ELynah Forum

Starting the topic for these two, now that the season is over, and the sword of Damocles that's been hanging for what feels like months now.

As per Eric Francis: (https://x.com/i/status/2037965120585003225)

The Flames have sent two front office people to Colorado to talk to Jonathan Castagna about signing with the Flames as early as today. Cornell was eliminated from the NCAA playoffs yesterday, opening the door for the centre acquired in the Weegar trade to join the Flames.

Jane says: (https://x.com/i/status/2037970667044487458)

News on Jonathan Castagna. Would not at all be surprised if he signed. Team left this morning, so by presumption, he's still there.

Flames play in Colorado on Monday.

I guess that's good news/bad news
Good for him
Bad for us

Regardless, it's well deserved and I wish him all the best

Random thought I just had: if the Bruins are so worried about breaking up chemistry right now that they're having Hagens on an ATO with Providence (and trying to force him to wing?), is that perhaps a good omen for Walsh returning for his senior year?

Both will sign. It is what it is unless NIL changes it up but you have to plan on 3 year contention windows now.

So who's gonna be waiting for the guys to return to see if Casty is with them when they get back???

Quote from: fastforward on March 28, 2026, 05:59:02 PMSo who's gonna be waiting for the guys to return to see if Casty is with them when they get back???

It sounds like, between Francis and McNally, Casty is still in Colorado... though I am imagining a world where Flames agents show up in Loveland and try to find a Casty who's already halfway back to Ithaca 😂

Friedman is reporting that Castagna's probably signing. (https://x.com/i/status/2038065624161632377) I got my friend watching the video, she said the quote was that there's "optimism" he's gonna sign in "the next few days".

For context for those who don't know NHL insiders, Friedge is the #1 insider and is almost always on the money. So... :')

Quote from: stereax on March 28, 2026, 06:12:54 PM

Quote from: fastforward on March 28, 2026, 05:59:02 PMSo who's gonna be waiting for the guys to return to see if Casty is with them when they get back???

It sounds like, between Francis and McNally, Casty is still in Colorado... though I am imagining a world where Flames agents show up in Loveland and try to find a Casty who's already halfway back to Ithaca 😂

I heard he isn't flying with the team. He decided to take the bus to honor one of his fans.

Quote from: marty on March 28, 2026, 10:18:58 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 28, 2026, 06:12:54 PM

Quote from: fastforward on March 28, 2026, 05:59:02 PMSo who's gonna be waiting for the guys to return to see if Casty is with them when they get back???

It sounds like, between Francis and McNally, Casty is still in Colorado... though I am imagining a world where Flames agents show up in Loveland and try to find a Casty who's already halfway back to Ithaca 😂

I heard he isn't flying with the team. He decided to take the bus to honor one of his fans.

Good one...

     I never played hockey so I'm not an expert. When Bancroft left Cornell as a junior to go pro, I was kind of surprised. The kid was a sniper and had a hard shot, but was he well rounded enough to turn pro and have legit chance? He seems to be getting more playing time with his new team so maybe this is breakthrough he needed?
     To me, Walsh and Castagna bring much more. Both are better defensively, better on face offs, quicker, etc. I think with Walsh wearing the "C" it made him a little too unselfish at times this season. He's very talented and I think there were a few times he could have "taken over" more than he did.
     Anyway, in my head: "if Bancroft went pro, then surely Walsh and Castagna will go". Would be interested in hearing thoughts from people with more
Knowledge about this.

Quote from: Bluelightning on March 29, 2026, 03:16:33 AMI never played hockey so I'm not an expert. When Bancroft left Cornell as a junior to go pro, I was kind of surprised. The kid was a sniper and had a hard shot, but was he well rounded enough to turn pro and have legit chance? He seems to be getting more playing time with his new team so maybe this is breakthrough he needed?
     To me, Walsh and Castagna bring much more. Both are better defensively, better on face offs, quicker, etc. I think with Walsh wearing the "C" it made him a little too unselfish at times this season. He's very talented and I think there were a few times he could have "taken over" more than he did.
     Anyway, in my head: "if Bancroft went pro, then surely Walsh and Castagna will go". Would be interested in hearing thoughts from people with more
Knowledge about this.

I won't say i have more knowledge - Bancroft either didn't play much for Providence or struggled this year.  I think Calgary presents an opportunity for Castagna, he will be one of a slew of young players trying to establish themselves and will have the opportunity to do that.  As we discussed Boston isn't even giving Hagens an nhl contract yet so it looks like Walsh's path with that team is more complicated.  For both of them it's not clear how much more growth they can experience as players through another year of ECAC hockey.  Would say that especially about Castagna.  Would think those factors are the biggest ones for these kids.

I would caution against anyone assuming anything is a done deal until it's literally a done deal. There are many considerations at play.

Considerations include:

• NHL readiness
• Age
• Organizational pathway (number of players at your position ahead of you)
• Need for money
• Desire to finish degree and graduate with classmates
• Love for Cornell
• Ability to develop further in ECAC versus pros

abmarks directed 15 personal insults at me just for saying this, but I think it's  undeniable that players must weigh different factors and make a difficult decision based on incomplete information. Many players are faced this this decision every year. Some go pro, some return to college. In the case of Bancroft, Castagna, and Walsh, these factors differ among them and none of us can say with any certainty how the final calculus shakes out.

All I can say is that our hopes next year ride heavily on at least one, and hopefully both, of Castagna and Walsh returning.

Quote from: Pghas on March 29, 2026, 09:51:24 AM

Quote from: Bluelightning on March 29, 2026, 03:16:33 AMI never played hockey so I'm not an expert. When Bancroft left Cornell as a junior to go pro, I was kind of surprised. The kid was a sniper and had a hard shot, but was he well rounded enough to turn pro and have legit chance? He seems to be getting more playing time with his new team so maybe this is breakthrough he needed?
    To me, Walsh and Castagna bring much more. Both are better defensively, better on face offs, quicker, etc. I think with Walsh wearing the "C" it made him a little too unselfish at times this season. He's very talented and I think there were a few times he could have "taken over" more than he did.
    Anyway, in my head: "if Bancroft went pro, then surely Walsh and Castagna will go". Would be interested in hearing thoughts from people with more
Knowledge about this.

I won't say i have more knowledge - Bancroft either didn't play much for Providence or struggled this year.  I think Calgary presents an opportunity for Castagna, he will be one of a slew of young players trying to establish themselves and will have the opportunity to do that.  As we discussed Boston isn't even giving Hagens an nhl contract yet so it looks like Walsh's path with that team is more complicated.  For both of them it's not clear how much more growth they can experience as players through another year of ECAC hockey.  Would say that especially about Castagna.  Would think those factors are the biggest ones for these kids.

I definitely mentioned this before on the forums, but with Bancroft the main issue is he wasn't drafted. So when you have legit NHL attention like that it's pretty difficult to say no. Obviously, that doesn't mean being drafted changes everything, but generally when you're drafted, you have a couple of years of conversations with agents, with the team and stuff, and you have more of an idea of where you stand. When you're undrafted and a team comes knocking with an ELC, you really want to sign it because you don't know what's going to happen next year.

Especially with Castagna, I really don't know what a 4th year of NCAA hockey could give him at this point - 65% on the dot, over PPG, etcetera. Doesn't feel like he has much to prove (besides trying to win a national championship, but 63/64 teams a year don't do that). You also kind of have to factor in that if, for example, Casty drops off a cliff next year, it changes the discussions with the team as well.

I also discussed this a couple of weeks ago, but the center depth on the Flames is really, really bad. Like - they probably have the worst centers in the NHL. I think it's Backlund, Frost, Strome, Gross right now? Which is disgusting and not in a good way - Backy is probably a 2C at best, ditto Frost, Strome fell off a cliff, and Gross just signed like a week ago. So there's a ton of opportunity for Castagna to step right into a 3C or 2C role, at least until the end of the year, and then they'll reevaluate.

Notably, since Castagna is a Canadian citizen and the Flames are a Canadian team, he doesn't have to have an entire visa process the way Sacha Boisvert did. That being said, since he would be under contract and thus no longer be a student (he can still take classes of course and finish his current schedule - and I would be surprised if he wasn't back in Ithaca in May to finish his finals), he would still definitely need to have his visa changed to accommodate that. So it might take a couple of days for that to go through - so we might not see him on Monday vs Colorado, but they'll probably fold him into the Flames team at that time.

On Walsh - again, they don't even want to sign Hagens to a professional contract yet, and they're trying to make him a winger for whatever reason? So if the choice is AHL to end the year or finishing up school with the guys in Ithaca, Walsh is probably going to choose the latter because that gives him flexibility for next year. At that point, in the summer, he can just say "I'm going to do next year with the Big Red if you don't give me an ELC" and see where that leads him with the Bruins organization. He seems to be very fond of the Bruins and I do think he's probably going to sign there eventually (especially if they keep him at center, which is a position of weakness right now within the org), but he can always leverage that senior year and play hardball with the org. Because again, once you graduate, you have those 30 days and you can then sign with any team you want. So if the prospects within the Bruins organization don't look too good, Walsh can always do what it sounded like Casty might have done had he not been traded, which is, ultimately, draft dodge and sign with someone else as a college free agent. (Think Jimmy Vesey here.) I mean very notably, since last year, you have Minten and Hagens who have joined the organization - one is currently the top line center and the other probably should be the second line center. Plus, Elias Lindholm is with the organization until 2031, barring a trade. If you look at 27-28, which realistically is probably when you'd expect Walsh to be a full-timer if he signs today, that's three centers already locked in, plus that high Leafs draft pick that might net the Bruins a fourth high-upside center.

I'll also mention that part of the reason Hagens signed now, as opposed to waiting it out until the summer - as I suspect Walsh will - is because both sides wanted him to get professional games in, with the possibility/likelihood of still signing that ELC in a week or two to burn the year. The thing is that if you sign the ELC now, you can't actually be sent down to the AHL. So if they sign Walsh to an ELC now, they have to keep him on the NHL roster until the end of the year. For a guy like Castagna, who the Flames already want in the NHL, that's not a problem. For a guy like Walsh, who the Bruins almost certainly don't want in the NHL this year, that's a problem. You saw guys last year, like Quinn Hutson, sign the ELC and only play a couple of games, being healthy scratched for the rest of them - in those cases, however, the benefit of having the player signed to the ELC (namely, team control for the next few years) was critical. (This Hutson was undrafted and likely could have window shopped for another team that would give him the ELC, given the amount of interest in him.)

My thing is, I'm always a little bit of the opinion that more years in college will help you improve. Not just because I want to see our guys go for 4 years, but college is a distinctly different experience than NHL/AHL professional hockey. When you're in the professional leagues, you have a lot less time to learn the game, train, hit the weight room, etcetera - you're constantly on the move and don't have very much free time to yourself. There are definitely reasons someone may prefer the college experience - even emotionally, not wanting to leave the team after that kind of loss to Denver.

In any case, we'll see what happens. I think I've convinced myself that if Walsh signs (and I can't say for sure that he will), it's going to be over the summer, due to everything I've outlined above.

Quote from: stereax on March 29, 2026, 10:57:15 AM

Quote from: Pghas on March 29, 2026, 09:51:24 AM

Quote from: Bluelightning on March 29, 2026, 03:16:33 AMI never played hockey so I'm not an expert. When Bancroft left Cornell as a junior to go pro, I was kind of surprised. The kid was a sniper and had a hard shot, but was he well rounded enough to turn pro and have legit chance? He seems to be getting more playing time with his new team so maybe this is breakthrough he needed?
    To me, Walsh and Castagna bring much more. Both are better defensively, better on face offs, quicker, etc. I think with Walsh wearing the "C" it made him a little too unselfish at times this season. He's very talented and I think there were a few times he could have "taken over" more than he did.
    Anyway, in my head: "if Bancroft went pro, then surely Walsh and Castagna will go". Would be interested in hearing thoughts from people with more
Knowledge about this.

I won't say i have more knowledge - Bancroft either didn't play much for Providence or struggled this year.  I think Calgary presents an opportunity for Castagna, he will be one of a slew of young players trying to establish themselves and will have the opportunity to do that.  As we discussed Boston isn't even giving Hagens an nhl contract yet so it looks like Walsh's path with that team is more complicated.  For both of them it's not clear how much more growth they can experience as players through another year of ECAC hockey.  Would say that especially about Castagna.  Would think those factors are the biggest ones for these kids.

I definitely mentioned this before on the forums, but with Bancroft the main issue is he wasn't drafted. So when you have legit NHL attention like that it's pretty difficult to say no. Obviously, that doesn't mean being drafted changes everything, but generally when you're drafted, you have a couple of years of conversations with agents, with the team and stuff, and you have more of an idea of where you stand. When you're undrafted and a team comes knocking with an ELC, you really want to sign it because you don't know what's going to happen next year.

Especially with Castagna, I really don't know what a 4th year of NCAA hockey could give him at this point - 65% on the dot, over PPG, etcetera. Doesn't feel like he has much to prove (besides trying to win a national championship, but 63/64 teams a year don't do that). You also kind of have to factor in that if, for example, Casty drops off a cliff next year, it changes the discussions with the team as well.

I also discussed this a couple of weeks ago, but the center depth on the Flames is really, really bad. Like - they probably have the worst centers in the NHL. I think it's Backlund, Frost, Strome, Gross right now? Which is disgusting and not in a good way - Backy is probably a 2C at best, ditto Frost, Strome fell off a cliff, and Gross just signed like a week ago. So there's a ton of opportunity for Castagna to step right into a 3C or 2C role, at least until the end of the year, and then they'll reevaluate.

Notably, since Castagna is a Canadian citizen and the Flames are a Canadian team, he doesn't have to have an entire visa process the way Sacha Boisvert did. That being said, since he would be under contract and thus no longer be a student (he can still take classes of course and finish his current schedule - and I would be surprised if he wasn't back in Ithaca in May to finish his finals), he would still definitely need to have his visa changed to accommodate that. So it might take a couple of days for that to go through - so we might not see him on Monday vs Colorado, but they'll probably fold him into the Flames team at that time.

On Walsh - again, they don't even want to sign Hagens to a professional contract yet, and they're trying to make him a winger for whatever reason? So if the choice is AHL to end the year or finishing up school with the guys in Ithaca, Walsh is probably going to choose the latter because that gives him flexibility for next year. At that point, in the summer, he can just say "I'm going to do next year with the Big Red if you don't give me an ELC" and see where that leads him with the Bruins organization. He seems to be very fond of the Bruins and I do think he's probably going to sign there eventually (especially if they keep him at center, which is a position of weakness right now within the org), but he can always leverage that senior year and play hardball with the org. Because again, once you graduate, you have those 30 days and you can then sign with any team you want. So if the prospects within the Bruins organization don't look too good, Walsh can always do what it sounded like Casty might have done had he not been traded, which is, ultimately, draft dodge and sign with someone else as a college free agent. (Think Jimmy Vesey here.) I mean very notably, since last year, you have Minten and Hagens who have joined the organization - one is currently the top line center and the other probably should be the second line center. Plus, Elias Lindholm is with the organization until 2031, barring a trade. If you look at 27-28, which realistically is probably when you'd expect Walsh to be a full-timer if he signs today, that's three centers already locked in, plus that high Leafs draft pick that might net the Bruins a fourth high-upside center.

I'll also mention that part of the reason Hagens signed now, as opposed to waiting it out until the summer - as I suspect Walsh will - is because both sides wanted him to get professional games in, with the possibility/likelihood of still signing that ELC in a week or two to burn the year. The thing is that if you sign the ELC now, you can't actually be sent down to the AHL. So if they sign Walsh to an ELC now, they have to keep him on the NHL roster until the end of the year. For a guy like Castagna, who the Flames already want in the NHL, that's not a problem. For a guy like Walsh, who the Bruins almost certainly don't want in the NHL this year, that's a problem. You saw guys last year, like Quinn Hutson, sign the ELC and only play a couple of games, being healthy scratched for the rest of them - in those cases, however, the benefit of having the player signed to the ELC (namely, team control for the next few years) was critical. (This Hutson was undrafted and likely could have window shopped for another team that would give him the ELC, given the amount of interest in him.)

My thing is, I'm always a little bit of the opinion that more years in college will help you improve. Not just because I want to see our guys go for 4 years, but college is a distinctly different experience than NHL/AHL professional hockey. When you're in the professional leagues, you have a lot less time to learn the game, train, hit the weight room, etcetera - you're constantly on the move and don't have very much free time to yourself. There are definitely reasons someone may prefer the college experience - even emotionally, not wanting to leave the team after that kind of loss to Denver.

In any case, we'll see what happens. I think I've convinced myself that if Walsh signs (and I can't say for sure that he will), it's going to be over the summer, due to everything I've outlined above.

Great take on things, as usual!
Thanks for laying things out!

Quote from: fastforward on March 29, 2026, 01:48:20 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 29, 2026, 10:57:15 AM

Quote from: Pghas on March 29, 2026, 09:51:24 AM

Quote from: Bluelightning on March 29, 2026, 03:16:33 AMI never played hockey so I'm not an expert. When Bancroft left Cornell as a junior to go pro, I was kind of surprised. The kid was a sniper and had a hard shot, but was he well rounded enough to turn pro and have legit chance? He seems to be getting more playing time with his new team so maybe this is breakthrough he needed?
    To me, Walsh and Castagna bring much more. Both are better defensively, better on face offs, quicker, etc. I think with Walsh wearing the "C" it made him a little too unselfish at times this season. He's very talented and I think there were a few times he could have "taken over" more than he did.
    Anyway, in my head: "if Bancroft went pro, then surely Walsh and Castagna will go". Would be interested in hearing thoughts from people with more
Knowledge about this.

I won't say i have more knowledge - Bancroft either didn't play much for Providence or struggled this year.  I think Calgary presents an opportunity for Castagna, he will be one of a slew of young players trying to establish themselves and will have the opportunity to do that.  As we discussed Boston isn't even giving Hagens an nhl contract yet so it looks like Walsh's path with that team is more complicated.  For both of them it's not clear how much more growth they can experience as players through another year of ECAC hockey.  Would say that especially about Castagna.  Would think those factors are the biggest ones for these kids.

I definitely mentioned this before on the forums, but with Bancroft the main issue is he wasn't drafted. So when you have legit NHL attention like that it's pretty difficult to say no. Obviously, that doesn't mean being drafted changes everything, but generally when you're drafted, you have a couple of years of conversations with agents, with the team and stuff, and you have more of an idea of where you stand. When you're undrafted and a team comes knocking with an ELC, you really want to sign it because you don't know what's going to happen next year.

Especially with Castagna, I really don't know what a 4th year of NCAA hockey could give him at this point - 65% on the dot, over PPG, etcetera. Doesn't feel like he has much to prove (besides trying to win a national championship, but 63/64 teams a year don't do that). You also kind of have to factor in that if, for example, Casty drops off a cliff next year, it changes the discussions with the team as well.

I also discussed this a couple of weeks ago, but the center depth on the Flames is really, really bad. Like - they probably have the worst centers in the NHL. I think it's Backlund, Frost, Strome, Gross right now? Which is disgusting and not in a good way - Backy is probably a 2C at best, ditto Frost, Strome fell off a cliff, and Gross just signed like a week ago. So there's a ton of opportunity for Castagna to step right into a 3C or 2C role, at least until the end of the year, and then they'll reevaluate.

Notably, since Castagna is a Canadian citizen and the Flames are a Canadian team, he doesn't have to have an entire visa process the way Sacha Boisvert did. That being said, since he would be under contract and thus no longer be a student (he can still take classes of course and finish his current schedule - and I would be surprised if he wasn't back in Ithaca in May to finish his finals), he would still definitely need to have his visa changed to accommodate that. So it might take a couple of days for that to go through - so we might not see him on Monday vs Colorado, but they'll probably fold him into the Flames team at that time.

On Walsh - again, they don't even want to sign Hagens to a professional contract yet, and they're trying to make him a winger for whatever reason? So if the choice is AHL to end the year or finishing up school with the guys in Ithaca, Walsh is probably going to choose the latter because that gives him flexibility for next year. At that point, in the summer, he can just say "I'm going to do next year with the Big Red if you don't give me an ELC" and see where that leads him with the Bruins organization. He seems to be very fond of the Bruins and I do think he's probably going to sign there eventually (especially if they keep him at center, which is a position of weakness right now within the org), but he can always leverage that senior year and play hardball with the org. Because again, once you graduate, you have those 30 days and you can then sign with any team you want. So if the prospects within the Bruins organization don't look too good, Walsh can always do what it sounded like Casty might have done had he not been traded, which is, ultimately, draft dodge and sign with someone else as a college free agent. (Think Jimmy Vesey here.) I mean very notably, since last year, you have Minten and Hagens who have joined the organization - one is currently the top line center and the other probably should be the second line center. Plus, Elias Lindholm is with the organization until 2031, barring a trade. If you look at 27-28, which realistically is probably when you'd expect Walsh to be a full-timer if he signs today, that's three centers already locked in, plus that high Leafs draft pick that might net the Bruins a fourth high-upside center.

I'll also mention that part of the reason Hagens signed now, as opposed to waiting it out until the summer - as I suspect Walsh will - is because both sides wanted him to get professional games in, with the possibility/likelihood of still signing that ELC in a week or two to burn the year. The thing is that if you sign the ELC now, you can't actually be sent down to the AHL. So if they sign Walsh to an ELC now, they have to keep him on the NHL roster until the end of the year. For a guy like Castagna, who the Flames already want in the NHL, that's not a problem. For a guy like Walsh, who the Bruins almost certainly don't want in the NHL this year, that's a problem. You saw guys last year, like Quinn Hutson, sign the ELC and only play a couple of games, being healthy scratched for the rest of them - in those cases, however, the benefit of having the player signed to the ELC (namely, team control for the next few years) was critical. (This Hutson was undrafted and likely could have window shopped for another team that would give him the ELC, given the amount of interest in him.)

My thing is, I'm always a little bit of the opinion that more years in college will help you improve. Not just because I want to see our guys go for 4 years, but college is a distinctly different experience than NHL/AHL professional hockey. When you're in the professional leagues, you have a lot less time to learn the game, train, hit the weight room, etcetera - you're constantly on the move and don't have very much free time to yourself. There are definitely reasons someone may prefer the college experience - even emotionally, not wanting to leave the team after that kind of loss to Denver.

In any case, we'll see what happens. I think I've convinced myself that if Walsh signs (and I can't say for sure that he will), it's going to be over the summer, due to everything I've outlined above.

Great take on things, as usual!
Thanks for laying things out!

Of course! Sorry I yap so much - but hopefully it's useful for those of us that don't follow NHL hockey as much 😅

(If you couldn't tell one of the things I really like about hockey is the contract/cap stuff... now ya know!)

Quote from: stereax on March 29, 2026, 01:52:03 PM(If you couldn't tell one of the things I really like about hockey is the contract/cap stuff... now ya know!)

Freakin' lawyers.

 ;D

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 29, 2026, 04:07:39 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 29, 2026, 01:52:03 PM(If you couldn't tell one of the things I really like about hockey is the contract/cap stuff... now ya know!)

