McGroarty) as giving them a heads up really. They want to turn pro that's why they tell them they won't sign or else they would probably just wait until they can become a UFA. Publicly asking for a trade also doesn't help the team that drafted them as now all teams know they have to trade them. They likely won't get the value back of the high to mid 1st round pick they used to draft them.


In McGroarty's case he's even further bringing down his value by asking for NHL time without even had a single shift of pro game experience. How can a GM (like Yzerman for example) trade for this kid and put him in the NHL while asking other prospects to pay their dues in the AHL first? He would just piss off every other prospect that are putting in the time in the minors. Teams that don't have much of a prospect pool probably won't care like the contenders who have been trading away prospects and picks for rentals for years but they likely lack the prospects or young players they are willing to trade to make a deal happen. So the team might end up having to take a worst deal from a contender just because the teams with good young players and prospect pools don't want to upset their prospects and young players by trading for that guy.

Personally i don't like the loopholes available to NCAA players and i would avoid drafting them as much as possible just like Russian players who you don't know if they will ever come over to play or have the option to just run back home if they don't get what they want.

I don't see (Gauthier and McGroarty) as giving them a heads up really. They want to turn pro that's why they tell them they won't sign or else they would probably just wait until they can become a UFA. Publicly asking for a trade also doesn't help the team that drafted them as now all teams know they have to trade them. They likely won't get the value back of the high to mid 1st round pick they used to draft them.


In McGroarty's case he's even further bringing down his value by asking for NHL time without even had a single shift of pro game experience. How can a GM (like Yzerman for example) trade for this kid and put him in the NHL while asking other prospects to pay their dues in the AHL first? He would just piss off every other prospect that are putting in the time in the minors. Teams that don't have much of a prospect pool probably won't care like the contenders who have been trading away prospects and picks for rentals for years but they likely lack the prospects or young players they are willing to trade to make a deal happen. So the team might end up having to take a worst deal from a contender just because the teams with good young players and prospect pools don't want to upset their prospects and young players by trading for that guy.

Personally i don't like the loopholes available to NCAA players and i would avoid drafting them as much as possible just like Russian players who you don't know if they will ever come over to play or have the option to just run back home if they don't get what they want.
- dcz28

I’ll disagree on the heads up. The team knew since the beginning of last season that McGroaty wasn’t interested in WPG. They had deals in place but he wanted another year of college. That killed them. Again, I don’t love the loopholes but GMs have 4 years of control that keeps players from seeking anything other than what they’re given in terms of a pro career. GMs can use up that entire time and move on signing an undrafted player. The collegiate route is, to me, best for the player. The pro route is best for the Owners/GMs. I don’t fault anyone for sour grapes when your draftee holds out and then moves on. I also don’t fault players being pissed (sorry about the language) when their team signs someone outside their draft pool. It’s sports. This NCAA compensation thing is way bigger than it gets attention for being. Now you can renegotiate doing an ELC, or creating a Collegiate version with slight alterations if the players are being paid. The league that won’t like that is the pro jr league. We’re seeing teams struggle as the options grow. It has become a “checks and balance” system. I’ve known one guy whose career went from jr to the ECHL (and possibly 3 AHL games). His career was done quickly. He sat at home for months with no clue what to do. Didn’t go to college, needed a new path. His dad helped him get it together, but some of those guys hit a nasty wall. I just see the collegiate path as the best “plan B” in a profession that is incredibly difficult to get to and stay in and walk away fully healthy.

I’ll disagree on the heads up. The team knew since the beginning of last season that McGroaty wasn’t interested in WPG. They had deals in place but he wanted another year of college. That killed them. Again, I don’t love the loopholes but GMs have 4 years of control that keeps players from seeking anything other than what they’re given in terms of a pro career. GMs can use up that entire time and move on signing an undrafted player. The collegiate route is, to me, best for the player. The pro route is best for the Owners/GMs. I don’t fault anyone for sour grapes when your draftee holds out and then moves on. I also don’t fault players being pissed (sorry about the language) when their team signs someone outside their draft pool. It’s sports. This NCAA compensation thing is way bigger than it gets attention for being. Now you can renegotiate doing an ELC, or creating a Collegiate version with slight alterations if the players are being paid. The league that won’t like that is the pro jr league. We’re seeing teams struggle as the options grow. It has become a “checks and balance” system. I’ve known one guy whose career went from jr to the ECHL (and possibly 3 AHL games). His career was done quickly. He sat at home for months with no clue what to do. Didn’t go to college, needed a new path. His dad helped him get it together, but some of those guys hit a nasty wall. I just see the collegiate path as the best “plan B” in a profession that is incredibly difficult to get to and stay in and walk away fully healthy.
- Jeremy Laura

The college way might be best assuming the kids aren't more focused on hockey, training and chasing girls/parties than taking courses that can be of help for a career and taking it seriously. How many kids spend thousands of dollars on education in college or university in the USA and end up with a job (if they can find one) that requires no extra education and they are 100K in debt? The college rout is best if they take it seriously and choose the right course to take and not something that will be of no use in the workplace. I know way too many people that went to college along with myself that work in a field that has absolutely nothing to do with what they studied in college.

I know this is a bit off topic of playing NCAA hockey but unless you are hellbent on certain fields or careers, college is a bit overrated for a career. A lot of kids would be much better off going to trade schools and learning crafts...much cheaper and it can pay a lot better. Most kids now don't want to physically work anymore, they just want to work on a computer from home. My previous job was quite physical and so many kids would come in and last a day or maybe a week and then quit. They just wanted to sit and play on their phones.