Quote:
Originally Posted by kehatch
There are pros and cons to both leagues. And I would agree that for now the CHL is the better development league. But it hockey development in Canada is rapidly falling off and the European and American development systems are catching up quickly. If it keeps up I don't think we will be able to say that the CHL is the top division in 10 or even 5 years.
And in the scheme of things they are close to parity now. In terms of a player like Jankowski I don't give a second thought to him being developed in the NCAA versus the CHL. They are both very effective programs. It really doesn't matter. It is about finding the best player, not the best development system. Pure and simple.
|
I disagree. Players drafted out of the CHL were declining prior to the 2005 lockout but experienced a significant spike afterwards and the CHL has remained dominant since and that's not counting the number of college bound draft picks that end up playing in the CHL. There's a good reason for that. Teams have placed a heavier emphasis on player development and being more hands on in terms of training programs prospects develop under. Most GMs have spoken openly about the need to develop prospects and get them to the NHL more quickly than before. That means getting them signed and trying to control where they go. This is why we've seen GMs steer their first round picks away from the NCAA and towards the CHL. This is why there is a Russian factor. European players benefit from playing in the CHL as far as NHL teams are concerned.
If I was an NHL GM, I wouldn't be doing my job if I wasn't looking into where my a potential draft pick would likely play next year. Will he be playing in the 2nd tier Swedish Elite league or getting top minutes on an SEL team? Will he be redshirted? Playing in the USHL? Getting burried on a deep team? If there is something that can be done to improve player development, then the development program has to matter.
If I was an NHL GM, I will never risk a top prospect taking advantage of the Mike Van Ryn or Justin Schultz loophole. I don't mind a prospect getting one to two years of NCAA experience, but I prefer having my prospect signed and playing in the CHL or AHL. A prospect's willingness to not play 4 years in the NCAA is extremely important. Take a look at the top picks that wasn't drafted out of the CHL. How many guys have played or are still playing in the NCAA? Not many of them. Factor in the fact that most NCAA prospects can't and don't pay their way and attend an NHL team's training camp and there is a significant edge to drafting a CHL prospect over someone from the NCAA if the prospect is anywhere close to being NHL ready sooner rather than later.