Freakin' lawyers.

 ;D

😂😂😂 it's so much fun though!

Fun fact, I'm helping a friend with an NHL cap tracker website - it's not online right now because she's doing a ton of bulk data changing things and hasn't had time to update it, but that's also part of where my love of contract stuff comes from, having to figure out the rules for that site :')

Castagna can sign a 3 yr deal this yr or next.  It comes down to getting a degree, playing with teammates.  Does he want to play for the team that drafted him and take that deal or go back into the pool and get drafted again.

Isnt his 3 yr rights done this year?

Quote from: upprdeck on March 29, 2026, 04:34:13 PMCastagna can sign a 3 yr deal this yr or next.  It comes down to getting a degree, playing with teammates.  Does he want to play for the team that drafted him and take that deal or go back into the pool and get drafted again.

Isnt his 3 yr rights done this year?

He can't get redrafted. If he plays another year at Cornell, he'd be a college free agent. Different thing.

And they changed the rules - now, when you start the NCAA, you get 4 years to finish your degree. Pretty sure this is retroactive too. If you expedite it and finish in 3, like Wiebe is doing, then you get 3 years. After you finish, you have 30 days to negotiate with your draft club - if you don't figure it out by then, you become a free agent.

From what I've heard, he's going to finish his degree either way. Wouldn't be surprised if he finishes the credits for it over the summer.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 29, 2026, 04:07:39 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 29, 2026, 01:52:03 PM(If you couldn't tell one of the things I really like about hockey is the contract/cap stuff... now ya know!)

Freakin' lawyers.

 ;D

Could be a future there?

Quote from: marty on March 29, 2026, 04:48:56 PM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 29, 2026, 04:07:39 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 29, 2026, 01:52:03 PM(If you couldn't tell one of the things I really like about hockey is the contract/cap stuff... now ya know!)

Freakin' lawyers.

 ;D

Could be a future there?

I wish...

Francis: (https://x.com/i/status/2038366046160310651)

Flames prospect Jonathan Castagna is waiting at the Flames hotel in Denver, where the team will arrive later today.
The big centre from Cornell, who was acquired in the Weegar trade, has not made a jump to the pros official by signing his name to a contract just yet.
But I'd expect him to be part of the team's morning skate tomorrow.

Too bad. Greatly hurts our chances next season. If only Utah had held onto him we would have had frozen four potential.

I'll say one thing about Castagna—this whole thing about Calgary sending a bunch of execs to his Colorado hotel and putting a full court press on him to sign feels rushed and a little unfair to him. He just got traded and was focused on the playoffs; he's barely had time to think about this! Most players know for most of the season if they plan to go pro when the season is over. We know from reporting that Castagna was NOT going to go pro with Utah this season, meaning he has only had the last two weeks—which, again, were focused on the playoffs—to figure out what he wants to do now. You'd think Jonathan would sit down with not just the Flames but also his family and current team and talk about this. But his team flew back to Ithaca yesterday morning and it's now just him and the Flames brass. I'm sure he's being as thoughtful as he can, but I don't know how you could possibly accurately weigh all the options under these circumstances.

Quote from: BearLover on March 30, 2026, 12:29:07 AMI'll say one thing about Castagna—this whole thing about Calgary sending a bunch of execs to his Colorado hotel and putting a full court press on him to sign feels rushed and a little unfair to him. He just got traded and was focused on the playoffs; he's barely had time to think about this! Most players know for most of the season if they plan to go pro when the season is over. We know from reporting that Castagna was NOT going to go pro with Utah this season, meaning he has only had the last two weeks—which, again, were focused on the playoffs—to figure out what he wants to do now. You'd think Jonathan would sit down with not just the Flames but also his family and current team and talk about this. But his team flew back to Ithaca yesterday morning and it's now just him and the Flames brass. I'm sure he's being as thoughtful as he can, but I don't know how you could possibly accurately weigh all the options under these circumstances.

Again all projection andd assumption;  just because you feel blindsided clearly by the rapidity of events doesn't mean he is.


You don't know whether his agent came into town or not. 
You don't know how much time he spent talking with his agent or his family since the trade and I think it would be naive to decide that he hadn't. 
You don't know whether he's talked to Casey in the last 2 weeks or even if Casey might have brought it up with Johnny after the trade came down if even in the informal "hey how you feeling about all this" sort of way.

You seem to believe this is all a complete surprise that Calgary would want to sign them as soon as we lost. It's plausible, though I certainly would not say more likely than not, that Calgary and his agent spoke about all sorts of possibilities and one of them was hey. Hey, let's talk as soon as they're out and if they happen to get knocked out in Denver we're going to be there a couple days later so let's all figure this out in Denver cuz we'd love to sign them and have them in the lineup on Tuesday if that happens.

And saying it's just him and the flame's brass implies that the three of them are going to be locked in a room where Calgary's not going to let him leave until he signs under pressure negotiation or something ridiculous like that.   Not having seen any reporting that said castagna is an idiot, kid will be smart enough to have dinner with the people from Calgary or whatever and get the sales pitch but completely defer to his agent to actually handle things.

And if his agent is any good whatsoever and had any concerns about the Calgary  representatives showing up in  Denver and the amount of pressure that might put on Jonathan, than the agent is going to tell Calgary not to show up And tell Johnny not to meet with them at all If they do.

I've talked a bit with Castagna's parents over the years.  They are savvy.  There is no way Jonathan is not an active, willing, and witting participant in everything.  It's not an ambush.  The team is playing it cynically to max out whatever burst of hype they can generate and start the long process of turning him into their cash cow.  The family is playing it to both protect his interests and also help that process since after his servitude that investment rebounds to his market value.

Since it is 99% certain he is gone I can say with as much confidence as anybody not in the actual know that he will definitely complete his degree by whatever means.  The family was impressed and proud of Cornell and comes out of this as potentially amazing ambassadors for us, and if Castagna becomes a star that can only help us down the line.

Everybody wins.  There is a reason Mike bent over backwards to help his players who wanted to jump, was always supportive, never stood in the way, and always made the family the center of the decision.  Not just because he is a good guy, though he is, but because it's the smart play.  You don't sell a car, you sell the next ten cars.

Quote from: BearLover on March 30, 2026, 12:29:07 AMI'll say one thing about Castagna—this whole thing about Calgary sending a bunch of execs to his Colorado hotel and putting a full court press on him to sign feels rushed and a little unfair to him. He just got traded and was focused on the playoffs; he's barely had time to think about this! Most players know for most of the season if they plan to go pro when the season is over. We know from reporting that Castagna was NOT going to go pro with Utah this season, meaning he has only had the last two weeks—which, again, were focused on the playoffs—to figure out what he wants to do now. You'd think Jonathan would sit down with not just the Flames but also his family and current team and talk about this. But his team flew back to Ithaca yesterday morning and it's now just him and the Flames brass. I'm sure he's being as thoughtful as he can, but I don't know how you could possibly accurately weigh all the options under these circumstances.

Stunningly naive take. Porter Martone signed with the Flyers less than 24 hours after his team lost a game in the most excruciating way that would've sent them to the frozen four.

Quote from: scoop85 on March 30, 2026, 08:07:18 AM

Quote from: BearLover on March 30, 2026, 12:29:07 AMI'll say one thing about Castagna—this whole thing about Calgary sending a bunch of execs to his Colorado hotel and putting a full court press on him to sign feels rushed and a little unfair to him. He just got traded and was focused on the playoffs; he's barely had time to think about this! Most players know for most of the season if they plan to go pro when the season is over. We know from reporting that Castagna was NOT going to go pro with Utah this season, meaning he has only had the last two weeks—which, again, were focused on the playoffs—to figure out what he wants to do now. You'd think Jonathan would sit down with not just the Flames but also his family and current team and talk about this. But his team flew back to Ithaca yesterday morning and it's now just him and the Flames brass. I'm sure he's being as thoughtful as he can, but I don't know how you could possibly accurately weigh all the options under these circumstances.

Stunningly naive take. Porter Martone signed with the Flyers less than 24 hours after his team lost a game in the most excruciating way that would've sent them to the frozen four.

Did you not read my post? I said that most players know all year whether they will sign. It has been reported that Castagna planned NOT to sign until 2 weeks ago, when he got traded to the Flames, and since then he's been busy with the playoffs. He hasn't had time to think about it. "Stunningly naive," really? What a randomly rude thing to say. Yes, I am fully aware of Martone. The reason he signed right away is because he was planning on doing so all season.

Quote from: BearLover on March 30, 2026, 08:58:36 AM

Quote from: scoop85 on March 30, 2026, 08:07:18 AM

Quote from: BearLover on March 30, 2026, 12:29:07 AMI'll say one thing about Castagna—this whole thing about Calgary sending a bunch of execs to his Colorado hotel and putting a full court press on him to sign feels rushed and a little unfair to him. He just got traded and was focused on the playoffs; he's barely had time to think about this! Most players know for most of the season if they plan to go pro when the season is over. We know from reporting that Castagna was NOT going to go pro with Utah this season, meaning he has only had the last two weeks—which, again, were focused on the playoffs—to figure out what he wants to do now. You'd think Jonathan would sit down with not just the Flames but also his family and current team and talk about this. But his team flew back to Ithaca yesterday morning and it's now just him and the Flames brass. I'm sure he's being as thoughtful as he can, but I don't know how you could possibly accurately weigh all the options under these circumstances.

Stunningly naive take. Porter Martone signed with the Flyers less than 24 hours after his team lost a game in the most excruciating way that would've sent them to the frozen four.

Did you not read my post? I said that most players know all year whether they will sign. It has been reported that Castagna planned NOT to sign until 2 weeks ago, when he got traded to the Flames, and since then he's been busy with the playoffs. He hasn't had time to think about it. "Stunningly naive," really? What a randomly rude thing to say. Yes, I am fully aware of Martone. The reason he signed right away is because he was planning on doing so all season.

Sorry you feel offended, but if you don't believe that a guy like Castagna, along with his family and agent, weren't discussing and planning for this scenario the moment the trade went down, then your post comes off as naive to me. Maybe be others here think like you do, but I suspect the vast majority would take my view.

Quote from: scoop85 on March 30, 2026, 09:05:06 AM

Quote from: BearLover on March 30, 2026, 08:58:36 AM

Quote from: scoop85 on March 30, 2026, 08:07:18 AM

Quote from: BearLover on March 30, 2026, 12:29:07 AMI'll say one thing about Castagna—this whole thing about Calgary sending a bunch of execs to his Colorado hotel and putting a full court press on him to sign feels rushed and a little unfair to him. He just got traded and was focused on the playoffs; he's barely had time to think about this! Most players know for most of the season if they plan to go pro when the season is over. We know from reporting that Castagna was NOT going to go pro with Utah this season, meaning he has only had the last two weeks—which, again, were focused on the playoffs—to figure out what he wants to do now. You'd think Jonathan would sit down with not just the Flames but also his family and current team and talk about this. But his team flew back to Ithaca yesterday morning and it's now just him and the Flames brass. I'm sure he's being as thoughtful as he can, but I don't know how you could possibly accurately weigh all the options under these circumstances.

Stunningly naive take. Porter Martone signed with the Flyers less than 24 hours after his team lost a game in the most excruciating way that would've sent them to the frozen four.

Did you not read my post? I said that most players know all year whether they will sign. It has been reported that Castagna planned NOT to sign until 2 weeks ago, when he got traded to the Flames, and since then he's been busy with the playoffs. He hasn't had time to think about it. "Stunningly naive," really? What a randomly rude thing to say. Yes, I am fully aware of Martone. The reason he signed right away is because he was planning on doing so all season.

Sorry you feel offended, but if you don't believe that a guy like Castagna, along with his family and agent, weren't discussing and planning for this scenario the moment the trade went down, then your post comes off as naive to me. Maybe be others here think like you do, but I suspect the vast majority would take my view.

I'm sure they have been planning for it, but when you're in the most stressful time of the season, and then suddenly it's over, and then the next day you're asked to sign, that does not seem like enough time to make the biggest decision of your life. As I said, these decisions usually take months. In Castagna's case, he knows nobody in the Flames organization, knows nothing about Calgary (he said himself he's never been there). He was planning on going back to school until two weeks ago! 

The timeline is definitely condensed but also, I'd expect if the plan was to not sign in Utah and Utah was aware of that (because at the end of the day, that's still a rumor, and hockey insiders are notorious for spreading rumors to please certain parties and get more information), that Casty and company were also aware that he'd probably be traded at some point and were preparing for it. (Yes, despite Casty saying it was a surprise. It was probably more a surprise he was traded in the Weegar deal than it was he got traded. He was probably expecting something more like the Ike Howard trade.) The timing does look rough, especially if you don't know how, frankly, incestuous hockey is at the top. It's the same group of like, thirty-two GMs and another thirty to fifty agents who do 99% of the contract work. Everyone knows everyone and tampering is always a thing even if they say it isn't.

Jonny Castagna is not stupid. Neither are his parents (who I've talked to briefly at one point), who are certainly in the room with him. Neither is his agent, Patrick Morris, who represents FIFTY current NHL contracts. If they had serious concerns about Calgary being a fit for Casty, someone would step in and get him on a bus back to Ithaca or Etobicoke, Ontario. It's ultimately his choice in the end as to signing, yes, but he has at least three, if not more, strong advocates for him in his corner who are a million times more informed than any of us.

I'm of the opinion (and this is just my pure speculation) that Casty wanted to go pro after this season even dating back closer to the start of it, but that the main thing checking him from doing so was a perceived (and probably correctly so) lack of opportunity with Utah. Once the trade happened, he and his camp have probably been in communication with the Flames on the daily, or close to it, aware of the timeline and cognizant of the ELC burn year. Everyone at this point is aware of what everyone else wants. It's just a matter of getting it done.

(Also, I suspect there's a reason everyone is waiting for the Flames to come into town and for Casty to try to get on the ice with them before signing.)

All this to say - BL does have a valid point in that it looks super rushed. At the same time, the people in the know have probably been working on this for months, at least. Trades don't usually happen overnight. Guys who are on the outs with organizations know that. Possible fits are already being investigated. And there's a reason Casty lost on Friday and hasn't yet signed, whereas Martone lost on Saturday and signed the next day. ELCs are highly standardized; that's likely not the reason why. (I doubt that the contract would be made or broken over A/B bonuses.) It's because everyone is trying to make sure this is the correct decision, that the contract is proper, that Casty's ready to make the jump into the NHL. On all sides. Because you can't go back to Cornell hockey from an NHL deal, so you need to be sure that it's what you want.

Just to be clear--Castagna (reportedly) didn't want to sign with Utah after this season, but he still could have signed with Utah after next season. Yes, he could wait a few months at that point and test free agency, but plenty of players do sign with the team that drafted them after their senior year ends. If this happened, Castagna would have probably gotten an NHL game and burned a year off his entry contract (if I understand correctly how it works). Castagna seems like a loyal guy and I'd guess there'd be a good chance of signing with Utah after all, even if he came back to Cornell next season.

I am certain that Castagna, his family, and his advisor are taking their time as best they can and making as informed a decision as they can. But on such a condensed timeline it doesn't necessarily matter how smart or meticulous you are. He's ultimately going to have to make a rushed decision based on vibes. Like stereax said, there's a reason Martone signed a few minutes after his team was eliminated, and Castagna has not yet signed.

I disagree with one thing stereax said, which is that Castagna wanted to sign close to the start of this season. This I doubt. He had an underwhelming sophomore year. The hype didn't start to build until well into this season. That, plus the fact he'd be buried in the center depth chart in Utah, probably made it so he didn't think much about going pro at all. I would guess that for most of the year he just figured he'd be back for his senior year.

Last thing I'll mention in response to what Trotsky said--Schafer supports his players, whatever they end up choosing. But I wouldn't say Schafer encouraged players to leave. Schafer has said publicly that whenever a player is considering such a decision, Schafer sits down with them and explains what they're giving up: playing at Lynah, graduating with their classmates, Senior Night. Schafer also talked to his players about past Cornell players who have made the jump, and how things turned out for them. This is a measured approach that I'm sure any good college coach employs when his player is faced with this decision. I hope Castagna had the chance to sit down with Casey in the same manner, though I guess that would have been a virtual meeting from Castagna's Colorado hotel if it happened at all.

Quote from: scoop85 on March 30, 2026, 09:05:06 AMSorry you feel offended, but if you don't believe that a guy like Castagna, along with his family and agent, weren't discussing and planning for this scenario the moment the trade went down, ...

I think it is fairly likely that Utah gave Calgary permission to talk to Castagna before making the trade. The idea that his people read about it when we did is unlikely. He has had more time to prepare and a much better sense of what he wanted to do than he's being credited with. Life didn't simply happen to him, he was a participant in it. 

Quote from: BearLover on March 30, 2026, 10:09:38 AMJust to be clear--Castagna (reportedly) didn't want to sign with Utah after this season, but he still could have signed with Utah after next season. Yes, he could wait a few months at that point and test free agency, but plenty of players do sign with the team that drafted them after their senior year ends. If this happened, Castagna would have probably gotten an NHL game and burned a year off his entry contract (if I understand correctly how it works). Castagna seems like a loyal guy and I'd guess there'd be a good chance of signing with Utah after all, even if he came back to Cornell next season.

The thing is, though, that the reason he was reportedly iffy on signing with Utah (organizational center/forward depth) wasn't going to change in the next year. Again, it seems like an amicable divorce between Casty and Utah, just seems like it wasn't going to work out - and Casty acknowledges as such and is grateful to the Utah organization. Utah being aware of this back in, say, November (that Castagna intended to go pro after this year with a better fit, but was content with staying with Cornell and testing free agency should he not get the chances he's looking for) means they would have had the time to shop him as a piece in bigger trades. Presumably, Casty and company were aware this was a possibility and already had ideas of which teams could fit well vs which would be an uphill climb. Again, though, ultimately none of us are in the room where it's happening.

Quote from: scoop85 on March 30, 2026, 08:07:18 AM

Quote from: BearLover on March 30, 2026, 12:29:07 AMI'll say one thing about Castagna—this whole thing about Calgary sending a bunch of execs to his Colorado hotel and putting a full court press on him to sign feels rushed and a little unfair to him. He just got traded and was focused on the playoffs; he's barely had time to think about this! Most players know for most of the season if they plan to go pro when the season is over. We know from reporting that Castagna was NOT going to go pro with Utah this season, meaning he has only had the last two weeks—which, again, were focused on the playoffs—to figure out what he wants to do now. You'd think Jonathan would sit down with not just the Flames but also his family and current team and talk about this. But his team flew back to Ithaca yesterday morning and it's now just him and the Flames brass. I'm sure he's being as thoughtful as he can, but I don't know how you could possibly accurately weigh all the options under these circumstances.

Stunningly naive take. Porter Martone signed with the Flyers less than 24 hours after his team lost a game in the most excruciating way that would've sent them to the frozen four.

And Martone was seen on TV at the Center during last nights game in the team box shaking hands and hugging Flyers management.  FWIW, everybody in the organization knew that as soon as MSU's season was done, he was going to sign and start playing immediately.

Hoyt signed with Ottawa.

Quote from: underskill on March 30, 2026, 05:14:15 PMHoyt signed with Ottawa.

Ugh I just heard

Quote from: BearLover on March 30, 2026, 12:29:07 AMI'll say one thing about Castagna—this whole thing about Calgary sending a bunch of execs to his Colorado hotel and putting a full court press on him to sign feels rushed and a little unfair to him. He just got traded and was focused on the playoffs; he's barely had time to think about this! Most players know for most of the season if they plan to go pro when the season is over. We know from reporting that Castagna was NOT going to go pro with Utah this season, meaning he has only had the last two weeks—which, again, were focused on the playoffs—to figure out what he wants to do now. You'd think Jonathan would sit down with not just the Flames but also his family and current team and talk about this. But his team flew back to Ithaca yesterday morning and it's now just him and the Flames brass. I'm sure he's being as thoughtful as he can, but I don't know how you could possibly accurately weigh all the options under these circumstances.

This is EXTREMELY commonplace nowadays, and basically expected. My friendly advice to everyone - if they want to keep their blood pressure in check - is to just assume that any good player with leave after 3 years max. If it doesn't happen, it's an upset.

And there it is:

https://www.nhl.com/flames/news/flames-sign-jonathan-castagna?fbclid=IwdGRleAQ31L9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeoWacU1ZVlpKL38xj-G-J1JNa8GjHAIbYu8P9UzLJG-3469a0loMtqZ3ZhSg_aem_UPKZAg0j0-a3MT-R-x_0iQ

Waaait...

Castagna's three-year entry-level deal begins in the 2026-27 season, he will report to the Calgary Wranglers (AHL) on a PTO for the remainder of the 2025-26 season, and is day-to-day with a lower body injury. He was acquired by Calgary from Utah on March 4.

What?

ATO->ELC isn't uncommon, though I can't say I was expecting it, but LOWER BODY INJURY?

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 06:26:55 PMWaaait...

Castagna's three-year entry-level deal begins in the 2026-27 season, he will report to the Calgary Wranglers (AHL) on a PTO for the remainder of the 2025-26 season, and is day-to-day with a lower body injury. He was acquired by Calgary from Utah on March 4.

What?

ATO->ELC isn't uncommon, though I can't say I was expecting it, but LOWER BOoff-season.

I would guess he was playing through something that was minor enough to tough it out for the ECAC/NCAA postseason, but not worth pushing it at the end of an AHL regular season.

Or he stubbed his toe rushing to sign his contract.

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 06:26:55 PMWaaait...

Castagna's three-year entry-level deal begins in the 2026-27 season, he will report to the Calgary Wranglers (AHL) on a PTO for the remainder of the 2025-26 season, and is day-to-day with a lower body injury. He was acquired by Calgary from Utah on March 4.

What?

ATO->ELC isn't uncommon, though I can't say I was expecting it, but LOWER BODY INJURY?

sounds to me like "he's going to finish his classes this semester instead of getting beat up in the AHL while nursing a minor injury"

Quote from: ugarte on March 30, 2026, 07:02:28 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 06:26:55 PMWaaait...

Castagna's three-year entry-level deal begins in the 2026-27 season, he will report to the Calgary Wranglers (AHL) on a PTO for the remainder of the 2025-26 season, and is day-to-day with a lower body injury. He was acquired by Calgary from Utah on March 4.

What?

ATO->ELC isn't uncommon, though I can't say I was expecting it, but LOWER BODY INJURY?

sounds to me like "he's going to finish his classes this semester instead of getting beat up in the AHL while nursing a minor injury"

then why sign the ATO at all? just sign the ELC for next year and come home to Ithaca lol.

Also, the Flames have a video of Casty talking about his signing and he's still in his Cornell hockey shirt (https://x.com/i/status/2038744819376492882) and I might cry on this bus from Syracuse to Ithaca.

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:05:24 PM

Quote from: ugarte on March 30, 2026, 07:02:28 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 06:26:55 PMWaaait...

Castagna's three-year entry-level deal begins in the 2026-27 season, he will report to the Calgary Wranglers (AHL) on a PTO for the remainder of the 2025-26 season, and is day-to-day with a lower body injury. He was acquired by Calgary from Utah on March 4.

What?

ATO->ELC isn't uncommon, though I can't say I was expecting it, but LOWER BODY INJURY?

sounds to me like "he's going to finish his classes this semester instead of getting beat up in the AHL while nursing a minor injury"

then why sign the ATO at all? just sign the ELC for next year and come home to Ithaca lol.

Also, the Flames have a video of Casty talking about his signing and he's still in his Cornell hockey shirt (https://x.com/i/status/2038744819376492882) and I might cry on this bus from Syracuse to Ithaca.

probably some reciprocal obligations in the meantime that are good to have in writing ASAP. you aren't kidding about how you treat your classes!

Quote from: ugarte on March 30, 2026, 10:39:54 AMI think it is fairly likely that Utah gave Calgary permission to talk to Castagna before making the trade.

Is that allowed?  Wouldn't it be "tampering" (or something) in that it queers other teams' potential competing deals because it gives Calgary an advantage?  Honest question, I have no idea.

Quote from: ugarte on March 30, 2026, 07:10:50 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:05:24 PM

Quote from: ugarte on March 30, 2026, 07:02:28 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 06:26:55 PMWaaait...

Castagna's three-year entry-level deal begins in the 2026-27 season, he will report to the Calgary Wranglers (AHL) on a PTO for the remainder of the 2025-26 season, and is day-to-day with a lower body injury. He was acquired by Calgary from Utah on March 4.

What?

ATO->ELC isn't uncommon, though I can't say I was expecting it, but LOWER BODY INJURY?

sounds to me like "he's going to finish his classes this semester instead of getting beat up in the AHL while nursing a minor injury"

then why sign the ATO at all? just sign the ELC for next year and come home to Ithaca lol.

Also, the Flames have a video of Casty talking about his signing and he's still in his Cornell hockey shirt (https://x.com/i/status/2038744819376492882) and I might cry on this bus from Syracuse to Ithaca.

probably some reciprocal obligations in the meantime that are good to have in writing ASAP. you aren't kidding about how you treat your classes!

Makes sense when you put it that way. No skydiving, no bungee jumping, no braving the Slope after midnight...

Quote from: Trotsky on March 30, 2026, 07:13:36 PM

Quote from: ugarte on March 30, 2026, 10:39:54 AMI think it is fairly likely that Utah gave Calgary permission to talk to Castagna before making the trade.

Is that allowed?  Wouldn't it be tampering in that it queers other team's potential competing deals because it gives Calgary an advantage?  Honest question, I have no idea.

If Utah okays it it's okay. Especially if you're in the tail end of a deal being made, people talk. It's only tampering if someone complains!

Quote from: underskill on March 30, 2026, 05:14:15 PMHoyt signed with Ottawa.

(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU.jpg)

Quote from: ugarte on March 30, 2026, 07:02:28 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 06:26:55 PMWaaait...

Castagna's three-year entry-level deal begins in the 2026-27 season, he will report to the Calgary Wranglers (AHL) on a PTO for the remainder of the 2025-26 season, and is day-to-day with a lower body injury. He was acquired by Calgary from Utah on March 4.

What?

ATO->ELC isn't uncommon, though I can't say I was expecting it, but LOWER BODY INJURY?

sounds to me like "he's going to finish his classes this semester instead of getting beat up in the AHL while nursing a minor injury"

That's how I read it too.

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:14:16 PMno braving the Slope after midnight...

I have a story about that...

Quote from: Trotsky on March 30, 2026, 07:19:35 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:14:16 PMno braving the Slope after midnight...

I have a story about that...

Oh boy...

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:19:52 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on March 30, 2026, 07:19:35 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:14:16 PMno braving the Slope after midnight...

I have a story about that...

Oh boy...

What?  You know it already.

(https://a1.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=%2Fphoto%2F2014%2F0604%2Fbos_g_zimmer_b1_1296x729.jpg&w=267)
_{It is tremendously demoralizing to me that you will not recognize this man with tantalum rivets in his head.}

Quote from: Trotsky on March 30, 2026, 07:21:08 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:19:52 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on March 30, 2026, 07:19:35 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:14:16 PMno braving the Slope after midnight...

I have a story about that...

Oh boy...

What?  You know it already.

(https://a1.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=%2Fphoto%2F2014%2F0604%2Fbos_g_zimmer_b1_1296x729.jpg&w=267)

I must've forgotten 😂

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:14:16 PMMakes sense when you put it that way. No skydiving, no bungee jumping, no braving the Slope after midnight...

Bungee jumping isn't that dangerous.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 30, 2026, 07:22:12 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:14:16 PMMakes sense when you put it that way. No skydiving, no bungee jumping, no braving the Slope after midnight...

Bungee jumping isn't that dangerous.

If the cord doesn't snap.

A fun tidbit of information for you: apparently USA Hockey's NTDP team also has to sign contracts that they won't do things like aerials while wakeboarding.

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:22:02 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on March 30, 2026, 07:21:08 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:19:52 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on March 30, 2026, 07:19:35 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:14:16 PMno braving the Slope after midnight...

I have a story about that...

Oh boy...

What?  You know it already.

(https://a1.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=%2Fphoto%2F2014%2F0604%2Fbos_g_zimmer_b1_1296x729.jpg&w=267)

I must've forgotten 😂

I told you 9 days ago and you hadn't been drinking.  This does not bode well for the bar exam.

Quote from: Trotsky on March 30, 2026, 07:24:14 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:22:02 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on March 30, 2026, 07:21:08 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:19:52 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on March 30, 2026, 07:19:35 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:14:16 PMno braving the Slope after midnight...

I have a story about that...

Oh boy...

What?  You know it already.

(https://a1.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=%2Fphoto%2F2014%2F0604%2Fbos_g_zimmer_b1_1296x729.jpg&w=267)

I must've forgotten 😂

I told you 9 days ago and you hadn't been drinking.  This does not bode well for the bar exam.

I tuned you out when you started talking about the Mets tbf

Quote from: Trotsky on March 30, 2026, 07:13:36 PM

Quote from: ugarte on March 30, 2026, 10:39:54 AMI think it is fairly likely that Utah gave Calgary permission to talk to Castagna before making the trade.

Is that allowed?  Wouldn't it be "tampering" (or something) in that it queers other teams' potential competing deals because it gives Calgary an advantage?  Honest question, I have no idea.

nah, nobody but Utah has a contractual right to care if he talks to other teams. it's not unusual in the pros for a guy under contract but enduring irreconcilable differences with ownership to have the agent given the green light to try to drum up interest for a landing spot and facilitate the divorce.

Quote from: Trotsky on March 30, 2026, 07:21:08 PM_{It is tremendously demoralizing to me that you will not recognize this man with tantalum rivets in his head.}

WAIT THIS IS THE GUY WHO WENT SLEDDING AND CRACKED HIS SKULL OPEN?

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:23:36 PM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 30, 2026, 07:22:12 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:14:16 PMMakes sense when you put it that way. No skydiving, no bungee jumping, no braving the Slope after midnight...

Bungee jumping isn't that dangerous.

If the cord doesn't snap.

A quick google turned up only two incidents of cords breaking - one in Africa and one in Thailand.  FWIW, I've done the jump in Africa and felt perfectly safe. 

I've also jumped in New Zealand and was told that their operation is monitored by the NZ Government.  Also they change the cords out much more frequently than mandated by the gov't just to be extra safe.

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:14:16 PM

Quote from: ugarte on March 30, 2026, 07:10:50 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:05:24 PM

Quote from: ugarte on March 30, 2026, 07:02:28 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 06:26:55 PMWaaait...

Castagna's three-year entry-level deal begins in the 2026-27 season, he will report to the Calgary Wranglers (AHL) on a PTO for the remainder of the 2025-26 season, and is day-to-day with a lower body injury. He was acquired by Calgary from Utah on March 4.

What?

ATO->ELC isn't uncommon, though I can't say I was expecting it, but LOWER BODY INJURY?

sounds to me like "he's going to finish his classes this semester instead of getting beat up in the AHL while nursing a minor injury"

then why sign the ATO at all? just sign the ELC for next year and come home to Ithaca lol.

Also, the Flames have a video of Casty talking about his signing and he's still in his Cornell hockey shirt (https://x.com/i/status/2038744819376492882) and I might cry on this bus from Syracuse to Ithaca.

probably some reciprocal obligations in the meantime that are good to have in writing ASAP. you aren't kidding about how you treat your classes!

Makes sense when you put it that way. No skydiving, no bungee jumping, no braving the Slope after midnight...

plus if he wants to/they want him to, he can access the professional training room.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 30, 2026, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:23:36 PM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 30, 2026, 07:22:12 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:14:16 PMMakes sense when you put it that way. No skydiving, no bungee jumping, no braving the Slope after midnight...

Bungee jumping isn't that dangerous.

If the cord doesn't snap.

A quick google turned up only two incidents of cords breaking - one in Africa and one in Thailand.  FWIW, I've done the jump in Africa and felt perfectly safe. 

I've also jumped in New Zealand and was told that their operation is monitored by the NZ Government.  Also they change the cords out much more frequently than mandated by the gov't just to be extra safe.

Interesting coincidence: when I was in New Zealand, my sister and I almost went bungee jumping off a bridge. We backed out after finding out that the week before, someone had died—not because the cord snapped, but because they forgot to attach it.

Quote from: Snowball on March 30, 2026, 09:29:15 PM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 30, 2026, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:23:36 PM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 30, 2026, 07:22:12 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:14:16 PMMakes sense when you put it that way. No skydiving, no bungee jumping, no braving the Slope after midnight...

Bungee jumping isn't that dangerous.

If the cord doesn't snap.

A quick google turned up only two incidents of cords breaking - one in Africa and one in Thailand.  FWIW, I've done the jump in Africa and felt perfectly safe. 

I've also jumped in New Zealand and was told that their operation is monitored by the NZ Government.  Also they change the cords out much more frequently than mandated by the gov't just to be extra safe.

Interesting coincidence: when I was in New Zealand, my sister and I almost went bungee jumping off a bridge. We backed out after finding out that the week before, someone had died—not because the cord snapped, but because they forgot to attach it.

Whaaaaat? 

You're sitting there watching everything they do.  How could the customer not notice that they hadn't attached the cord?

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 30, 2026, 09:56:05 PM

Quote from: Snowball on March 30, 2026, 09:29:15 PM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 30, 2026, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:23:36 PM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 30, 2026, 07:22:12 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:14:16 PMMakes sense when you put it that way. No skydiving, no bungee jumping, no braving the Slope after midnight...

Bungee jumping isn't that dangerous.

If the cord doesn't snap.

A quick google turned up only two incidents of cords breaking - one in Africa and one in Thailand.  FWIW, I've done the jump in Africa and felt perfectly safe. 

I've also jumped in New Zealand and was told that their operation is monitored by the NZ Government.  Also they change the cords out much more frequently than mandated by the gov't just to be extra safe.

Interesting coincidence: when I was in New Zealand, my sister and I almost went bungee jumping off a bridge. We backed out after finding out that the week before, someone had died—not because the cord snapped, but because they forgot to attach it.

Whaaaaat? 

You're sitting there watching everything they do.  How could the customer not notice that they hadn't attached the cord?

No idea. This was in the 90s and that was the story. It was likely exaggerated, but it was enough to stop us.

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:26:28 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on March 30, 2026, 07:24:14 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:22:02 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on March 30, 2026, 07:21:08 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:19:52 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on March 30, 2026, 07:19:35 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:14:16 PMno braving the Slope after midnight...

I have a story about that...

Oh boy...

What?  You know it already.

(https://a1.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=%2Fphoto%2F2014%2F0604%2Fbos_g_zimmer_b1_1296x729.jpg&w=267)

I must've forgotten 😂

I told you 9 days ago and you hadn't been drinking.  This does not bode well for the bar exam.

I tuned you out when you started talking about the Mets tbf

So, from early Friday to early Sunday.

That tracks.

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:39:15 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on March 30, 2026, 07:21:08 PM_{It is tremendously demoralizing to me that you will not recognize this man with tantalum rivets in his head.}

WAIT THIS IS THE GUY WHO WENT SLEDDING AND CRACKED HIS SKULL OPEN?

There ya go.

Quote from: Snowball on March 30, 2026, 09:29:15 PM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 30, 2026, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:23:36 PM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 30, 2026, 07:22:12 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:14:16 PMMakes sense when you put it that way. No skydiving, no bungee jumping, no braving the Slope after midnight...

Bungee jumping isn't that dangerous.

If the cord doesn't snap.

A quick google turned up only two incidents of cords breaking - one in Africa and one in Thailand.  FWIW, I've done the jump in Africa and felt perfectly safe. 

I've also jumped in New Zealand and was told that their operation is monitored by the NZ Government.  Also they change the cords out much more frequently than mandated by the gov't just to be extra safe.

Interesting coincidence: when I was in New Zealand, my sister and I almost went bungee jumping off a bridge. We backed out after finding out that the week before, someone had died—not because the cord snapped, but because they forgot to attach it.

"Forgot."

(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5d7299a5af596b00089f162b/master/w_2240,c_limit/Farrow-JeffreyEpstein-2.jpg)

Quote from: Snowball on March 30, 2026, 10:04:17 PM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 30, 2026, 09:56:05 PM

Quote from: Snowball on March 30, 2026, 09:29:15 PM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 30, 2026, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:23:36 PM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 30, 2026, 07:22:12 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:14:16 PMMakes sense when you put it that way. No skydiving, no bungee jumping, no braving the Slope after midnight...

Bungee jumping isn't that dangerous.

If the cord doesn't snap.

A quick google turned up only two incidents of cords breaking - one in Africa and one in Thailand.  FWIW, I've done the jump in Africa and felt perfectly safe. 

I've also jumped in New Zealand and was told that their operation is monitored by the NZ Government.  Also they change the cords out much more frequently than mandated by the gov't just to be extra safe.

Interesting coincidence: when I was in New Zealand, my sister and I almost went bungee jumping off a bridge. We backed out after finding out that the week before, someone had died—not because the cord snapped, but because they forgot to attach it.

Whaaaaat? 

You're sitting there watching everything they do.  How could the customer not notice that they hadn't attached the cord?

No idea. This was in the 90s and that was the story. It was likely exaggerated, but it was enough to stop us.

I vaguely remember this. I just looked it up:

(https://i.ibb.co/gZK6D8SQ/Screenshot-20260330-222253-Google.jpg)

Wow! Impressive research. Do you work for the CIA?

Seriously I also remember that the operator we were talking to seemed like a stoner (do people still use that term??). So that sealed the deal for us. Back to observing sheep.

Quote from: Snowball on March 30, 2026, 10:35:36 PMI also remember that the operator we were talking to seemed like a stoner

(https://springfieldfiles.com/albums/signs/0182.JPG)

Quote from: Snowball on March 30, 2026, 10:35:36 PMWow! Impressive research. Do you work for the CIA?

Seriously I also remember that the operator we were talking to seemed like a stoner (do people still use that term??). So that sealed the deal for us. Back to observing sheep.

Ah.  Not the AJ Hackett operation in Queenstown.  That makes more sense.

Castagna going, going, gone (https://www.nhl.com/flames/news/flames-sign-jonathan-castagna)!  Good luck Jonny!

More (https://cornellbigred.com/news/2026/3/31/mens-ice-hockey-castagna-stanley-nhl-contracts-release.aspx) on Jonny and Hoyt.  We'll miss you guys! 

I looked at every draft pick of the Schafer era and noted their draft year, draft round, and whether they left early. I also indicated whether they had a strong junior season (i.e. there would have been strong desire for their drafting team to sign them after their junior year).

PLAYER, DRAFT YEAR, DRAFT ROUND, LEFT EARLY? STRONG JUNIOR YEAR?

• Jean-Marc Pelletier, 1997, 2nd round, left for CHL after 2 seasons, N/A
• Matt Underhill, 1999, 6th round, did not leave early, Yes (.928 sv%)
• Stephen Baby, 1999, 7th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Douglas Murray, 1999, 8th round, did not leave early, Yes (11 goals and point per game as a defenseman)
• Brian Mcmeekin, 1999, 9th round, did not leave early, No
• Matt Mcrae, 2000, 5th round, did not leave early, No
• Mark Mcrae, 2000, 9th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game as a defenseman)
• Mike Knoepfli, 2001, 9th round, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games as strong defensive forward)
• David LeNeveu, 2002, 2nd round, left after 2 seasons, N/A [.950 sv% year before he left]
• Dan Glover, 2002, 8th round, did not leave early, No
• Ryan O'Byrne, 2003, 3rd round, left after 3 seasons, Yes (7-6-13 as a defenseman, good at defending)
• Shane Hynes, 2003, 3rd round, left after 3 seasons, Yes (point per game)
• Byron Bitz, 2003, 4th round, did not leave early, Yes (almost a point per game and great defensive forward)
• Mark McCutcheon, 2003, 5th round, did not leave early, No
• Matt Moulson, 2003, 9th round, did not leave early, YES (dominant numbers, 22 goals)
• Ray Sawada, 2004, 2nd round, did not leave early, No (21 points in 32 games)
• John Gleed, 2004, 7th round, did not leave early, No
• Mitch Carefoot, 2005, 8th round, did not leave early, No
• Sasha Pokuluk, 2005, 1st round, left after 2 seasons, N/A [half a point per game as a big D]
• Colin Greening, 7th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Tony Romano, 2006, 6th round, went to CHL after one season, N/A [had a good freshman year numbers-wise]
• Justin Krueger, 2006, 7th round, did not leave early, No
• Riley Nash, 2007, 1st round, left after three years, N/A [great college player][a 1st rounder staying 3 years I consider equivalent to a later round pick staying 4 years]
• Braden Birch, 2008, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Sean Collins, 2008, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Nick D'Agostino, 2008, round 7, did not leave early, Yes (8 goals, 20 points as a defenseman)
• Kirill Gotovets, 2009, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Brian Ferlin, 2011, round 4, left after 3 seasons, Yes (point per game)
• Joel Lowry, 2011, round 5, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games; also had a very good sophomore year)
• Reece Willcox, 2012, round 5, did not leave early, No
• John McCarron, 2012, round 6, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games)
• Joakim Ryan, 2012, round 7, did not leave early, Yes (8 goals, 24 points as a defenseman)
• Matt Buckles, 2013, round 4, did not leave early, No
• Beau Starrett, 2014, round 3, did not leave early, No
• Anthony Angello, 2014, round 5, left after 3 seasons, Yes (13-13-26 in 33 games)
• Jared Fiegl, 2014, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Dwyer Tschantz, 2014, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Misha Song, 2015, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Matt Cairns, 2016, round 4, did not leave early, No
• Morgan Barron, 2017, round 6, UNKNOWN, Yes (point per game) [Barron was forced to sign due to COVID.]
• Alex Green, 2018, round 4, did not leave early, Yes (7-9-16 in 29 games as a defenseman, defensive defenseman of the year) [Note: Green did sign during the canceled 2021 season, but confirmed on the Big Red Hockeycast that he would have returned for his senior year if not for COVID wiping out the season]
• Matthew Stienburg, 2019, round 3, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Jack Malone, 2019, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Justin Ertel, 2021, round 3, left for CHL after one season, N/A
• Hank Kempf, 2021, round 7, did not leave early, No

I marked in bold the early departures.
I marked in red the players who had strong junior seasons.
I crossed out players who left early for another league besides the pros, or who we cannot say would have gone pro due to COVID knocking out the season.

Analysis:
Cornell had 46 draft picks under Schafer.
I have chosen to exclude Riley Nash from this analysis because I don't think it would be fair to categorize him as either an early departure or a four-year player. He obviously wasn't a four-year player, but keeping a first round pick three years is way better than a program would typically hope for.
Out of 42 draft picks excluding R. Nash and those crossed out, 7 left early. (16.67%)
Out of 18 players who had strong junior seasons, 4 left before their senior year. (22%) Adding LeNeveu to that total (given he had an incredible sophomore season), 5/19 left. (26%)

Conclusions:
Under Schafer, Cornell did an incredible job retaining drafted players through their senior seasons. 16.67% early departures among drafted players is very low. Even more impressive, Cornell retained a huge majority of players who had strong sophomore/junior seasons. In many of these cases, the drafted players ended up signing with their drafting teams anyway. See, e.g., Murray, Moulson, Ryan, Greening, Stienburg, Bitz. And in each of these cases, the player got NHL time. This indicates that in many cases, a player staying four years was not due to their team not wanting them but rather a result of that player desiring to return to Cornell.

It is no surprise that the last three Ivies to make the Frozen Four - Cornell in '03, Yale in '13, and Harvard in '17 - were loaded with seniors who could have gone pro after their junior seasons but chose to return to college.

Unfortunately, this postseason we've already seen two juniors jump to the pros. This includes Hoyt Stanley, who seems like a longshot to have any kind of NHL career. This is an unfortunate development and very atypical in Cornell Hockey history. Going forward, if Cornell wants to compete with more talented programs, it will be critical that our best players stick it out for four years, as they mostly did for the past 30 seasons.

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 12:38:04 PMI looked at every draft pick of the Schafer era and noted their draft year, draft round, and whether they left early.

• Riley Nash, 2007, 1st round, left after three years, N/A [great college player][a 1st rounder staying 3 years I consider equivalent to a later round pick staying 4 years]

Analysis:
Cornell had 46 draft picks under Schafer.
I have chosen to exclude Riley Nash from this analysis because I don't think it would be fair to categorize him as either an early departure or a four-year player. He obviously wasn't a four-year player, but keeping a first round pick three years is way better than a program would typically hope for.
Out of 42 draft picks excluding R. Nash and those crossed out, 7 left early. (16.67%)
Out of 18 players who had strong junior seasons, 4 left before their senior year. (22%) Adding LeNeveu to that total (given he had an incredible sophomore season), 5/19 left. (26%)

Thanks for doing the work. I don't think "this one doesn't feel the same" is as compelling an argument to literally change the results as you think it is.

Thanks for compiling. Correction: Sasha was a first rounder.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 30, 2026, 09:56:05 PM

Quote from: Snowball on March 30, 2026, 09:29:15 PM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 30, 2026, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:23:36 PM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 30, 2026, 07:22:12 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 30, 2026, 07:14:16 PMMakes sense when you put it that way. No skydiving, no bungee jumping, no braving the Slope after midnight...

Bungee jumping isn't that dangerous.

If the cord doesn't snap.

A quick google turned up only two incidents of cords breaking - one in Africa and one in Thailand.  FWIW, I've done the jump in Africa and felt perfectly safe. 

I've also jumped in New Zealand and was told that their operation is monitored by the NZ Government.  Also they change the cords out much more frequently than mandated by the gov't just to be extra safe.

Interesting coincidence: when I was in New Zealand, my sister and I almost went bungee jumping off a bridge. We backed out after finding out that the week before, someone had died—not because the cord snapped, but because they forgot to attach it.

Whaaaaat? 

You're sitting there watching everything they do.  How could the customer not notice that they hadn't attached the cord?

At least it improved the human gene pool!

Schafer did a fantastic job retaining drafted players.  Hopefully this is an anomaly and Jones can retain more players going forward.

However, I do wonder if it is possible to match Schafer's success given the rapidly changing landscape of college sports. 

College football is full of players staying in college longer, but transferring to chase NIL.  I don't know how much that's happening in the college hockey landscape (aside from guys like McKenna) or Cornell's NIL situation, but we may have to adjust expectations going forward regardless of who our coach is.

On that subject, does anybody know what Cornell's NIL situation is (if it even exists), how it compares to other ECAC and national schools, etc.?  Its something I cant find any info on.

Castagna's contract has an AAV of $1,075,000.  I have three degrees from Cornell, but if I was offered $117k (Jon's contract in 1968 dollars), I'd have been gone in a heart beat.  If we want to be a national contender, I think we have to adjust to the new reality. 

We shouldn't go the NIL route like Penn State's $700k deal with Gavin McKenna (think how many full-tuition scholarships that would be), but compare the lifetime earnings of a Cornell grad to a Whatsamatter U alum.  We need to stress that a three-year degree is possible (Morgan Barron '21 got his BS degree in 2020), or you can have a professional hockey career and come back later for your degree (e.g., Anthony Angello '18, BS '??, Dan Ratushny '92, BS '97).  Castagna's a smart guy and I'm sure he'll eventually get his degree.

using your raw data, 6 of the 9 players who departed early were drafted in the first 3 rounds (the exceptions being ferlin, angelo, barron).  also, of the players drafted in the first 3 rounds, 6 of 9 departed early (the exceptions being sawada, starett, stienberg).  higher draft picks come with the reality that they're more likely to leave

Quote from: stereax on March 29, 2026, 04:40:48 PM

Quote from: upprdeck on March 29, 2026, 04:34:13 PMCastagna can sign a 3 yr deal this yr or next.  It comes down to getting a degree, playing with teammates.  Does he want to play for the team that drafted him and take that deal or go back into the pool and get drafted again.

Isnt his 3 yr rights done this year?

He can't get redrafted. If he plays another year at Cornell, he'd be a college free agent. Different thing.

And they changed the rules - now, when you start the NCAA, you get 4 years to finish your degree. Pretty sure this is retroactive too. If you expedite it and finish in 3, like Wiebe is doing, then you get 3 years. After you finish, you have 30 days to negotiate with your draft club - if you don't figure it out by then, you become a free agent.

From what I've heard, he's going to finish his degree either way. Wouldn't be surprised if he finishes the credits for it over the summer.

thats the issue, if he gets his degree in 3 yrs he cant comeback to cornell anyway.

Quote from: upprdeck on March 31, 2026, 03:30:20 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 29, 2026, 04:40:48 PM

Quote from: upprdeck on March 29, 2026, 04:34:13 PMCastagna can sign a 3 yr deal this yr or next.  It comes down to getting a degree, playing with teammates.  Does he want to play for the team that drafted him and take that deal or go back into the pool and get drafted again.

Isnt his 3 yr rights done this year?

He can't get redrafted. If he plays another year at Cornell, he'd be a college free agent. Different thing.

And they changed the rules - now, when you start the NCAA, you get 4 years to finish your degree. Pretty sure this is retroactive too. If you expedite it and finish in 3, like Wiebe is doing, then you get 3 years. After you finish, you have 30 days to negotiate with your draft club - if you don't figure it out by then, you become a free agent.

From what I've heard, he's going to finish his degree either way. Wouldn't be surprised if he finishes the credits for it over the summer.

thats the issue, if he gets his degree in 3 yrs he cant comeback to cornell anyway.

If he decided to do his senior year, he wouldn't finish the credits sooner/over the summer and instead spread everything out over next year. But yeah, if you finish your degree you can't come back haha

Quote from: Beeeej on March 31, 2026, 01:13:25 PM

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 12:38:04 PMI looked at every draft pick of the Schafer era and noted their draft year, draft round, and whether they left early.

• Riley Nash, 2007, 1st round, left after three years, N/A [great college player][a 1st rounder staying 3 years I consider equivalent to a later round pick staying 4 years]

Analysis:
Cornell had 46 draft picks under Schafer.
I have chosen to exclude Riley Nash from this analysis because I don't think it would be fair to categorize him as either an early departure or a four-year player. He obviously wasn't a four-year player, but keeping a first round pick three years is way better than a program would typically hope for.
Out of 42 draft picks excluding R. Nash and those crossed out, 7 left early. (16.67%)
Out of 18 players who had strong junior seasons, 4 left before their senior year. (22%) Adding LeNeveu to that total (given he had an incredible sophomore season), 5/19 left. (26%)

Thanks for doing the work. I don't think "this one doesn't feel the same" is as compelling an argument to literally change the results as you think it is.

Well, it's certainly not compelling, but honestly there was a good amount of human subjectivity involved here, including defining what is a "strong junior year." FWIW, I think it is appropriate to exclude Pelletier also since he seemingly left due to lack of playing time(?), but I split the difference by only excluding one of the two between him and Nash. Ultimately, I was trying to measure how good Cornell is at getting players to stay. I consider Nash a huge success in that regard, so it felt reasonable to put him in his own category. Notably, I excluded him from the analysis entirely rather than defining him as a success, which I  felt was a fair middle ground.

Quote from: Chris '03 on March 31, 2026, 01:26:59 PMThanks for compiling. Correction: Sasha was a first rounder.

Thanks. Fixed. I knew that, but mixed him up with Sawada for a moment.

Quote from: bernie on March 31, 2026, 03:21:08 PMusing your raw data, 6 of the 9 players who departed early were drafted in the first 3 rounds (the exceptions being ferlin, angelo, barron).  also, of the players drafted in the first 3 rounds, 6 of 9 departed early (the exceptions being sawada, starett, stienberg).  higher draft picks come with the reality that they're more likely to leave

That's a good point. Castagna leaving is not surprising for multiple reasons, including the high draft pick. Stanley leaving is surprising.

There are 2 sides to this coin.  Yers, it would be nice to keep great players for 4 years.  On the other hand, for Cornell to take the next steps towards a frozen four berth, they probably need to recruit some players who are first round or high first-round draft picks.  They need that level of speed and skill, and those guys will leave after a year or two.  But for those elite players, thats the pathway now.  Harvard had Laferriere and Coronado a few years back.  Everyone knew those guys weren't playing 4 years.  Now the money issue has reared its head so it remains to be seen how Cornell will be able to pull it off. Say you are Cornell and you are recruiting Gavin McKenna.  What do you offer him?  we will compete for ECAC and national championships, you will play in front of  the Lynah Faithful, but we cannot offer you 700K and probably, since you'll only be here a year, cannot offer you a Cornell degree, though you can always come back here and finish it in a decade or so.  Something will have to give - either schools won't want to waste energy and money recruiting guys who will only be in college for a year and dont have any sense at all of being part of the program long-term, or the schools with more cash to throw around - and the willingness to do it - will win out.  Maybe it becomes a thing where you catch lightning in a bottle and a few guys you dont expect to light it up do.  Or if it comes down to Gavin McKenna for a year, you pony up the $ for that kid and go for it that year.

It's really not college sports in many ways anymore.  Like sports at all levels it is so much about the $. 

Quote from: bernie on March 31, 2026, 03:21:08 PMusing your raw data, 6 of the 9 players who departed early were drafted in the first 3 rounds (the exceptions being ferlin, angelo, barron).  also, of the players drafted in the first 3 rounds, 6 of 9 departed early (the exceptions being sawada, starett, stienberg).  higher draft picks come with the reality that they're more likely to leave

plus sawada and starett were fine but underperformed their draft position while iirc Stienburg contemplated transferring during the COVID year that would have been his junior year but may have been hurt and delayed his signing.

One note on Pokulok, who got slagged at some point in one of these threads, IIRC he got injured early and often in his pro career.

Quote from: Pghas on March 31, 2026, 05:24:06 PMThere are 2 sides to this coin.  Yers, it would be nice to keep great players for 4 years.  On the other hand, for Cornell to take the next steps towards a frozen four berth, they probably need to recruit some players who are first round or high first-round draft picks.  They need that level of speed and skill, and those guys will leave after a year or two.  But for those elite players, thats the pathway now.  Harvard had Laferriere and Coronado a few years back.  Everyone knew those guys weren't playing 4 years.  Now the money issue has reared its head so it remains to be seen how Cornell will be able to pull it off. Say you are Cornell and you are recruiting Gavin McKenna.  What do you offer him?  we will compete for ECAC and national championships, you will play in front of  the Lynah Faithful, but we cannot offer you 700K and probably, since you'll only be here a year, cannot offer you a Cornell degree, though you can always come back here and finish it in a decade or so.  Something will have to give - either schools won't want to waste energy and money recruiting guys who will only be in college for a year and dont have any sense at all of being part of the program long-term, or the schools with more cash to throw around - and the willingness to do it - will win out.  Maybe it becomes a thing where you catch lightning in a bottle and a few guys you dont expect to light it up do.  Or if it comes down to Gavin McKenna for a year, you pony up the $ for that kid and go for it that year.

It's really not college sports in many ways anymore.  Like sports at all levels it is so much about the $. 

For Cornell to make a frozen four, they'll either need to recruit better talent OR get their existing talent to stay four years. We get good talent currently. Compared to the best teams in the country, our talent this season was probably on par with the talent of our 2003 frozen four team. A key difference was that our best players on that team stayed all four years. If Castagna, Walsh, Stanley, et al came back next season, we would have had one of our best chances at a frozen four in decades.

One competitive advantage Cornell has over the other top programs is that our degree is worth much more. We should retain players at a much higher rate than other schools. This is our best chance at success.

We are not competitive for the Gavin McKennas and do not even attempt to recruit them.

I'm not naive enough to expect every Castagna to stay four years, but we should be keeping the Stanleys at least. And if a Moulson/Greening/Ryan-level star  comes along who has clear NHL potential but wants to stay through graduation, then we've got a real shot. That sort of thing is probably our best bet to getting back to the frozen four. We can't beat the top programs in talent, but we can at least try to beat them in experience and development.

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 05:44:38 PM

Quote from: Pghas on March 31, 2026, 05:24:06 PMThere are 2 sides to this coin.  Yers, it would be nice to keep great players for 4 years.  On the other hand, for Cornell to take the next steps towards a frozen four berth, they probably need to recruit some players who are first round or high first-round draft picks.  They need that level of speed and skill, and those guys will leave after a year or two.  But for those elite players, thats the pathway now.  Harvard had Laferriere and Coronado a few years back.  Everyone knew those guys weren't playing 4 years.  Now the money issue has reared its head so it remains to be seen how Cornell will be able to pull it off. Say you are Cornell and you are recruiting Gavin McKenna.  What do you offer him?  we will compete for ECAC and national championships, you will play in front of  the Lynah Faithful, but we cannot offer you 700K and probably, since you'll only be here a year, cannot offer you a Cornell degree, though you can always come back here and finish it in a decade or so.  Something will have to give - either schools won't want to waste energy and money recruiting guys who will only be in college for a year and dont have any sense at all of being part of the program long-term, or the schools with more cash to throw around - and the willingness to do it - will win out.  Maybe it becomes a thing where you catch lightning in a bottle and a few guys you dont expect to light it up do.  Or if it comes down to Gavin McKenna for a year, you pony up the $ for that kid and go for it that year.

It's really not college sports in many ways anymore.  Like sports at all levels it is so much about the $. 

For Cornell to make a frozen four, they'll either need to recruit better talent OR get their existing talent to stay four years. We get good talent currently. Compared to the best teams in the country, our talent this season was probably on par with the talent of our 2003 frozen four team. A key difference was that our best players on that team stayed all four years. If Castagna, Walsh, Stanley, et al came back next season, we would have had one of our best chances at a frozen four in decades.

One competitive advantage Cornell has over the other top programs is that our degree is worth much more. We should retain players at a much higher rate than other schools. This is our best chance at success.

We are not competitive for the Gavin McKennas and do not even attempt to recruit them.

I'm not naive enough to expect every Castagna to stay four years, but we should be keeping the Stanleys at least. And if a Moulson/Greening/Ryan-level star  comes along who has clear NHL potential but wants to stay through graduation, then we've got a real shot. That sort of thing is probably our best bet to getting back to the frozen four. We can't beat the top programs in talent, but we can at least try to beat them in experience and development.

If players find graduating important, they always have the option of finishing it by taking courses remotely throughout their careers or returning to campus upon retirement.

Even the Harvard degree won't keep players from leaving earlier to maximize their probability of success at pro hockey. I think you are overestimating the value of cornell degree

Quote from: Cornell troll on March 31, 2026, 05:56:22 PM

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 05:44:38 PM

Quote from: Pghas on March 31, 2026, 05:24:06 PMThere are 2 sides to this coin.  Yers, it would be nice to keep great players for 4 years.  On the other hand, for Cornell to take the next steps towards a frozen four berth, they probably need to recruit some players who are first round or high first-round draft picks.  They need that level of speed and skill, and those guys will leave after a year or two.  But for those elite players, thats the pathway now.  Harvard had Laferriere and Coronado a few years back.  Everyone knew those guys weren't playing 4 years.  Now the money issue has reared its head so it remains to be seen how Cornell will be able to pull it off. Say you are Cornell and you are recruiting Gavin McKenna.  What do you offer him?  we will compete for ECAC and national championships, you will play in front of  the Lynah Faithful, but we cannot offer you 700K and probably, since you'll only be here a year, cannot offer you a Cornell degree, though you can always come back here and finish it in a decade or so.  Something will have to give - either schools won't want to waste energy and money recruiting guys who will only be in college for a year and dont have any sense at all of being part of the program long-term, or the schools with more cash to throw around - and the willingness to do it - will win out.  Maybe it becomes a thing where you catch lightning in a bottle and a few guys you dont expect to light it up do.  Or if it comes down to Gavin McKenna for a year, you pony up the $ for that kid and go for it that year.

It's really not college sports in many ways anymore.  Like sports at all levels it is so much about the $. 

For Cornell to make a frozen four, they'll either need to recruit better talent OR get their existing talent to stay four years. We get good talent currently. Compared to the best teams in the country, our talent this season was probably on par with the talent of our 2003 frozen four team. A key difference was that our best players on that team stayed all four years. If Castagna, Walsh, Stanley, et al came back next season, we would have had one of our best chances at a frozen four in decades.

One competitive advantage Cornell has over the other top programs is that our degree is worth much more. We should retain players at a much higher rate than other schools. This is our best chance at success.

We are not competitive for the Gavin McKennas and do not even attempt to recruit them.

I'm not naive enough to expect every Castagna to stay four years, but we should be keeping the Stanleys at least. And if a Moulson/Greening/Ryan-level star  comes along who has clear NHL potential but wants to stay through graduation, then we've got a real shot. That sort of thing is probably our best bet to getting back to the frozen four. We can't beat the top programs in talent, but we can at least try to beat them in experience and development.

If players find graduating important, they always have the option of finishing it by taking courses remotely throughout their careers or returning to campus upon retirement.

Even the Harvard degree won't keep players from leaving earlier to maximize their probability of success at pro hockey. I think you are overestimating the value of cornell degree

It's less the Cornell degree in itself and more the Cornell degree + being a former Cornell varsity hockey player, which these days basically equates to a guaranteed finance job. Which, BTW, Casey should be (and is) playing up to recruits. Hopefully there can be some kind of formal network soon where he can essentially promise recruits internships. 

You're right though that these days staying four years to graduate now versus later is less of a concern for hockey players who can go pro.

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 12:38:04 PMI looked at every draft pick of the Schafer era and noted their draft year, draft round, and whether they left early. I also indicated whether they had a strong junior season (i.e. there would have been strong desire for their drafting team to sign them after their junior year).

PLAYER, DRAFT YEAR, DRAFT ROUND, LEFT EARLY? STRONG JUNIOR YEAR?

• Jean-Marc Pelletier, 1997, 2nd round, left after 2 seasons, N/A [didn't get much playing time]
• Matt Underhill, 1999, 6th round, did not leave early, Yes (.928 sv%)
• Stephen Baby, 1999, 7th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Douglas Murray, 1999, 8th round, did not leave early, Yes (11 goals and point per game as a defenseman)
• Brian Mcmeekin, 1999, 9th round, did not leave early, No
• Matt Mcrae, 2000, 5th round, did not leave early, No
• Mark Mcrae, 2000, 9th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game as a defenseman)
• Mike Knoepfli, 2001, 9th round, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games as strong defensive forward)
• David LeNeveu, 2002, 2nd round, left after 2 seasons, N/A [.950 sv% year before he left]
• Dan Glover, 2002, 8th round, did not leave early, No
• Ryan O'Byrne, 2003, 3rd round, left after 3 seasons, Yes (7-6-13 as a defenseman, good at defending)
• Shane Hynes, 2003, 3rd round, left after 3 seasons, Yes (point per game)
• Byron Bitz, 2003, 4th round, did not leave early, Yes (almost a point per game and great defensive forward)
• Mark McCutcheon, 2003, 5th round, did not leave early, No
• Matt Moulson, 2003, 9th round, did not leave early, YES (dominant numbers, 22 goals)
• Ray Sawada, 2004, 2nd round, did not leave early, No (21 points in 32 games)
• John Gleed, 2004, 7th round, did not leave early, No
• Mitch Carefoot, 2005, 8th round, did not leave early, No
• Sasha Pokuluk, 2005, 1st round, left after 2 seasons, N/A [half a point per game as a big D]
• Colin Greening, 7th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Tony Romano, 2006, 6th round, went to CHL after one season, N/A [had a good freshman year numbers-wise]
• Justin Krueger, 2006, 7th round, did not leave early, No
• Riley Nash, 2007, 1st round, left after three years, N/A [great college player][a 1st rounder staying 3 years I consider equivalent to a later round pick staying 4 years]
• Braden Birch, 2008, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Sean Collins, 2008, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Nick D'Agostino, 2008, round 7, did not leave early, Yes (8 goals, 20 points as a defenseman)
• Kirill Gotovets, 2009, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Brian Ferlin, 2011, round 4, left after 3 seasons, Yes (point per game)
• Joel Lowry, 2011, round 5, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games; also had a very good sophomore year)
• Reece Willcox, 2012, round 5, did not leave early, No
• John McCarron, 2012, round 6, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games)
• Joakim Ryan, 2012, round 7, did not leave early, Yes (8 goals, 24 points as a defenseman)
• Matt Buckles, 2013, round 4, did not leave early, No
• Beau Starrett, 2014, round 3, did not leave early, No
• Anthony Angello, 2014, round 5, left after 3 seasons, Yes (13-13-26 in 33 games)
• Jared Fiegl, 2014, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Dwyer Tschantz, 2014, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Misha Song, 2015, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Matt Cairns, 2016, round 4, did not leave early, No
• Morgan Barron, 2017, round 6, UNKNOWN, Yes (point per game) [Barron was forced to sign due to COVID.]
• Alex Green, 2018, round 4, did not leave early, Yes (7-9-16 in 29 games as a defenseman, defensive defenseman of the year) [Note: Green did sign during the canceled 2021 season, but confirmed on the Big Red Hockeycast that he would have returned for his senior year if not for COVID wiping out the season]
• Matthew Stienburg, 2019, round 3, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Jack Malone, 2019, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Justin Ertel, 2021, round 3, left for CHL after one season, N/A
• Hank Kempf, 2021, round 7, did not leave early, No

I marked in bold the early departures.
I marked in red the players who had strong junior seasons.
I crossed out players who left early for another league besides the pros, or who we cannot say would have gone pro due to COVID knocking out the season.

Analysis:
Cornell had 46 draft picks under Schafer.
I have chosen to exclude Riley Nash from this analysis because I don't think it would be fair to categorize him as either an early departure or a four-year player. He obviously wasn't a four-year player, but keeping a first round pick three years is way better than a program would typically hope for.
Out of 42 draft picks excluding R. Nash and those crossed out, 7 left early. (16.67%)
Out of 18 players who had strong junior seasons, 4 left before their senior year. (22%) Adding LeNeveu to that total (given he had an incredible sophomore season), 5/19 left. (26%)

Conclusions:
Under Schafer, Cornell did an incredible job retaining drafted players through their senior seasons. 16.67% early departures among drafted players is very low. Even more impressive, Cornell retained a huge majority of players who had strong sophomore/junior seasons. In many of these cases, the drafted players ended up signing with their drafting teams anyway. See, e.g., Murray, Moulson, Ryan, Greening, Stienburg, Bitz. And in each of these cases, the player got NHL time. This indicates that in many cases, a player staying four years was not due to their team not wanting them but rather a result of that player desiring to return to Cornell.

It is no surprise that the last three Ivies to make the Frozen Four - Cornell in '03, Yale in '13, and Harvard in '17 - were loaded with seniors who could have gone pro after their junior seasons but chose to return to college.

Unfortunately, this postseason we've already seen two juniors jump to the pros. This includes Hoyt Stanley, who seems like a longshot to have any kind of NHL career. This is an unfortunate development and very atypical in Cornell Hockey history. Going forward, if Cornell wants to compete with more talented programs, it will be critical that our best players stick it out for four years, as they mostly did for the past 30 seasons.

unless you acknowledge that the world of the last 5 years is totally different than the one before (and getting moreso) - and make the analysis include the round the person was drafted in - this is completely useless. Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?  Penn State just lost 4 players today. You draft good players in this day and age, and it's a miracle if they make it past 3 years.

Quote from: BigRedLaw on March 31, 2026, 02:15:04 PMSchafer did a fantastic job retaining drafted players.  Hopefully this is an anomaly and Jones can retain more players going forward.

However, I do wonder if it is possible to match Schafer's success given the rapidly changing landscape of college sports. 

College football is full of players staying in college longer, but transferring to chase NIL.  I don't know how much that's happening in the college hockey landscape (aside from guys like McKenna) or Cornell's NIL situation, but we may have to adjust expectations going forward regardless of who our coach is.

On that subject, does anybody know what Cornell's NIL situation is (if it even exists), how it compares to other ECAC and national schools, etc.?  Its something I cant find any info on.

Read College Hockey News.

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 05:44:38 PM

Quote from: Pghas on March 31, 2026, 05:24:06 PMThere are 2 sides to this coin.  Yers, it would be nice to keep great players for 4 years.  On the other hand, for Cornell to take the next steps towards a frozen four berth, they probably need to recruit some players who are first round or high first-round draft picks.  They need that level of speed and skill, and those guys will leave after a year or two.  But for those elite players, thats the pathway now.  Harvard had Laferriere and Coronado a few years back.  Everyone knew those guys weren't playing 4 years.  Now the money issue has reared its head so it remains to be seen how Cornell will be able to pull it off. Say you are Cornell and you are recruiting Gavin McKenna.  What do you offer him?  we will compete for ECAC and national championships, you will play in front of  the Lynah Faithful, but we cannot offer you 700K and probably, since you'll only be here a year, cannot offer you a Cornell degree, though you can always come back here and finish it in a decade or so.  Something will have to give - either schools won't want to waste energy and money recruiting guys who will only be in college for a year and dont have any sense at all of being part of the program long-term, or the schools with more cash to throw around - and the willingness to do it - will win out.  Maybe it becomes a thing where you catch lightning in a bottle and a few guys you dont expect to light it up do.  Or if it comes down to Gavin McKenna for a year, you pony up the $ for that kid and go for it that year.

It's really not college sports in many ways anymore.  Like sports at all levels it is so much about the $. 

For Cornell to make a frozen four, they'll either need to recruit better talent OR get their existing talent to stay four years. We get good talent currently. Compared to the best teams in the country, our talent this season was probably on par with the talent of our 2003 frozen four team. A key difference was that our best players on that team stayed all four years. If Castagna, Walsh, Stanley, et al came back next season, we would have had one of our best chances at a frozen four in decades.

One competitive advantage Cornell has over the other top programs is that our degree is worth much more. We should retain players at a much higher rate than other schools. This is our best chance at success.

We are not competitive for the Gavin McKennas and do not even attempt to recruit them.

I'm not naive enough to expect every Castagna to stay four years, but we should be keeping the Stanleys at least. And if a Moulson/Greening/Ryan-level star  comes along who has clear NHL potential but wants to stay through graduation, then we've got a real shot. That sort of thing is probably our best bet to getting back to the frozen four. We can't beat the top programs in talent, but we can at least try to beat them in experience and development.

Among the many issues with this analysis - you are not considering the fact that, in 2026 compared to 2003, the level of talent in college hockey as a whole is vastly superior. If Cornell 2026 talent is equal to Cornell 2003 talent - it's not enough.

It's apples and oranges. a) The players who stuck around that team four years, were drafted in low rounds. b) players didn't leave as fast in general at that time. When Boston College had its title runs in the mid-2000s, those players all stayed 3+ years. Today? BC can't get its blue chippers to stay more than 2, and many are done in 1. c) Leneveu left after that season. He was a 2nd round pick.

You are setting yourself up for a world of angst and rage if you don't accept the fact that these days are different, and players are going to come and go more quickly. Even at Cornell.

Quote from: adamw on March 31, 2026, 07:31:34 PM

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 12:38:04 PMI looked at every draft pick of the Schafer era and noted their draft year, draft round, and whether they left early. I also indicated whether they had a strong junior season (i.e. there would have been strong desire for their drafting team to sign them after their junior year).

PLAYER, DRAFT YEAR, DRAFT ROUND, LEFT EARLY? STRONG JUNIOR YEAR?

• Jean-Marc Pelletier, 1997, 2nd round, left after 2 seasons, N/A [didn't get much playing time]
• Matt Underhill, 1999, 6th round, did not leave early, Yes (.928 sv%)
• Stephen Baby, 1999, 7th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Douglas Murray, 1999, 8th round, did not leave early, Yes (11 goals and point per game as a defenseman)
• Brian Mcmeekin, 1999, 9th round, did not leave early, No
• Matt Mcrae, 2000, 5th round, did not leave early, No
• Mark Mcrae, 2000, 9th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game as a defenseman)
• Mike Knoepfli, 2001, 9th round, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games as strong defensive forward)
• David LeNeveu, 2002, 2nd round, left after 2 seasons, N/A [.950 sv% year before he left]
• Dan Glover, 2002, 8th round, did not leave early, No
• Ryan O'Byrne, 2003, 3rd round, left after 3 seasons, Yes (7-6-13 as a defenseman, good at defending)
• Shane Hynes, 2003, 3rd round, left after 3 seasons, Yes (point per game)
• Byron Bitz, 2003, 4th round, did not leave early, Yes (almost a point per game and great defensive forward)
• Mark McCutcheon, 2003, 5th round, did not leave early, No
• Matt Moulson, 2003, 9th round, did not leave early, YES (dominant numbers, 22 goals)
• Ray Sawada, 2004, 2nd round, did not leave early, No (21 points in 32 games)
• John Gleed, 2004, 7th round, did not leave early, No
• Mitch Carefoot, 2005, 8th round, did not leave early, No
• Sasha Pokuluk, 2005, 1st round, left after 2 seasons, N/A [half a point per game as a big D]
• Colin Greening, 7th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Tony Romano, 2006, 6th round, went to CHL after one season, N/A [had a good freshman year numbers-wise]
• Justin Krueger, 2006, 7th round, did not leave early, No
• Riley Nash, 2007, 1st round, left after three years, N/A [great college player][a 1st rounder staying 3 years I consider equivalent to a later round pick staying 4 years]
• Braden Birch, 2008, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Sean Collins, 2008, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Nick D'Agostino, 2008, round 7, did not leave early, Yes (8 goals, 20 points as a defenseman)
• Kirill Gotovets, 2009, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Brian Ferlin, 2011, round 4, left after 3 seasons, Yes (point per game)
• Joel Lowry, 2011, round 5, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games; also had a very good sophomore year)
• Reece Willcox, 2012, round 5, did not leave early, No
• John McCarron, 2012, round 6, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games)
• Joakim Ryan, 2012, round 7, did not leave early, Yes (8 goals, 24 points as a defenseman)
• Matt Buckles, 2013, round 4, did not leave early, No
• Beau Starrett, 2014, round 3, did not leave early, No
• Anthony Angello, 2014, round 5, left after 3 seasons, Yes (13-13-26 in 33 games)
• Jared Fiegl, 2014, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Dwyer Tschantz, 2014, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Misha Song, 2015, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Matt Cairns, 2016, round 4, did not leave early, No
• Morgan Barron, 2017, round 6, UNKNOWN, Yes (point per game) [Barron was forced to sign due to COVID.]
• Alex Green, 2018, round 4, did not leave early, Yes (7-9-16 in 29 games as a defenseman, defensive defenseman of the year) [Note: Green did sign during the canceled 2021 season, but confirmed on the Big Red Hockeycast that he would have returned for his senior year if not for COVID wiping out the season]
• Matthew Stienburg, 2019, round 3, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Jack Malone, 2019, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Justin Ertel, 2021, round 3, left for CHL after one season, N/A
• Hank Kempf, 2021, round 7, did not leave early, No

I marked in bold the early departures.
I marked in red the players who had strong junior seasons.
I crossed out players who left early for another league besides the pros, or who we cannot say would have gone pro due to COVID knocking out the season.

Analysis:
Cornell had 46 draft picks under Schafer.
I have chosen to exclude Riley Nash from this analysis because I don't think it would be fair to categorize him as either an early departure or a four-year player. He obviously wasn't a four-year player, but keeping a first round pick three years is way better than a program would typically hope for.
Out of 42 draft picks excluding R. Nash and those crossed out, 7 left early. (16.67%)
Out of 18 players who had strong junior seasons, 4 left before their senior year. (22%) Adding LeNeveu to that total (given he had an incredible sophomore season), 5/19 left. (26%)

Conclusions:
Under Schafer, Cornell did an incredible job retaining drafted players through their senior seasons. 16.67% early departures among drafted players is very low. Even more impressive, Cornell retained a huge majority of players who had strong sophomore/junior seasons. In many of these cases, the drafted players ended up signing with their drafting teams anyway. See, e.g., Murray, Moulson, Ryan, Greening, Stienburg, Bitz. And in each of these cases, the player got NHL time. This indicates that in many cases, a player staying four years was not due to their team not wanting them but rather a result of that player desiring to return to Cornell.

It is no surprise that the last three Ivies to make the Frozen Four - Cornell in '03, Yale in '13, and Harvard in '17 - were loaded with seniors who could have gone pro after their junior seasons but chose to return to college.

Unfortunately, this postseason we've already seen two juniors jump to the pros. This includes Hoyt Stanley, who seems like a longshot to have any kind of NHL career. This is an unfortunate development and very atypical in Cornell Hockey history. Going forward, if Cornell wants to compete with more talented programs, it will be critical that our best players stick it out for four years, as they mostly did for the past 30 seasons.

unless you acknowledge that the world of the last 5 years is totally different than the one before (and getting moreso) - and make the analysis include the round the person was drafted in - this is completely useless. Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?  Penn State just lost 4 players today. You draft good players in this day and age, and it's a miracle if they make it past 3 years.

What a pleasant person you are.

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 07:39:42 PM

Quote from: adamw on March 31, 2026, 07:31:34 PMunless you acknowledge that the world of the last 5 years is totally different than the one before (and getting moreso) - and make the analysis include the round the person was drafted in - this is completely useless. Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?  Penn State just lost 4 players today. You draft good players in this day and age, and it's a miracle if they make it past 3 years.

What a pleasant person you are.

Really?  Ad hominem attacks? 

Adam is one of the most knowledgable people in the whole country when it comes to college hockey.  And all you seem to want to do is argue with him. 

Grow the fuck up.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on March 31, 2026, 08:37:22 PM

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 07:39:42 PM

Quote from: adamw on March 31, 2026, 07:31:34 PMunless you acknowledge that the world of the last 5 years is totally different than the one before (and getting moreso) - and make the analysis include the round the person was drafted in - this is completely useless. Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?  Penn State just lost 4 players today. You draft good players in this day and age, and it's a miracle if they make it past 3 years.

What a pleasant person you are.

Really?  Ad hominem attacks? 

Adam is one of the most knowledgable people in the whole country when it comes to college hockey.  And all you seem to want to do is argue with him. 

Grow the fuck up.

Get a grip, man. Adam's post was an ad hominen attack and generally extremely rude--thus my response. For you to gloss over the rudeness of his post and focus on mine is just beyond parody at this point.

Quote from: adamw on March 31, 2026, 07:39:36 PM

Quote from: BigRedLaw on March 31, 2026, 02:15:04 PMSchafer did a fantastic job retaining drafted players.  Hopefully this is an anomaly and Jones can retain more players going forward.

However, I do wonder if it is possible to match Schafer's success given the rapidly changing landscape of college sports. 

College football is full of players staying in college longer, but transferring to chase NIL.  I don't know how much that's happening in the college hockey landscape (aside from guys like McKenna) or Cornell's NIL situation, but we may have to adjust expectations going forward regardless of who our coach is.

On that subject, does anybody know what Cornell's NIL situation is (if it even exists), how it compares to other ECAC and national schools, etc.?  Its something I cant find any info on.

Read College Hockey News.

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 05:44:38 PM

Quote from: Pghas on March 31, 2026, 05:24:06 PMThere are 2 sides to this coin.  Yers, it would be nice to keep great players for 4 years.  On the other hand, for Cornell to take the next steps towards a frozen four berth, they probably need to recruit some players who are first round or high first-round draft picks.  They need that level of speed and skill, and those guys will leave after a year or two.  But for those elite players, thats the pathway now.  Harvard had Laferriere and Coronado a few years back.  Everyone knew those guys weren't playing 4 years.  Now the money issue has reared its head so it remains to be seen how Cornell will be able to pull it off. Say you are Cornell and you are recruiting Gavin McKenna.  What do you offer him?  we will compete for ECAC and national championships, you will play in front of  the Lynah Faithful, but we cannot offer you 700K and probably, since you'll only be here a year, cannot offer you a Cornell degree, though you can always come back here and finish it in a decade or so.  Something will have to give - either schools won't want to waste energy and money recruiting guys who will only be in college for a year and dont have any sense at all of being part of the program long-term, or the schools with more cash to throw around - and the willingness to do it - will win out.  Maybe it becomes a thing where you catch lightning in a bottle and a few guys you dont expect to light it up do.  Or if it comes down to Gavin McKenna for a year, you pony up the $ for that kid and go for it that year.

It's really not college sports in many ways anymore.  Like sports at all levels it is so much about the $. 

For Cornell to make a frozen four, they'll either need to recruit better talent OR get their existing talent to stay four years. We get good talent currently. Compared to the best teams in the country, our talent this season was probably on par with the talent of our 2003 frozen four team. A key difference was that our best players on that team stayed all four years. If Castagna, Walsh, Stanley, et al came back next season, we would have had one of our best chances at a frozen four in decades.

One competitive advantage Cornell has over the other top programs is that our degree is worth much more. We should retain players at a much higher rate than other schools. This is our best chance at success.

We are not competitive for the Gavin McKennas and do not even attempt to recruit them.

I'm not naive enough to expect every Castagna to stay four years, but we should be keeping the Stanleys at least. And if a Moulson/Greening/Ryan-level star  comes along who has clear NHL potential but wants to stay through graduation, then we've got a real shot. That sort of thing is probably our best bet to getting back to the frozen four. We can't beat the top programs in talent, but we can at least try to beat them in experience and development.

Among the many issues with this analysis - you are not considering the fact that, in 2026 compared to 2003, the level of talent in college hockey as a whole is vastly superior. If Cornell 2026 talent is equal to Cornell 2003 talent - it's not enough.

It's apples and oranges. a) The players who stuck around that team four years, were drafted in low rounds. b) players didn't leave as fast in general at that time. When Boston College had its title runs in the mid-2000s, those players all stayed 3+ years. Today? BC can't get its blue chippers to stay more than 2, and many are done in 1. c) Leneveu left after that season. He was a 2nd round pick.

You are setting yourself up for a world of angst and rage if you don't accept the fact that these days are different, and players are going to come and go more quickly. Even at Cornell.

No. Read my post again. I said: "Compared to the best teams in the country, our talent this season was probably on par with the talent of our 2003 frozen four team." I could have worded it more clearly, but what I said was that, in comparison to the best teams in the country, the 2003 team and the 2026 were about on the same level. 2026 may well be more talented than 2003, but that was commensurate with the rise in talent throughout the rest of the country. That was precisely the point of what I said.

As to the point about draft picks, feel free to run a regression factoring in draft picks, but it's not going to change the conclusion. Once a team has the rights to a player, it really doesn't matter in what round that player was taken. Jonathan Castagna is the exact same player whether he was taken in the third or the sixth round. The Bruins tried to sign Ryan Walsh (sixth round pick) last season. Calgary is not valuing Castagna differently, nor trying any more or less hard to sign him, if he was drafted in a different round. Yes, Cornell had some first and second round picks leave early 15-20 years ago. We have not had a single one since so, if anything, the fact these picks left early makes Schafer look worse in terms of retaining talent. And, most of all, there's little practical difference between a fourth and sixth round draft pick.

I'm laughing at the concept of me going around telling you that your analysis on CHN is "useless." I'd love to see you try to respond in a respectful, measured fashion--as I repeatedly do towards your arguments, which are littered with insults and name-calling.

If I was a hockey player hoping to make it to the show, and I had a chance to play at a college that was known for having players make it AND get an Ivy degree, I'd seriously want to come to Cornell.

To me, I'd take a great player for 3 good years over none at all.

Just my opinion

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 09:30:38 PMI could have worded it more clearly, but what I said was that, in comparison to the best teams in the country, the 2003 team and the 2026 were about on the same level.

I gotta correct you there, BearLover. The 2003 team was the overall number one seed in the tournament.

(https://i.ibb.co/RG6SpJCQ/Screenshot-20260331-214917-Chrome.jpg)

Quote from: andyw2100 on March 31, 2026, 09:47:45 PM

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 09:30:38 PMI could have worded it more clearly, but what I said was that, in comparison to the best teams in the country, the 2003 team and the 2026 were about on the same level.

I gotta correct you there, BearLover. The 2003 team was the overall number one seed in the tournament.

Sure. Speaking purely about talent though. I think this year's team and 2003 were similar levels (normalized against the rest of the country). The difference I'm trying to show was the 2003 was stacked with talented seniors.

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 09:51:06 PM

Quote from: andyw2100 on March 31, 2026, 09:47:45 PM

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 09:30:38 PMI could have worded it more clearly, but what I said was that, in comparison to the best teams in the country, the 2003 team and the 2026 were about on the same level.

I gotta correct you there, BearLover. The 2003 team was the overall number one seed in the tournament.

Sure. Speaking purely about talent though. I think this year's team and 2003 were similar levels (normalized against the rest of the country). The difference I'm trying to show was the 2003 was stacked with talented seniors.

Oh. I think I understand what you're saying now. Essentially it boils down to the 2003 team had similar relative talent to the 2026 team as compared to the other teams in Division 1 hockey at the time, but the 2003 team over-performed that talent level, largely due to the fact that everyone had stayed.

Quote from: andyw2100 on March 31, 2026, 09:55:42 PM

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 09:51:06 PM

Quote from: andyw2100 on March 31, 2026, 09:47:45 PM

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 09:30:38 PMI could have worded it more clearly, but what I said was that, in comparison to the best teams in the country, the 2003 team and the 2026 were about on the same level.

I gotta correct you there, BearLover. The 2003 team was the overall number one seed in the tournament.

Sure. Speaking purely about talent though. I think this year's team and 2003 were similar levels (normalized against the rest of the country). The difference I'm trying to show was the 2003 was stacked with talented seniors.

Oh. I think I understand what you're saying now. Essentially it boils down to the 2003 team had similar relative talent to the 2026 team as compared to the other teams in Division 1 hockey at the time, but the 2003 team over-performed that talent level, largely due to the fact that everyone had stayed.

Yeah, basically. Sorry, I was making different points in different posts. Generally, I'm saying that I don't think we're getting worse talent now*, compared to our last frozen four. The distinction is that in 2003, the talent stayed.
*compared to the rest of the country

Quote from: adamw on March 31, 2026, 07:39:36 PM

Quote from: BigRedLaw on March 31, 2026, 02:15:04 PMSchafer did a fantastic job retaining drafted players.  Hopefully this is an anomaly and Jones can retain more players going forward.

However, I do wonder if it is possible to match Schafer's success given the rapidly changing landscape of college sports. 

College football is full of players staying in college longer, but transferring to chase NIL.  I don't know how much that's happening in the college hockey landscape (aside from guys like McKenna) or Cornell's NIL situation, but we may have to adjust expectations going forward regardless of who our coach is.

On that subject, does anybody know what Cornell's NIL situation is (if it even exists), how it compares to other ECAC and national schools, etc.?  Its something I cant find any info on.

Read College Hockey News.

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 05:44:38 PM

Quote from: Pghas on March 31, 2026, 05:24:06 PMThere are 2 sides to this coin.  Yers, it would be nice to keep great players for 4 years.  On the other hand, for Cornell to take the next steps towards a frozen four berth, they probably need to recruit some players who are first round or high first-round draft picks.  They need that level of speed and skill, and those guys will leave after a year or two.  But for those elite players, thats the pathway now.  Harvard had Laferriere and Coronado a few years back.  Everyone knew those guys weren't playing 4 years.  Now the money issue has reared its head so it remains to be seen how Cornell will be able to pull it off. Say you are Cornell and you are recruiting Gavin McKenna.  What do you offer him?  we will compete for ECAC and national championships, you will play in front of  the Lynah Faithful, but we cannot offer you 700K and probably, since you'll only be here a year, cannot offer you a Cornell degree, though you can always come back here and finish it in a decade or so.  Something will have to give - either schools won't want to waste energy and money recruiting guys who will only be in college for a year and dont have any sense at all of being part of the program long-term, or the schools with more cash to throw around - and the willingness to do it - will win out.  Maybe it becomes a thing where you catch lightning in a bottle and a few guys you dont expect to light it up do.  Or if it comes down to Gavin McKenna for a year, you pony up the $ for that kid and go for it that year.

It's really not college sports in many ways anymore.  Like sports at all levels it is so much about the $. 

For Cornell to make a frozen four, they'll either need to recruit better talent OR get their existing talent to stay four years. We get good talent currently. Compared to the best teams in the country, our talent this season was probably on par with the talent of our 2003 frozen four team. A key difference was that our best players on that team stayed all four years. If Castagna, Walsh, Stanley, et al came back next season, we would have had one of our best chances at a frozen four in decades.

One competitive advantage Cornell has over the other top programs is that our degree is worth much more. We should retain players at a much higher rate than other schools. This is our best chance at success.

We are not competitive for the Gavin McKennas and do not even attempt to recruit them.

I'm not naive enough to expect every Castagna to stay four years, but we should be keeping the Stanleys at least. And if a Moulson/Greening/Ryan-level star  comes along who has clear NHL potential but wants to stay through graduation, then we've got a real shot. That sort of thing is probably our best bet to getting back to the frozen four. We can't beat the top programs in talent, but we can at least try to beat them in experience and development.

Among the many issues with this analysis - you are not considering the fact that, in 2026 compared to 2003, the level of talent in college hockey as a whole is vastly superior. If Cornell 2026 talent is equal to Cornell 2003 talent - it's not enough.

It's apples and oranges. a) The players who stuck around that team four years, were drafted in low rounds. b) players didn't leave as fast in general at that time. When Boston College had its title runs in the mid-2000s, those players all stayed 3+ years. Today? BC can't get its blue chippers to stay more than 2, and many are done in 1. c) Leneveu left after that season. He was a 2nd round pick.

You are setting yourself up for a world of angst and rage if you don't accept the fact that these days are different, and players are going to come and go more quickly. Even at Cornell.

In 06 or 07 I was chatting with a development coach/scout for the Penguins and jokingly asked why the heck they passed on Matt Moulson. He rolled his eyes and basically said he didn't have what they were looking for. In that time, not that long ago, collage guys weren't seen as blue chip players, and obviously Moulson turned into one of our most successful pros. My point is that he was awesome, but no one wanted him, least of all his draft team- and while it was fun to see him thrive on Taveres wing, he'd have looked good on Sid's too. He stayed 4 years, we were lucky. There was no guarantee for Murray or Nash either, who did leave early and his draft team didn't want him either. If we see 3 years, we get lucky, 4 is just unusual.

Probably worth pointing out here, btw, that at the time we considered it lucky that we got any years with Riley Nash. It was more or less an open secret that one of the reasons Coach Schafer recruited Riley's (undrafted) older brother Brendon was that their closeness made it more likely Riley would entertain Cornell as a serious option as well. Brendon wasn't bad himself, and (after staying for all four years) even got a cup of coffee on Montreal before kicking around the minors and Europe for an additional decade.

I also remember after the 2003 loss to New Hampshire saying about David LeNeveu, "At least we have him 2 more years" to witch my granddad scoffed and said "No way. He's going pro."

I think most of our drafted guys will give us 3 now, in part because we're usually not getting the true blue chippers that stay 1 to 2 years. At this point, however, with different college hockey recruiting and timelines I would be surprised if any of our higher draft picks stay four, unless there is an understanding that they are not going to sign with
their NHL team. Guys like Kempf who did stay 4 in the "current climate" were, in Kempf's case, late-round draft picks, traded as add-ins (possible that NYR couldn't/didn't want to sign him), and are ending up as AHL guys - which is still infinitely impressive, don't get me wrong.

All this to point out that Ashton and Fisher could be gone by the end of next season.

Quote from: stereax on April 01, 2026, 11:06:45 AMI think most of our drafted guys will give us 3 now, in part because we're usually not getting the true blue chippers that stay 1 to 2 years. At this point, however, with different college hockey recruiting and timelines I would be surprised if any of our higher draft picks stay four, unless there is an understanding that they are not going to sign with
their NHL team. Guys like Kempf who did stay 4 in the "current climate" were, in Kempf's case, late-round draft picks, traded as add-ins (possible that NYR couldn't/didn't want to sign him), and are ending up as AHL guys - which is still infinitely impressive, don't get me wrong.
\
All this to point out that Ashton and Fisher could be gone by the end of next season.

As you and several others have posted, we are in a new world. What happened 20, 10, or even 5 years ago has no relevance for 2026 and beyond. Those who refuse to acknowledge this are set up for continual disappointment when we have guys leave after 2-3 years.

Quote from: adamw on March 31, 2026, 07:31:34 PM

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 12:38:04 PMI looked at every draft pick of the Schafer era and noted their draft year, draft round, and whether they left early. I also indicated whether they had a strong junior season (i.e. there would have been strong desire for their drafting team to sign them after their junior year).

PLAYER, DRAFT YEAR, DRAFT ROUND, LEFT EARLY? STRONG JUNIOR YEAR?

• Jean-Marc Pelletier, 1997, 2nd round, left after 2 seasons, N/A [didn't get much playing time]
• Matt Underhill, 1999, 6th round, did not leave early, Yes (.928 sv%)
• Stephen Baby, 1999, 7th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Douglas Murray, 1999, 8th round, did not leave early, Yes (11 goals and point per game as a defenseman)
• Brian Mcmeekin, 1999, 9th round, did not leave early, No
• Matt Mcrae, 2000, 5th round, did not leave early, No
• Mark Mcrae, 2000, 9th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game as a defenseman)
• Mike Knoepfli, 2001, 9th round, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games as strong defensive forward)
• David LeNeveu, 2002, 2nd round, left after 2 seasons, N/A [.950 sv% year before he left]
• Dan Glover, 2002, 8th round, did not leave early, No
• Ryan O'Byrne, 2003, 3rd round, left after 3 seasons, Yes (7-6-13 as a defenseman, good at defending)
• Shane Hynes, 2003, 3rd round, left after 3 seasons, Yes (point per game)
• Byron Bitz, 2003, 4th round, did not leave early, Yes (almost a point per game and great defensive forward)
• Mark McCutcheon, 2003, 5th round, did not leave early, No
• Matt Moulson, 2003, 9th round, did not leave early, YES (dominant numbers, 22 goals)
• Ray Sawada, 2004, 2nd round, did not leave early, No (21 points in 32 games)
• John Gleed, 2004, 7th round, did not leave early, No
• Mitch Carefoot, 2005, 8th round, did not leave early, No
• Sasha Pokuluk, 2005, 1st round, left after 2 seasons, N/A [half a point per game as a big D]
• Colin Greening, 7th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Tony Romano, 2006, 6th round, went to CHL after one season, N/A [had a good freshman year numbers-wise]
• Justin Krueger, 2006, 7th round, did not leave early, No
• Riley Nash, 2007, 1st round, left after three years, N/A [great college player][a 1st rounder staying 3 years I consider equivalent to a later round pick staying 4 years]
• Braden Birch, 2008, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Sean Collins, 2008, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Nick D'Agostino, 2008, round 7, did not leave early, Yes (8 goals, 20 points as a defenseman)
• Kirill Gotovets, 2009, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Brian Ferlin, 2011, round 4, left after 3 seasons, Yes (point per game)
• Joel Lowry, 2011, round 5, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games; also had a very good sophomore year)
• Reece Willcox, 2012, round 5, did not leave early, No
• John McCarron, 2012, round 6, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games)
• Joakim Ryan, 2012, round 7, did not leave early, Yes (8 goals, 24 points as a defenseman)
• Matt Buckles, 2013, round 4, did not leave early, No
• Beau Starrett, 2014, round 3, did not leave early, No
• Anthony Angello, 2014, round 5, left after 3 seasons, Yes (13-13-26 in 33 games)
• Jared Fiegl, 2014, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Dwyer Tschantz, 2014, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Misha Song, 2015, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Matt Cairns, 2016, round 4, did not leave early, No
• Morgan Barron, 2017, round 6, UNKNOWN, Yes (point per game) [Barron was forced to sign due to COVID.]
• Alex Green, 2018, round 4, did not leave early, Yes (7-9-16 in 29 games as a defenseman, defensive defenseman of the year) [Note: Green did sign during the canceled 2021 season, but confirmed on the Big Red Hockeycast that he would have returned for his senior year if not for COVID wiping out the season]
• Matthew Stienburg, 2019, round 3, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Jack Malone, 2019, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Justin Ertel, 2021, round 3, left for CHL after one season, N/A
• Hank Kempf, 2021, round 7, did not leave early, No

I marked in bold the early departures.
I marked in red the players who had strong junior seasons.
I crossed out players who left early for another league besides the pros, or who we cannot say would have gone pro due to COVID knocking out the season.

Analysis:
Cornell had 46 draft picks under Schafer.
I have chosen to exclude Riley Nash from this analysis because I don't think it would be fair to categorize him as either an early departure or a four-year player. He obviously wasn't a four-year player, but keeping a first round pick three years is way better than a program would typically hope for.
Out of 42 draft picks excluding R. Nash and those crossed out, 7 left early. (16.67%)
Out of 18 players who had strong junior seasons, 4 left before their senior year. (22%) Adding LeNeveu to that total (given he had an incredible sophomore season), 5/19 left. (26%)

Conclusions:
Under Schafer, Cornell did an incredible job retaining drafted players through their senior seasons. 16.67% early departures among drafted players is very low. Even more impressive, Cornell retained a huge majority of players who had strong sophomore/junior seasons. In many of these cases, the drafted players ended up signing with their drafting teams anyway. See, e.g., Murray, Moulson, Ryan, Greening, Stienburg, Bitz. And in each of these cases, the player got NHL time. This indicates that in many cases, a player staying four years was not due to their team not wanting them but rather a result of that player desiring to return to Cornell.

It is no surprise that the last three Ivies to make the Frozen Four - Cornell in '03, Yale in '13, and Harvard in '17 - were loaded with seniors who could have gone pro after their junior seasons but chose to return to college.

Unfortunately, this postseason we've already seen two juniors jump to the pros. This includes Hoyt Stanley, who seems like a longshot to have any kind of NHL career. This is an unfortunate development and very atypical in Cornell Hockey history. Going forward, if Cornell wants to compete with more talented programs, it will be critical that our best players stick it out for four years, as they mostly did for the past 30 seasons.

unless you acknowledge that the world of the last 5 years is totally different than the one before (and getting moreso) - and make the analysis include the round the person was drafted in - this is completely useless. Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?  Penn State just lost 4 players today. You draft good players in this day and age, and it's a miracle if they make it past 3 years.

This fact makes the historical list useful, even if that's not the point BearLover was trying to make with it.  So even though the conversation degenerated from this point, I appreciate both the effort of compiling the list and the good form in sharing it.

Quote from: jtwcornell91 on April 01, 2026, 11:34:10 AM

Quote from: adamw on March 31, 2026, 07:31:34 PM

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 12:38:04 PMI looked at every draft pick of the Schafer era and noted their draft year, draft round, and whether they left early. I also indicated whether they had a strong junior season (i.e. there would have been strong desire for their drafting team to sign them after their junior year).

PLAYER, DRAFT YEAR, DRAFT ROUND, LEFT EARLY? STRONG JUNIOR YEAR?

• Jean-Marc Pelletier, 1997, 2nd round, left after 2 seasons, N/A [didn't get much playing time]
• Matt Underhill, 1999, 6th round, did not leave early, Yes (.928 sv%)
• Stephen Baby, 1999, 7th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Douglas Murray, 1999, 8th round, did not leave early, Yes (11 goals and point per game as a defenseman)
• Brian Mcmeekin, 1999, 9th round, did not leave early, No
• Matt Mcrae, 2000, 5th round, did not leave early, No
• Mark Mcrae, 2000, 9th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game as a defenseman)
• Mike Knoepfli, 2001, 9th round, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games as strong defensive forward)
• David LeNeveu, 2002, 2nd round, left after 2 seasons, N/A [.950 sv% year before he left]
• Dan Glover, 2002, 8th round, did not leave early, No
• Ryan O'Byrne, 2003, 3rd round, left after 3 seasons, Yes (7-6-13 as a defenseman, good at defending)
• Shane Hynes, 2003, 3rd round, left after 3 seasons, Yes (point per game)
• Byron Bitz, 2003, 4th round, did not leave early, Yes (almost a point per game and great defensive forward)
• Mark McCutcheon, 2003, 5th round, did not leave early, No
• Matt Moulson, 2003, 9th round, did not leave early, YES (dominant numbers, 22 goals)
• Ray Sawada, 2004, 2nd round, did not leave early, No (21 points in 32 games)
• John Gleed, 2004, 7th round, did not leave early, No
• Mitch Carefoot, 2005, 8th round, did not leave early, No
• Sasha Pokuluk, 2005, 1st round, left after 2 seasons, N/A [half a point per game as a big D]
• Colin Greening, 7th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Tony Romano, 2006, 6th round, went to CHL after one season, N/A [had a good freshman year numbers-wise]
• Justin Krueger, 2006, 7th round, did not leave early, No
• Riley Nash, 2007, 1st round, left after three years, N/A [great college player][a 1st rounder staying 3 years I consider equivalent to a later round pick staying 4 years]
• Braden Birch, 2008, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Sean Collins, 2008, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Nick D'Agostino, 2008, round 7, did not leave early, Yes (8 goals, 20 points as a defenseman)
• Kirill Gotovets, 2009, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Brian Ferlin, 2011, round 4, left after 3 seasons, Yes (point per game)
• Joel Lowry, 2011, round 5, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games; also had a very good sophomore year)
• Reece Willcox, 2012, round 5, did not leave early, No
• John McCarron, 2012, round 6, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games)
• Joakim Ryan, 2012, round 7, did not leave early, Yes (8 goals, 24 points as a defenseman)
• Matt Buckles, 2013, round 4, did not leave early, No
• Beau Starrett, 2014, round 3, did not leave early, No
• Anthony Angello, 2014, round 5, left after 3 seasons, Yes (13-13-26 in 33 games)
• Jared Fiegl, 2014, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Dwyer Tschantz, 2014, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Misha Song, 2015, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Matt Cairns, 2016, round 4, did not leave early, No
• Morgan Barron, 2017, round 6, UNKNOWN, Yes (point per game) [Barron was forced to sign due to COVID.]
• Alex Green, 2018, round 4, did not leave early, Yes (7-9-16 in 29 games as a defenseman, defensive defenseman of the year) [Note: Green did sign during the canceled 2021 season, but confirmed on the Big Red Hockeycast that he would have returned for his senior year if not for COVID wiping out the season]
• Matthew Stienburg, 2019, round 3, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Jack Malone, 2019, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Justin Ertel, 2021, round 3, left for CHL after one season, N/A
• Hank Kempf, 2021, round 7, did not leave early, No

I marked in bold the early departures.
I marked in red the players who had strong junior seasons.
I crossed out players who left early for another league besides the pros, or who we cannot say would have gone pro due to COVID knocking out the season.

Analysis:
Cornell had 46 draft picks under Schafer.
I have chosen to exclude Riley Nash from this analysis because I don't think it would be fair to categorize him as either an early departure or a four-year player. He obviously wasn't a four-year player, but keeping a first round pick three years is way better than a program would typically hope for.
Out of 42 draft picks excluding R. Nash and those crossed out, 7 left early. (16.67%)
Out of 18 players who had strong junior seasons, 4 left before their senior year. (22%) Adding LeNeveu to that total (given he had an incredible sophomore season), 5/19 left. (26%)

Conclusions:
Under Schafer, Cornell did an incredible job retaining drafted players through their senior seasons. 16.67% early departures among drafted players is very low. Even more impressive, Cornell retained a huge majority of players who had strong sophomore/junior seasons. In many of these cases, the drafted players ended up signing with their drafting teams anyway. See, e.g., Murray, Moulson, Ryan, Greening, Stienburg, Bitz. And in each of these cases, the player got NHL time. This indicates that in many cases, a player staying four years was not due to their team not wanting them but rather a result of that player desiring to return to Cornell.

It is no surprise that the last three Ivies to make the Frozen Four - Cornell in '03, Yale in '13, and Harvard in '17 - were loaded with seniors who could have gone pro after their junior seasons but chose to return to college.

Unfortunately, this postseason we've already seen two juniors jump to the pros. This includes Hoyt Stanley, who seems like a longshot to have any kind of NHL career. This is an unfortunate development and very atypical in Cornell Hockey history. Going forward, if Cornell wants to compete with more talented programs, it will be critical that our best players stick it out for four years, as they mostly did for the past 30 seasons.

unless you acknowledge that the world of the last 5 years is totally different than the one before (and getting moreso) - and make the analysis include the round the person was drafted in - this is completely useless. Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?  Penn State just lost 4 players today. You draft good players in this day and age, and it's a miracle if they make it past 3 years.

This fact makes the historical list useful, even if that's not the point BearLover was trying to make with it.  So even though the conversation degenerated from this point, I appreciate both the effort of compiling the list and the good form in sharing it.

Thanks, but I was informed by adamw that my work was "useless," and I will have to defer to him as he is the editor of a college hockey website.

Quote from: scoop85 on April 01, 2026, 11:22:44 AM

Quote from: stereax on April 01, 2026, 11:06:45 AMI think most of our drafted guys will give us 3 now, in part because we're usually not getting the true blue chippers that stay 1 to 2 years. At this point, however, with different college hockey recruiting and timelines I would be surprised if any of our higher draft picks stay four, unless there is an understanding that they are not going to sign with
their NHL team. Guys like Kempf who did stay 4 in the "current climate" were, in Kempf's case, late-round draft picks, traded as add-ins (possible that NYR couldn't/didn't want to sign him), and are ending up as AHL guys - which is still infinitely impressive, don't get me wrong.
\
All this to point out that Ashton and Fisher could be gone by the end of next season.

As you and several others have posted, we are in a new world. What happened 20, 10, or even 5 years ago has no relevance for 2026 and beyond. Those who refuse to acknowledge this are set up for continual disappointment when we have guys leave after 2-3 years.

Matthew Stienburg was the first pick of the third round, had 13-16-29 in 28 games his junior season, and in 2022-23 elected to return for his senior year because, in his words, he had unfinished business and wanted to graduate with his classmates.

I think there is a pretty significant logical flaw in this rationale of "college hockey has more turnover now, therefore we shouldn't expect draft picks to stay more than 2-3 years." It is undeniable that there is way more turnover in college hockey now. That's a combination of factors--the transfer portal, greater talent, CHL eligibility. But just because there is more turnover on a collective level does not mean there is greater turnover on an individual level. Which is to say, is it any more likely now that a given draft pick goes pro sooner now than before? I doubt it. Nobody has put forth any causal mechanism for why that would be. The CBA hasn't changed, NHL contracts haven't changed.

I see no reason why we should expect our draft picks to go pro more quickly. The personal calculus of a Castagna or a Stanley hasn't changed.

What's happening at Penn State is not informative. There probably isn't a hockey school in the entire country more different from Cornell than PSU. Let's look at Harvard as a better analog. Harvard had three drafted seniors on their team this year. Last year, they had four. One of whom, Ian Moore, has played nearly this entire season in the NHL with Anaheim, the team that drafted him.

Saying "there's a ton of turnover in college hockey right now, thus Cornell should expect some too" is true. But saying "the world of college hockey has changed, therefore we should expect our drafted players to stay 2-3 years" makes no sense. I think this is largely just cope about Castagna and Stanley leaving.

Side note, Fisher was drafted back in 2022 and I doubt he's going anywhere.

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 09:51:06 PM

Quote from: andyw2100 on March 31, 2026, 09:47:45 PM

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 09:30:38 PMI could have worded it more clearly, but what I said was that, in comparison to the best teams in the country, the 2003 team and the 2026 were about on the same level.

I gotta correct you there, BearLover. The 2003 team was the overall number one seed in the tournament.

Sure. Speaking purely about talent though. I think this year's team and 2003 were similar levels (normalized against the rest of the country). The difference I'm trying to show was the 2003 was stacked with talented seniors.

Unlike this year's team, I remember how crisp and accurate that team's passing was throughout the entire season.  Everything was tape-to-tape. I even mentioned that to Coach Schafer at the Hobey Baker award ceremony.
That team was also incredibly balanced from Leneveau out.  IIRC, they were #1 or close to it in both PP and PK% and in GPG and GAPG.
I told Leneveau all of the fans loved him and hoped he stayed, but I knew the chances were slim.

BL - there was no ad hominem there really. calling it "useless" was in making a point that it didn't matter what happened 25 years ago, because it's a completely different world. You've taken so many potshots at me over the years, that to get all huffy about something relatively innocuous now, is quite rich.

Also - the reason my response perhaps sounded aggressive to you, is because there's an implication in there that Mike Schafer was great at keeping players, and so far Casey is not. You have a subtle way of criticizing people and then claiming "no, I was just sayin'" - OK. Whatever. It's noticeable to me. Maybe I'm the crazy one.

But let's set aside, yet again, the latest spat.

If Cornell loses every player drafted in the 3rd round or higher after 3 years at best, your implication is that would be Casey's fault. And my point is, that leaves out other data points - such as, that this is broadly a whole new universe.

Also, again, acknowledge that the 2003 team had only one high draft pick - the goalie - and yet was the No. 1 overall seed. Thanks to - yes - the seniors, largely.  It's a broken record at this point to say that a) now is different, and b) those were lower-rounded guys.

You say it doesn't matter what round they're taken in once they're drafted. This is not historically true for a number of reasons

a) the NHL team values their higher picks more
b) by nature, the higher picks are better players than the lower picks, so as a data point, it would stand to reason they are more likely to leave. It should be telling that the only player from that team that did leave super-early was the 2nd round pick (immediately), and 3rd rounder Shane Hynes (after jr. year). None of the seniors, or Ryan Vesce (undrafted) or Matt Moulson (8th round - which doesn't even exist anymore), were in that boat.
c) While it has been a steady progression, 2003 to 2026 is, again, a different world. The CBA WAS indeed different then. Players weren't automatically leaving early out of NHL teams' fear they would become free agents. That wasn't a thing then.

Look at the roster of the team that Cornell team played in the Frozen Four:
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/reports/roster/New-Hampshire/38/20022003

There isn't a single player there drafted higher than the 5th round - one guy, who was a 3rd liner.

Compare that to the rosters of this year's Frozen Four teams.

As I said, the better comparison is Boston College's championship teams of 2006, 2008, 2012, etc... Tons of NHL guys that lasted 3+ years. That was considered the norm then, though there were high-profile exceptions. Nowadays, if a 1st rounder - even 2nd - lasts 3 years it's a miracle. There are many reasons for this, not just the CBA. Players are more NHL ready now. And so on.

Seniors are *crucially* important to winning a national championship. But you also need drafted skill players. And the seniors on these Frozen Four teams:
Wisconsin 0 drafted seniors
Denver 2 drafted - 2nd and 3rd round - some extenuating circumstances there though
North Dakota 2 drafted - 2nd and 7th round - the 2nd rounder Dylan James - there's a lot of background on that. Everyone considers that a miracle really. Had to do with new coaching staff. And the fact that North Dakota could pay him some $$$ to stay
Michigan - 1 drafted senior - 7th rounder.

So - maybe I just don't get the point you're trying to make. But them's the facts. Don't throw out "research" and not expect pushback that the analysis has tons of holes, and is implying something very misleading.

And maybe you can get more angst - or solace - out of this Part 2 of my report, about all the money.

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/03/31_CHN-Special-Report-Part-.php

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 11:55:07 AMWhich is to say, is it any more likely now that a given draft pick goes pro sooner now than before? I doubt it. Nobody has put forth any causal mechanism for why that would be. The CBA hasn't changed, NHL contracts haven't changed.

I see no reason why we should expect our draft picks to go pro more quickly. The personal calculus of a Castagna or a Stanley hasn't changed.

What's happening at Penn State is not informative. There probably isn't a hockey school in the entire country more different from Cornell than PSU. Let's look at Harvard as a better analog. Harvard had three drafted seniors on their team this year. Last year, they had four. One of whom, Ian Moore, has played nearly this entire season in the NHL with Anaheim, the team that drafted him.

If you want to know why these discussions get irritating and go off the rails - look no further than ^

You just brought up the Harvard thing again. I specifically responded to that when you said about it the first time. Look at the individual cases of those players and why that was the case, compared to someone like Castagna and Stanley. You are cherry-picking there. I pointed that out before. I don't feel like doing it again right this second.

Stienberg had significant injury issues. As did some of those Harvard players.

But if you'd rather not cope about those players leaving, and get upset about it now, and forever in the future - then have a blast. Just don't expect anyone else to do so.

And you say there's no causal mechanism why things have changed. It depends on your time frame. You have thrown out data that goes back to 1999. What time period are you talking about? Because things have changed pretty significantly in that span, first with CBA changes, and then more recently with transfer portal, money, etc....

The empirical evidence is clear about drafted players leaving earlier, on the whole, than before. The reasons - you can call them "educatedly-speculative" if you want - I've put out there before in earlier messages. Judging from eyes and ears of what's been happening.

Quote from: cth95 on April 01, 2026, 12:08:32 PM

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 09:51:06 PM

Quote from: andyw2100 on March 31, 2026, 09:47:45 PM

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 09:30:38 PMI could have worded it more clearly, but what I said was that, in comparison to the best teams in the country, the 2003 team and the 2026 were about on the same level.

I gotta correct you there, BearLover. The 2003 team was the overall number one seed in the tournament.

Sure. Speaking purely about talent though. I think this year's team and 2003 were similar levels (normalized against the rest of the country). The difference I'm trying to show was the 2003 was stacked with talented seniors.

Unlike this year's team, I remember how crisp and accurate that team's passing was throughout the entire season.  Everything was tape-to-tape. I even mentioned that to Coach Schafer at the Hobey Baker award ceremony.
That team was also incredibly balanced from Leneveau out.  IIRC, they were #1 or close to it in both PP and PK% and in GPG and GAPG.
I told Leneveau all of the fans loved him and hoped he stayed, but I knew the chances were slim.

100% agree on the balance of that '03 team, and the GRIT they had.
From my own observation and vibes, I really thought that the passing speed and accuracy was so much better this season, and last, than in previous Schafer years. I used to scratch my head (and scream) about how lousy our passing always seemed compared to other elite teams we'd play against. Probably just my own POV/Bias.

100% agree on the balance of that '03 team, and the GRIT they had.
From my own observation and vibes, I really thought that the passing speed and accuracy was so much better this season, and last, than in previous Schafer years. I used to scratch my head (and scream) about how lousy our passing always seemed compared to other elite teams we'd play against. Probably just my own POV/Bias.

I agree with your observation except, sadly, the last 2 games our passing largely went off the rails for whatever reason.

Quote from: fastforward on March 31, 2026, 09:42:04 PMIf I was a hockey player hoping to make it to the show, and I had a chance to play at a college that was known for having players make it AND get an Ivy degree, I'd seriously want to come to Cornell.

To me, I'd take a great player for 3 good years over none at all.

Just my opinion

Of course.  But I think college hockey is fundamentally very different right now than it was even 5 years ago.

Five years ago:  You're an American or Canadian Kid growing up playing hockey.  You're a great player.  You want to go as far as hockey can take you. And let's be clear:  Hockey is the priority.  Getting an education is nice, but this isn't 1987 where you are using your hockey skills to get yourself into Cornell.  Your goal is to play as much hockey for as long as you can.  Your choices are: 1. Go play junior hockey as a teenager in Canada and hope to be drafted into the NHL, BUT you then are not allowed to play college hockey.  All or nothing. 2. Go play at a prep school in the Northeast (or live in Minnesota and play public HS there) and then, while you are less likely to be drafted into the NHL, you can be recruited and committed to play in college (with a stop at junior hockey along the way). From there, you might hope to go to the NHL.  As you might expect, you are much more likely to have been drafted if you cut your teeth in the major Canadian junior leagues.  Many of those kids get drafted but it doesn't pan out and they just forget hockey and go on with their lives. And many of them are probably much better players than the kids who went to prep school and then college. If you choose the prep school>USHL>college path, you are much less likely to wind up in the NHL. College really was generally NOT seen as a path to the NHL. So kids valued the education much more and understood.  And like you said, if you had a Moulson on the team you did significantly better.

The biggest change - more than the transfer portal and the NIL stuff - is the change last fall to allow all of those major Canadian junior players to go to college.  I will tell you because I know this for a fact -since that change, 95%+ of all college commitments are coming from junior hockey.  So many coaches are actually waiting to see how kids develop and what they develop into before committing them.  It minimizes the chances of them signing a prep school kid who doesn't work out in juniors. That is the new pathway.  All the best college recruits now skip prep school and go straight to the OHL or the Q or the WHL.  So they are ready by the time they finish high school, AND the next logical step for them between juniors and the NHL is now college hockey for a year or two. And the college teams that can grab onto the Celebrinis and McKennas are going to have the best chances of winning THAT YEAR.  Once those guys are developed enough, they go to the NHL. Presumably by that time, they are significantly better players than the fourth year seniors they beat on their way to the dance.  And developing players at the NCAA level for four years does not provide them with the kind of development they generally need to jump to the NHL.  Like Castagna - he's as developed as he can be playing ECAC hockey, he needs the next step.  Walsh may or may not be in a similar position.

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 01:23:54 PMBL - there was no ad hominem there really. calling it "useless" was in making a point that it didn't matter what happened 25 years ago, because it's a completely different world. You've taken so many potshots at me over the years, that to get all huffy about something relatively innocuous now, is quite rich.

Also - the reason my response perhaps sounded aggressive to you, is because there's an implication in there that Mike Schafer was great at keeping players, and so far Casey is not. You have a subtle way of criticizing people and then claiming "no, I was just sayin'" - OK. Whatever. It's noticeable to me. Maybe I'm the crazy one.

But let's set aside, yet again, the latest spat.

If Cornell loses every player drafted in the 3rd round or higher after 3 years at best, your implication is that would be Casey's fault. And my point is, that leaves out other data points - such as, that this is broadly a whole new universe.

Also, again, acknowledge that the 2003 team had only one high draft pick - the goalie - and yet was the No. 1 overall seed. Thanks to - yes - the seniors, largely.  It's a broken record at this point to say that a) now is different, and b) those were lower-rounded guys.

You say it doesn't matter what round they're taken in once they're drafted. This is not historically true for a number of reasons

a) the NHL team values their higher picks more
b) by nature, the higher picks are better players than the lower picks, so as a data point, it would stand to reason they are more likely to leave. It should be telling that the only player from that team that did leave super-early was the 2nd round pick, and 3rd rounder Shane Hynes. None of the seniors, or Ryan Vesce or Matt Moulson, were in that boat.
c) While it has been a steady progression, 2003 to 2026 is, again, a different world. The CBA WAS indeed different then. Players weren't automatically leaving early out of NHL teams' fear they would become free agents. That wasn't a thing then.

As I said, the better comparison is Boston College's championship teams of 2006, 2008, 2012, etc... Tons of NHL guys that lasted 3+ years. That was considered the norm then, though there were high-profile exceptions. Nowadays, if a 1st rounder - even 2nd - lasts 3 years it's a miracle. There are many reasons for this, not just the CBA. Players are more NHL ready now. And so on.

So - maybe I just don't get the point you're trying to make. But them's the facts. Don't throw out "research" and not expect pushback that the analysis has tons of holes, and is implying something very misleading.

And maybe you can get more angst - or solace - out of this Part 2 of my report, about all the money.

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/03/31_CHN-Special-Report-Part-.php

This was the ad hominem: "Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?" Pretty textbook ad hom—-direct insult, does not engage with the argument whatsoever.

You're reading into my analysis something I never said. I'm under no impression that Casey could have prevented Castagna, Stanley, Bancroft, or Robertson from leaving. His teams have had far more turnover than Mike's historically, but I was never trying to make that point. I believe that's mostly a Cornell vs Clarkson thing than a Mike vs Casey thing. If I had replaced "Schafer" with "Cornell" in the original post, the same point would have stood. All I can say for certain is that Mike retained players. Too soon to say on Casey.

I'm a random dude on an Internet forum, spending an hour compiling a list, which I thought was interesting, then offering my opinion on it. The main conclusion is that historically Cornell has retained players four years, even those who had great junior years. It's really not more complicated than that.

I agree that the round in which a draft pick was selected is a signal as to how good that player is, but (1) once that player is in the system, the round is no longer relevant (see, e.g., Walsh being the most sought after draft pick last season), (2) there's really not a whole lot of difference between a mid- and late-round draft pick, and most importantly (3) even if you adjust by draft pick, it doesn't change the conclusion that recent turnover is atypical.

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 09:30:38 PM... Once a team has the rights to a player, it really doesn't matter in what round that player was taken. Jonathan Castagna is the exact same player whether he was taken in the third or the sixth round. ...

I don't think this is true at all. The higher draft pick is a higher investment. They are looking at more than just college production. The physical attributes that made a guy a higher pick probably also make him a higher signing priority. Not saying production doesn't matter or anything that extreme but I do think it's naive to think that the pros are indifferent to draft position once they hold the rights. They want a 7th rounder to impress them with production in college; they want the raw materials of the high pick to mold in their system. This remains true unless the high pick really shits the bed, gets hurt or doesn't fill out the way you expect the teenager to.

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 02:10:04 PM

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 09:30:38 PM... Once a team has the rights to a player, it really doesn't matter in what round that player was taken. Jonathan Castagna is the exact same player whether he was taken in the third or the sixth round. ...

I don't think this is true at all. The higher draft pick is a higher investment. They are looking at more than just college production. The physical attributes that made a guy a higher pick probably also make him a higher signing priority. Not saying production doesn't matter or anything that extreme but I do think it's naive to think that the pros are indifferent to draft position once they hold the rights. They want a 7th rounder to impress them with production in college; they want the raw materials of the high pick to mold in their system. This remains true unless the high pick really shits the bed, gets hurt or doesn't fill out the way you expect the teenager to.

This is how rounds tend to look:
1st rounders: Should be an NHL player. Hopefully impact.
2nd rounders: Should be an NHL player. Probably a lower-tier one.
3rd rounders: You want these guys to develop into NHL players. More up in the air though.
4-7 are essentially lottery tickets. You're betting on certain aspects of a guy's game more than you are the whole package.
Of course, this does depend - guys drop in the draft all the time, whether because they're short, or hurt, or Russian, or whatever else. Some guys break out only after being drafted, too. But if you mess around with PuckPedia's draft pick value calculators, anything after the third is a lottery ball, and even the third can be.

Also, the difference between 32nd overall (1st round) and 33rd overall (2nd round) is a lot smaller than people seem to think.

One more thing I'll mention is this - Castagna went straight from prep school to the NCAA. That will not happen anymore. Even guys in the BCHL, AJHL, NAHL, the like - will have vastly reduced opportunities at the college hockey level, in part because Canadians can now go through the CHL to the NCAA, in part because the USHL is becoming a lot better as well. This changes the recruiting landscape significantly. Your connection with the coach of the Victoria Grizzlies (hi, Hiscock and Pirtle) now means a lot less.

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 01:33:40 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 11:55:07 AMWhich is to say, is it any more likely now that a given draft pick goes pro sooner now than before? I doubt it. Nobody has put forth any causal mechanism for why that would be. The CBA hasn't changed, NHL contracts haven't changed.

I see no reason why we should expect our draft picks to go pro more quickly. The personal calculus of a Castagna or a Stanley hasn't changed.

What's happening at Penn State is not informative. There probably isn't a hockey school in the entire country more different from Cornell than PSU. Let's look at Harvard as a better analog. Harvard had three drafted seniors on their team this year. Last year, they had four. One of whom, Ian Moore, has played nearly this entire season in the NHL with Anaheim, the team that drafted him.

If you want to know why these discussions get irritating and go off the rails - look no further than ^

You just brought up the Harvard thing again. I specifically responded to that when you said about it the first time. Look at the individual cases of those players and why that was the case, compared to someone like Castagna and Stanley. You are cherry-picking there. I pointed that out before. I don't feel like doing it again right this second.

Stienberg had significant injury issues. As did some of those Harvard players.

But if you'd rather not cope about those players leaving, and get upset about it now, and forever in the future - then have a blast. Just don't expect anyone else to do so.

And you say there's no causal mechanism why things have changed. It depends on your time frame. You have thrown out data that goes back to 1999. What time period are you talking about? Because things have changed pretty significantly in that span, first with CBA changes, and then more recently with transfer portal, money, etc....

The empirical evidence is clear about drafted players leaving earlier, on the whole, than before. The reasons - you can call them "educatedly-speculative" if you want - I've put out there before in earlier messages. Judging from eyes and ears of what's been happening.

Stienburg was healthy and had a pro contract on the table at the end of his junior year. But you're right that this is cherry picking - and so is what you're doing. Citing Stienburg is cherry picking, Ian Moore is cherry picking, four guys on PSU leaving is cherry picking, BC stars leaving is cherry picking. I've yet to see an empirical analysis that shows draft picks leaving sooner.

And to be clear, I'm speaking only of guys jumping to the pros - for which NIL and the portal should not be a factor (actually, these things should, if anything, lead to more guys remaining in school).

Back to Cornell for a second, since you asked about timeframes: excluding the pandemic, between 2014 and 2025 Cornell had only ONE player leave early - Angello. You can throw Barron in there too if you'd like, though that's not conclusive.

I don't have much appetite to continue this argument, but I think it's pretty clear Cornell has traditionally retained players four years, including in recent history, until now. Losing Castagna was to be expected, but there is nothing that changed in the world of college hockey that should lead us to expect to lose a player like Stanley (and probably soon Fegaras). No offense to him, but I don't see any NHL career in his future. We all expected him back, so it's pretty funny that suddenly everyone is on the "this is to be expected, draft picks stay 2-3 years now" bandwagon.

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 02:10:04 PM

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 09:30:38 PM... Once a team has the rights to a player, it really doesn't matter in what round that player was taken. Jonathan Castagna is the exact same player whether he was taken in the third or the sixth round. ...

I don't think this is true at all. The higher draft pick is a higher investment. They are looking at more than just college production. The physical attributes that made a guy a higher pick probably also make him a higher signing priority. Not saying production doesn't matter or anything that extreme but I do think it's naive to think that the pros are indifferent to draft position once they hold the rights. They want a 7th rounder to impress them with production in college; they want the raw materials of the high pick to mold in their system. This remains true unless the high pick really shits the bed, gets hurt or doesn't fill out the way you expect the teenager to.

Sounds like sunk cost fallacy. NHL teams are smart enough reevaluate and update their beliefs based on how guys perform, without leaning much at all on draft round. If we were discussing first rounders I'd agree with you, but once you're into the middle rounds that all goes out the window. Btw, Castagna WAS a raw materials pick. Drafted straight out of high school, had great size and a fantastic combine.

Quote from: scoop85 on April 01, 2026, 02:06:16 PM100% agree on the balance of that '03 team, and the GRIT they had.
From my own observation and vibes, I really thought that the passing speed and accuracy was so much better this season, and last, than in previous Schafer years. I used to scratch my head (and scream) about how lousy our passing always seemed compared to other elite teams we'd play against. Probably just my own POV/Bias.

I agree with your observation except, sadly, the last 2 games our passing largely went off the rails for whatever reason.

Yes, the wheels came off the last two games, for sure.

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 02:28:18 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 01:33:40 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 11:55:07 AMWhich is to say, is it any more likely now that a given draft pick goes pro sooner now than before? I doubt it. Nobody has put forth any causal mechanism for why that would be. The CBA hasn't changed, NHL contracts haven't changed.

I see no reason why we should expect our draft picks to go pro more quickly. The personal calculus of a Castagna or a Stanley hasn't changed.

What's happening at Penn State is not informative. There probably isn't a hockey school in the entire country more different from Cornell than PSU. Let's look at Harvard as a better analog. Harvard had three drafted seniors on their team this year. Last year, they had four. One of whom, Ian Moore, has played nearly this entire season in the NHL with Anaheim, the team that drafted him.

If you want to know why these discussions get irritating and go off the rails - look no further than ^

You just brought up the Harvard thing again. I specifically responded to that when you said about it the first time. Look at the individual cases of those players and why that was the case, compared to someone like Castagna and Stanley. You are cherry-picking there. I pointed that out before. I don't feel like doing it again right this second.

Stienberg had significant injury issues. As did some of those Harvard players.

But if you'd rather not cope about those players leaving, and get upset about it now, and forever in the future - then have a blast. Just don't expect anyone else to do so.

And you say there's no causal mechanism why things have changed. It depends on your time frame. You have thrown out data that goes back to 1999. What time period are you talking about? Because things have changed pretty significantly in that span, first with CBA changes, and then more recently with transfer portal, money, etc....

The empirical evidence is clear about drafted players leaving earlier, on the whole, than before. The reasons - you can call them "educatedly-speculative" if you want - I've put out there before in earlier messages. Judging from eyes and ears of what's been happening.

Stienburg was healthy and had a pro contract on the table at the end of his junior year. But you're right that this is cherry picking - and so is what you're doing. Citing Stienburg is cherry picking, Ian Moore is cherry picking, four guys on PSU leaving is cherry picking, BC stars leaving is cherry picking. I've yet to see an empirical analysis that shows draft picks leaving sooner.

And to be clear, I'm speaking only of guys jumping to the pros - for which NIL and the portal should not be a factor (actually, these things should, if anything, lead to more guys remaining in school).

Back to Cornell for a second, since you asked about timeframes: excluding the pandemic, between 2014 and 2025 Cornell had only ONE player leave early - Angello. You can throw Barron in there too if you'd like, though that's not conclusive.

I don't have much appetite to continue this argument, but I think it's pretty clear Cornell has traditionally retained players four years, including in recent history, until now. Losing Castagna was to be expected, but there is nothing that changed in the world of college hockey that should lead us to expect to lose a player like Stanley (and probably soon Fegaras). No offense to him, but I don't see any NHL career in his future. We all expected him back, so it's pretty funny that suddenly everyone is on the "this is to be expected, draft picks stay 2-3 years now" bandwagon.

I dont think it's a "draft picks will leave" thing. I think it's an analysis to be made:  by the time you are 18, you have a pretty good sense of whether or not you have a shot to play in the NHL, be an impact player in there NHL, or if you're probably looking at college hockey and thats it.  of course nothing is final.  Of course Castagna left.  Makes all the sense in the world, and there are going to be guys like Stanley and Bancroft (though not a draftee) who leave and you're like why?  Those are the guys you actually need to convince to stay because for them the AHL is probably NOT a better option.  By the same token, given the pathway now, let's say you have an opportunity to sign a kid who is now 17 but projected to be the #1 pick in 2027 to come play at Cornell next year.  You have a sense that he will come here and light it up if not in year 1, the in year 2, after which point he will leave.  That said, he will be one of the best 18-19 year olds on the planet at that point.  Does Cornell find a way to get that kid, and is that worth doing?  No matter how you feel about Quinnipiac and about Ethan Wyttenbach's overall game, he is a HUGE reason that team did anything this year.  Calgary is not gonna sign him so he'll be back, but he would bail if he could.  (he is different because he was drafted in a later round and this was not expected).  But the small group of the most skilled 18 and `19 year olds who can dominate at this level on their way to the NHL (and Castagna is outside that group, but not far) are the ones who push the team over the top.  Yes, they've made the tournament 4 years running and that is awesome, and they've pulled off some great early upsets, but for our team to win, they have to go on a run with a hot goaltender and everyone firing on all cylinders.

Quote from: Pghas on April 01, 2026, 02:58:00 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 02:28:18 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 01:33:40 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 11:55:07 AMWhich is to say, is it any more likely now that a given draft pick goes pro sooner now than before? I doubt it. Nobody has put forth any causal mechanism for why that would be. The CBA hasn't changed, NHL contracts haven't changed.

I see no reason why we should expect our draft picks to go pro more quickly. The personal calculus of a Castagna or a Stanley hasn't changed.

What's happening at Penn State is not informative. There probably isn't a hockey school in the entire country more different from Cornell than PSU. Let's look at Harvard as a better analog. Harvard had three drafted seniors on their team this year. Last year, they had four. One of whom, Ian Moore, has played nearly this entire season in the NHL with Anaheim, the team that drafted him.

If you want to know why these discussions get irritating and go off the rails - look no further than ^

You just brought up the Harvard thing again. I specifically responded to that when you said about it the first time. Look at the individual cases of those players and why that was the case, compared to someone like Castagna and Stanley. You are cherry-picking there. I pointed that out before. I don't feel like doing it again right this second.

Stienberg had significant injury issues. As did some of those Harvard players.

But if you'd rather not cope about those players leaving, and get upset about it now, and forever in the future - then have a blast. Just don't expect anyone else to do so.

And you say there's no causal mechanism why things have changed. It depends on your time frame. You have thrown out data that goes back to 1999. What time period are you talking about? Because things have changed pretty significantly in that span, first with CBA changes, and then more recently with transfer portal, money, etc....

The empirical evidence is clear about drafted players leaving earlier, on the whole, than before. The reasons - you can call them "educatedly-speculative" if you want - I've put out there before in earlier messages. Judging from eyes and ears of what's been happening.

Stienburg was healthy and had a pro contract on the table at the end of his junior year. But you're right that this is cherry picking - and so is what you're doing. Citing Stienburg is cherry picking, Ian Moore is cherry picking, four guys on PSU leaving is cherry picking, BC stars leaving is cherry picking. I've yet to see an empirical analysis that shows draft picks leaving sooner.

And to be clear, I'm speaking only of guys jumping to the pros - for which NIL and the portal should not be a factor (actually, these things should, if anything, lead to more guys remaining in school).

Back to Cornell for a second, since you asked about timeframes: excluding the pandemic, between 2014 and 2025 Cornell had only ONE player leave early - Angello. You can throw Barron in there too if you'd like, though that's not conclusive.

I don't have much appetite to continue this argument, but I think it's pretty clear Cornell has traditionally retained players four years, including in recent history, until now. Losing Castagna was to be expected, but there is nothing that changed in the world of college hockey that should lead us to expect to lose a player like Stanley (and probably soon Fegaras). No offense to him, but I don't see any NHL career in his future. We all expected him back, so it's pretty funny that suddenly everyone is on the "this is to be expected, draft picks stay 2-3 years now" bandwagon.

I dont think it's a "draft picks will leave" thing. I think it's an analysis to be made:  by the time you are 18, you have a pretty good sense of whether or not you have a shot to play in the NHL, be an impact player in there NHL, or if you're probably looking at college hockey and thats it.  of course nothing is final.  Of course Castagna left.  Makes all the sense in the world, and there are going to be guys like Stanley and Bancroft (though not a draftee) who leave and you're like why?  Those are the guys you actually need to convince to stay because for them the AHL is probably NOT a better option.  By the same token, given the pathway now, let's say you have an opportunity to sign a kid who is now 17 but projected to be the #1 pick in 2027 to come play at Cornell next year.  You have a sense that he will come here and light it up if not in year 1, the in year 2, after which point he will leave.  That said, he will be one of the best 18-19 year olds on the planet at that point.  Does Cornell find a way to get that kid, and is that worth doing?  No matter how you feel about Quinnipiac and about Ethan Wyttenbach's overall game, he is a HUGE reason that team did anything this year.  Calgary is not gonna sign him so he'll be back, but he would bail if he could.  (he is different because he was drafted in a later round and this was not expected).  But the small group of the most skilled 18 and `19 year olds who can dominate at this level on their way to the NHL (and Castagna is outside that group, but not far) are the ones who push the team over the top.  Yes, they've made the tournament 4 years running and that is awesome, and they've pulled off some great early upsets, but for our team to win, they have to go on a run with a hot goaltender and everyone firing on all cylinders.

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

As to the hypothetical about the #1 pick - Cornell (also Quinnipiac) is totally noncompetitive for such a player and does not even attempt to recruit him.

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 02:08:59 PMThis was the ad hominem: "Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?" Pretty textbook ad hom—-direct insult, does not engage with the argument whatsoever.

Criticism of your analytical skills and your ability to take multiple, potentially contradictory factors into account when addressing other people's points, especially factors that seem obviously at odds with your expressed opinions, is absolutely not ad hominem. Saying that you're stupid and you fart a lot while addressing other people's points so your arguments are automatically invalid would be ad hominem.

Quote from: Beeeej on April 01, 2026, 03:04:47 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 02:08:59 PMThis was the ad hominem: "Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?" Pretty textbook ad hom—-direct insult, does not engage with the argument whatsoever.

Criticism of your analytical skills and your ability to take multiple, potentially contradictory factors into account when addressing other people's points, especially factors that seem obviously at odds with your expressed opinions, is absolutely not ad hominem. Saying that you're stupid and you fart a lot while addressing other people's points so your arguments are automatically invalid would be ad hominem.

No lol, both are very clearly ad hominem.

"An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy where a person ignores an argument and instead attacks the character, motive, or attributes of the person making it."

It's literally the textbook definition. If the analysis is flawed, then show why. Don't insult the analytical skills of the arguer. This is grade school-level stuff.

the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing nerds ad hom was a fallacy

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:10:00 PM

Quote from: Beeeej on April 01, 2026, 03:04:47 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 02:08:59 PMThis was the ad hominem: "Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?" Pretty textbook ad hom—-direct insult, does not engage with the argument whatsoever.

Criticism of your analytical skills and your ability to take multiple, potentially contradictory factors into account when addressing other people's points, especially factors that seem obviously at odds with your expressed opinions, is absolutely not ad hominem. Saying that you're stupid and you fart a lot while addressing other people's points so your arguments are automatically invalid would be ad hominem.

No lol, both are very clearly ad hominem.

"An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy where a person ignores an argument and instead attacks the character, motive, or attributes of the person making it."

It's literally the textbook definition. If the analysis is flawed, then show why. Don't insult the analytical skills of the arguer. This is grade school-level stuff.

Incorrect. By "attribute" they mean things like your obesity or your snoring; ad hominem attacks are generally personal insults. The "attribute" being attacked here is literally the capacity to back up your arguments while not ignoring others' points, not a personal insult. Pointing out holes in your argument, however snarkily it was done, is the very antithesis of ad hominem.

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

As to the hypothetical about the #1 pick - Cornell (also Quinnipiac) is totally noncompetitive for such a player and does not even attempt to recruit him.

Exactly.  And so the question becomes, does going down that path over the next few years make sense and if so, should they?  OR should they take advantage of the transfer portal, where someone who is both talented but disgruntled (perhaps about being displaced by said hypothetical #1 pick) would welcome the opportunity (and be duly loyal) to come to Cornell and be a part of building something, and would that something be able to finish the job?

Quote from: Beeeej on April 01, 2026, 03:27:30 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:10:00 PM

Quote from: Beeeej on April 01, 2026, 03:04:47 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 02:08:59 PMThis was the ad hominem: "Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?" Pretty textbook ad hom—-direct insult, does not engage with the argument whatsoever.

Criticism of your analytical skills and your ability to take multiple, potentially contradictory factors into account when addressing other people's points, especially factors that seem obviously at odds with your expressed opinions, is absolutely not ad hominem. Saying that you're stupid and you fart a lot while addressing other people's points so your arguments are automatically invalid would be ad hominem.

No lol, both are very clearly ad hominem.

"An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy where a person ignores an argument and instead attacks the character, motive, or attributes of the person making it."

It's literally the textbook definition. If the analysis is flawed, then show why. Don't insult the analytical skills of the arguer. This is grade school-level stuff.

Incorrect. By "attribute" they mean things like your obesity or your snoring; ad hominem attacks are generally personal insults. The "attribute" being attacked here is literally the capacity to back up your arguments while not ignoring others' points, not a personal insult. Pointing out holes in your argument, however snarkily it was done, is the very antithesis of ad hominem.

No. It is true that "pointing our holes in your argument" is not ad hominem. However, that's not what adamw did. He said: "Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?" This does not engage with the current argument at all and certainly does not point out any holes in it. The "attribute" here is my capacity for "humble, sober analysis" (sarcasm) that I've purportedly shown in past arguments. This is very clearly an insult not at all tied to pointing out the holes in my current argument.

Moreover, even if his post did engage with my argument, that would not eliminate the capacity for ad hominem. For example, if I told you: "you are extremely stupid and a flawed debater because your argument fails for reasons X, Y, and Z," what I said would still be ad hominem even if it also contains elements that are not ad hominem.

hey anyone want some half finished poetry i wrote in my head caught in a thunderstorm in cortland waiting for the bus, or are we just gonna talk in circles about debate 101 all day?

Quote from: stereax on April 01, 2026, 03:42:17 PMhey anyone want some half finished poetry i wrote in my head caught in a thunderstorm in cortland waiting for the bus, or are we just gonna talk in circles about debate 101 all day?

I vote for the poem.

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

You want sober empirical analysis? Go for it. When it comes, however, don't expect me not to point out the numerous holes in your theoretically "fully objective" analysis. My "analysis" never does satisfy your desire for some Empirical God to come down from the sky with all the numbers, flow charts and receipts enough to satisfy your thirst for information.  I suspect, however, that nothing would ever satisfy you.

So I'm comfortable with my analysis, based on what I know, which seems fairly apparently to me, given that I watch what's going on with every team, every year, for 30 years. And you can rely upon your analysis, and be worried and upset.  And I'll continue to point out what I know.  And you can point out your analysis.  And we can argue forever.

Beeej is the lawyer - and editor - so I let him decide what ad hominem is. I only know Ralph Kramden "homina, homina, homina"

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 04:42:18 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or later to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

Quote from: stereax on April 01, 2026, 03:42:17 PMhey anyone want some half finished poetry i wrote in my head caught in a thunderstorm in cortland waiting for the bus, or are we just gonna talk in circles about debate 101 all day?

OMG I was just about to post something to deflect-as usual you beat me to it

Quote from: Pghas on April 01, 2026, 02:07:45 PM

Quote from: fastforward on March 31, 2026, 09:42:04 PMIf I was a hockey player hoping to make it to the show, and I had a chance to play at a college that was known for having players make it AND get an Ivy degree, I'd seriously want to come to Cornell.

To me, I'd take a great player for 3 good years over none at all.

Just my opinion

Of course.  But I think college hockey is fundamentally very different right now than it was even 5 years ago.

Five years ago:  You're an American or Canadian Kid growing up playing hockey.  You're a great player.  You want to go as far as hockey can take you. And let's be clear:  Hockey is the priority.  Getting an education is nice, but this isn't 1987 where you are using your hockey skills to get yourself into Cornell.  Your goal is to play as much hockey for as long as you can.  Your choices are: 1. Go play junior hockey as a teenager in Canada and hope to be drafted into the NHL, BUT you then are not allowed to play college hockey.  All or nothing. 2. Go play at a prep school in the Northeast (or live in Minnesota and play public HS there) and then, while you are less likely to be drafted into the NHL, you can be recruited and committed to play in college (with a stop at junior hockey along the way). From there, you might hope to go to the NHL.  As you might expect, you are much more likely to have been drafted if you cut your teeth in the major Canadian junior leagues.  Many of those kids get drafted but it doesn't pan out and they just forget hockey and go on with their lives. And many of them are probably much better players than the kids who went to prep school and then college. If you choose the prep school>USHL>college path, you are much less likely to wind up in the NHL. College really was generally NOT seen as a path to the NHL. So kids valued the education much more and understood.  And like you said, if you had a Moulson on the team you did significantly better.

The biggest change - more than the transfer portal and the NIL stuff - is the change last fall to allow all of those major Canadian junior players to go to college.  I will tell you because I know this for a fact -since that change, 95%+ of all college commitments are coming from junior hockey.  So many coaches are actually waiting to see how kids develop and what they develop into before committing them.  It minimizes the chances of them signing a prep school kid who doesn't work out in juniors. That is the new pathway.  All the best college recruits now skip prep school and go straight to the OHL or the Q or the WHL.  So they are ready by the time they finish high school, AND the next logical step for them between juniors and the NHL is now college hockey for a year or two. And the college teams that can grab onto the Celebrinis and McKennas are going to have the best chances of winning THAT YEAR.  Once those guys are developed enough, they go to the NHL. Presumably by that time, they are significantly better players than the fourth year seniors they beat on their way to the dance.  And developing players at the NCAA level for four years does not provide them with the kind of development they generally need to jump to the NHL.  Like Castagna - he's as developed as he can be playing ECAC hockey, he needs the next step.  Walsh may or may not be in a similar position.

Totally agree on your points!
My main point, which I probably didn't convey properly, is that people are griping about these guys leaving after junior year and basically "bailing" on the team. I can't begrudge them the opportunity and would be happy having them for 3 years before they go.

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 04:56:24 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 04:42:18 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (https://puckpedia.com/player/hoyt-stanley#:~:text=Hoyt%20Stanley%20is%20signed%20to,him%20a%20Restricted%20Free%20Agent.) (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Hmm. I thought I posted this but apparently did not.

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 02:35:57 PM

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 02:10:04 PMI don't think this is true at all. The higher draft pick is a higher investment...

Sounds like sunk cost fallacy. NHL teams are smart enough reevaluate and update their beliefs based on how guys perform, without leaning much at all on draft round. If we were discussing first rounders I'd agree with you, but once you're into the middle rounds that all goes out the window...

First, the sunk cost fallacy describes how people behave, not how economic models and beings of pure rationality are supposed to behave.

Second, the same attributes that make you a projectible high-round pick are probably still there 2-3 years later. Morgan Barron, for example, definitely outperformed his draft position and expectations (including at training camps) and nudged the Rangers towards yanking him out of school (regardless of COVID imo). If you take someone in a late round you're mostly only pulling them early if they develop on their own. If you take someone earlier you probably want to mold the clay.

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 05:14:23 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 04:56:24 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 04:42:18 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (https://puckpedia.com/player/hoyt-stanley#:~:text=Hoyt%20Stanley%20is%20signed%20to,him%20a%20Restricted%20Free%20Agent.) (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Yeah - Castagna got over $1 million a year for 3 years so chances are Calgary has him slotted into a middle 6 position at worst.  500k over 3 years is nice cheddar too and he can easily go back and finish his degree with $ in the bank.  So yeah he is just getting paid to walk away from a fourth year of Cornell hockey.

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 05:14:23 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 04:56:24 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 04:42:18 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (https://puckpedia.com/player/hoyt-stanley#:~:text=Hoyt%20Stanley%20is%20signed%20to,him%20a%20Restricted%20Free%20Agent.) (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Not really going off my own opinion - going mostly off buzz from scouts and publicly available reporting. For example, the Athletic's NHL prospect analyst Scott Wheeler listed Stanley as a "tier 3 prospect" and ranked him as the 10th best prospect in the Senators' 26th ranked farm system. Here's what Wheeler wrote a couple weeks ago:

10. Hoyt Stanley, RHD, 21, Cornell (No. 108, 2023)

Stanley was the best under-18 defenseman in the BCHL three seasons ago and earned a spot on the league's All-Rookie team after missing most of the prior season with a concussion. Then, as an 18-year-old freshman at Cornell, he looked like he belonged without standing out, which is kind of all you can hope for out of a player who has taken that path to playing college hockey (especially given his age at the time). He's now a junior, though, and his production hasn't taken a step despite expanded minutes — he averaged 20 per game last year and is up to 22 this year — and positive two-way results generally.

He's a long, mobile, pro-sized (6-3, 207 pounds) right-shot defenseman with impressive skating technique, enough ability to handle and maneuver with the puck on his stick, and a decent shot that I'd like to see him use more. He's still a little raw in some areas, but I expect him to blossom into a standout college defenseman as an upperclassman. He projects as an efficient, effective two-way D with some secondary puck-transporting elements, and I saw enough NHL potential to rank him No. 98 pre-draft (10 spots in front of where the Sens picked him) ahead of the draft. I'm not sure he has done enough to warrant an entry-level contract to this point, though, and while he's still young for a junior, the clock is now ticking.

Quote from: Pghas on April 01, 2026, 05:21:26 PM

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 05:14:23 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 04:56:24 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 04:42:18 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (https://puckpedia.com/player/hoyt-stanley#:~:text=Hoyt%20Stanley%20is%20signed%20to,him%20a%20Restricted%20Free%20Agent.) (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Yeah - Castagna got over $1 million a year for 3 years so chances are Calgary has him slotted into a middle 6 position at worst.  500k over 3 years is nice cheddar too and he can easily go back and finish his degree with $ in the bank.  So yeah he is just getting paid to walk away from a fourth year of Cornell hockey.

That assumes Castagna sticks in the NHL. If he ends up in the AHL, he makes a small fraction of that.

Quote from: Pghas on April 01, 2026, 05:21:26 PM

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 05:14:23 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 04:56:24 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 04:42:18 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (https://puckpedia.com/player/hoyt-stanley#:~:text=Hoyt%20Stanley%20is%20signed%20to,him%20a%20Restricted%20Free%20Agent.) (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Yeah - Castagna got over $1 million a year for 3 years so chances are Calgary has him slotted into a middle 6 position at worst.  500k over 3 years is nice cheddar too and he can easily go back and finish his degree with $ in the bank.  So yeah he is just getting paid to walk away from a fourth year of Cornell hockey.

Those numbers are standard ELC money and don't necessarily mean Calgary has him slotted anywhere, but yeah - very possible he's going to be a middle-six C with the Flames to start next year, if only for Calgary to see what they have.

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 05:23:03 PM

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 05:14:23 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 04:56:24 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 04:42:18 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (https://puckpedia.com/player/hoyt-stanley#:~:text=Hoyt%20Stanley%20is%20signed%20to,him%20a%20Restricted%20Free%20Agent.) (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Not really going off my own opinion - going mostly off buzz from scouts and publicly available reporting. For example, the Athletic's NHL prospect analyst Scott Wheeler listed Stanley as a "tier 3 prospect" ranked as the 10th best prospect in the Senators' 26th ranked farm system. Here's what Wheeler wrote a couple weeks ago:

10. Hoyt Stanley, RHD, 21, Cornell (No. 108, 2023)

Stanley was the best under-18 defenseman in the BCHL three seasons ago and earned a spot on the league's All-Rookie team after missing most of the prior season with a concussion. Then, as an 18-year-old freshman at Cornell, he looked like he belonged without standing out, which is kind of all you can hope for out of a player who has taken that path to playing college hockey (especially given his age at the time). He's now a junior, though, and his production hasn't taken a step despite expanded minutes — he averaged 20 per game last year and is up to 22 this year — and positive two-way results generally.

He's a long, mobile, pro-sized (6-3, 207 pounds) right-shot defenseman with impressive skating technique, enough ability to handle and maneuver with the puck on his stick, and a decent shot that I'd like to see him use more. He's still a little raw in some areas, but I expect him to blossom into a standout college defenseman as an upperclassman. He projects as an efficient, effective two-way D with some secondary puck-transporting elements, and I saw enough NHL potential to rank him No. 98 pre-draft (10 spots in front of where the Sens picked him) ahead of the draft. I'm not sure he has done enough to warrant an entry-level contract to this point, though, and while he's still young for a junior, the clock is now ticking.

every draft prospect guy fucking sucks at evaluation lmao, from my experience. a BUNCH of them mostly just go "points good".

anyway if they want Stanley as an upside bottom four minute muncher with a sneaky shot, I mean, that's what he is rn.

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 05:23:03 PMNot really going off my own opinion - going mostly off buzz from scouts and publicly available reporting. For example, the Athletic's NHL prospect analyst Scott Wheeler listed Stanley as a "tier 3 prospect" ranked as the 10th best prospect in the Senators' 26th ranked farm system. Here's what Wheeler wrote a couple weeks ago:...

appreciate this. but that makes it even more likely (imo) that if the Senators offer him the entry-level contract that Wheeler doesn't think he's quite earned, he takes it. You can finish your degree whenever but you're only 21 for a year.

fyi, i edited my post to add a response to something else while you were responding, in case you missed that.

Yeah - Castagna got over $1 million a year for 3 years so chances are Calgary has him slotted into a middle 6 position at worst.  500k over 3 years is nice cheddar too and he can easily go back and finish his degree with $ in the bank.  So yeah he is just getting paid to walk away from a fourth year of Cornell hockey.
[/quote]
That assumes Castagna sticks in the NHL. If he ends up in the AHL, he makes a small fraction of that.
[/quote]

Pghas meant the total 3 year contract not a single year. At a minimum, they both average $190k a year for three years. That's $570k over the 3 years of the contract if they don't play in the NHL.

Quote from: stereax on April 01, 2026, 05:31:13 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 05:23:03 PM

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 05:14:23 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 04:56:24 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 04:42:18 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (https://puckpedia.com/player/hoyt-stanley#:~:text=Hoyt%20Stanley%20is%20signed%20to,him%20a%20Restricted%20Free%20Agent.) (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Not really going off my own opinion - going mostly off buzz from scouts and publicly available reporting. For example, the Athletic's NHL prospect analyst Scott Wheeler listed Stanley as a "tier 3 prospect" ranked as the 10th best prospect in the Senators' 26th ranked farm system. Here's what Wheeler wrote a couple weeks ago:

10. Hoyt Stanley, RHD, 21, Cornell (No. 108, 2023)

Stanley was the best under-18 defenseman in the BCHL three seasons ago and earned a spot on the league's All-Rookie team after missing most of the prior season with a concussion. Then, as an 18-year-old freshman at Cornell, he looked like he belonged without standing out, which is kind of all you can hope for out of a player who has taken that path to playing college hockey (especially given his age at the time). He's now a junior, though, and his production hasn't taken a step despite expanded minutes — he averaged 20 per game last year and is up to 22 this year — and positive two-way results generally.

He's a long, mobile, pro-sized (6-3, 207 pounds) right-shot defenseman with impressive skating technique, enough ability to handle and maneuver with the puck on his stick, and a decent shot that I'd like to see him use more. He's still a little raw in some areas, but I expect him to blossom into a standout college defenseman as an upperclassman. He projects as an efficient, effective two-way D with some secondary puck-transporting elements, and I saw enough NHL potential to rank him No. 98 pre-draft (10 spots in front of where the Sens picked him) ahead of the draft. I'm not sure he has done enough to warrant an entry-level contract to this point, though, and while he's still young for a junior, the clock is now ticking.

every draft prospect guy fucking sucks at evaluation lmao, from my experience. a BUNCH of them mostly just go "points good".

anyway if they want Stanley as an upside bottom four minute muncher with a sneaky shot, I mean, that's what he is rn.

Tom Fitzgerald (thanks for catching that BL) goes "BIG good" and he's a (worthless) GM.

Quote from: tretiak on April 01, 2026, 05:34:53 PM

Quote from: stereax on April 01, 2026, 05:31:13 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 05:23:03 PM

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 05:14:23 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 04:56:24 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 04:42:18 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (https://puckpedia.com/player/hoyt-stanley#:~:text=Hoyt%20Stanley%20is%20signed%20to,him%20a%20Restricted%20Free%20Agent.) (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Not really going off my own opinion - going mostly off buzz from scouts and publicly available reporting. For example, the Athletic's NHL prospect analyst Scott Wheeler listed Stanley as a "tier 3 prospect" ranked as the 10th best prospect in the Senators' 26th ranked farm system. Here's what Wheeler wrote a couple weeks ago:

10. Hoyt Stanley, RHD, 21, Cornell (No. 108, 2023)

Stanley was the best under-18 defenseman in the BCHL three seasons ago and earned a spot on the league's All-Rookie team after missing most of the prior season with a concussion. Then, as an 18-year-old freshman at Cornell, he looked like he belonged without standing out, which is kind of all you can hope for out of a player who has taken that path to playing college hockey (especially given his age at the time). He's now a junior, though, and his production hasn't taken a step despite expanded minutes — he averaged 20 per game last year and is up to 22 this year — and positive two-way results generally.

He's a long, mobile, pro-sized (6-3, 207 pounds) right-shot defenseman with impressive skating technique, enough ability to handle and maneuver with the puck on his stick, and a decent shot that I'd like to see him use more. He's still a little raw in some areas, but I expect him to blossom into a standout college defenseman as an upperclassman. He projects as an efficient, effective two-way D with some secondary puck-transporting elements, and I saw enough NHL potential to rank him No. 98 pre-draft (10 spots in front of where the Sens picked him) ahead of the draft. I'm not sure he has done enough to warrant an entry-level contract to this point, though, and while he's still young for a junior, the clock is now ticking.

every draft prospect guy fucking sucks at evaluation lmao, from my experience. a BUNCH of them mostly just go "points good".

anyway if they want Stanley as an upside bottom four minute muncher with a sneaky shot, I mean, that's what he is rn.

Ray Shero goes "BIG good" and he's a (worthless) GM.

Ray Shero passed away last year, so I would say your post is in bad taste.

Quote from: tretiak on April 01, 2026, 05:33:45 PMPghas meant the total 3 year contract not a single year. At a minimum, they both average $190k a year for three years. That's $570k over the 3 years of the contract if they don't play in the NHL.

depends whicih part of the pghas post you mean. he mentioned both $1MM/yr (same as Stanley, based on NHL rostering) and the $570K bonus/AHL guarantees. BL was responding to the first part.

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 05:36:22 PMRay Shero passed away last year, so I would say your post is in bad taste.

come on man

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 05:36:22 PMRay Shero passed away last year, so I would say your post is in bad taste.

Got the wrong GM. Corrected.

Quote from: tretiak on April 01, 2026, 05:34:53 PM

Quote from: stereax on April 01, 2026, 05:31:13 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 05:23:03 PM

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 05:14:23 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 04:56:24 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 04:42:18 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (https://puckpedia.com/player/hoyt-stanley#:~:text=Hoyt%20Stanley%20is%20signed%20to,him%20a%20Restricted%20Free%20Agent.) (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Not really going off my own opinion - going mostly off buzz from scouts and publicly available reporting. For example, the Athletic's NHL prospect analyst Scott Wheeler listed Stanley as a "tier 3 prospect" ranked as the 10th best prospect in the Senators' 26th ranked farm system. Here's what Wheeler wrote a couple weeks ago:

10. Hoyt Stanley, RHD, 21, Cornell (No. 108, 2023)

Stanley was the best under-18 defenseman in the BCHL three seasons ago and earned a spot on the league's All-Rookie team after missing most of the prior season with a concussion. Then, as an 18-year-old freshman at Cornell, he looked like he belonged without standing out, which is kind of all you can hope for out of a player who has taken that path to playing college hockey (especially given his age at the time). He's now a junior, though, and his production hasn't taken a step despite expanded minutes — he averaged 20 per game last year and is up to 22 this year — and positive two-way results generally.

He's a long, mobile, pro-sized (6-3, 207 pounds) right-shot defenseman with impressive skating technique, enough ability to handle and maneuver with the puck on his stick, and a decent shot that I'd like to see him use more. He's still a little raw in some areas, but I expect him to blossom into a standout college defenseman as an upperclassman. He projects as an efficient, effective two-way D with some secondary puck-transporting elements, and I saw enough NHL potential to rank him No. 98 pre-draft (10 spots in front of where the Sens picked him) ahead of the draft. I'm not sure he has done enough to warrant an entry-level contract to this point, though, and while he's still young for a junior, the clock is now ticking.

every draft prospect guy fucking sucks at evaluation lmao, from my experience. a BUNCH of them mostly just go "points good".

anyway if they want Stanley as an upside bottom four minute muncher with a sneaky shot, I mean, that's what he is rn.

Tom Fitzgerald (thanks for catching that BL) goes "BIG good" and he's a (worthless) GM.

Absolutely fucking worthless. We could've had fucking Buium or Dickenson but noooo Silayev big.

Fml. I need to stop letting the Devils ruin my life.

Quote from: marty on April 01, 2026, 03:45:59 PM

Quote from: stereax on April 01, 2026, 03:42:17 PMhey anyone want some half finished poetry i wrote in my head caught in a thunderstorm in cortland waiting for the bus, or are we just gonna talk in circles about debate 101 all day?

I vote for the poem.

ask and you shall receive
(https://i.ibb.co/ZpcndqxP/Screenshot-2026-04-01-11-31-20-86-a1b1bbe5f63d5b96c1a0f87c197ebfae.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9kyFnQWL)
still VERY much a work in progress lol and not even done but. the first line came to me trudging through a Severe Thunderstorm Warning and trying to flag down a Centro Cortland lmao

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 05:14:23 PMbeings of pure rationality

Just say "Swedes."

the max contract two way deal is 850k-950 with 10% bonus.  Its not like there is much difference.  The big deal is that he signed a 3 yr deal so the team can spread it out for 3 yrs to sweeten the pot.

Quote from: stereax on April 01, 2026, 06:37:13 PM

Quote from: marty on April 01, 2026, 03:45:59 PM

Quote from: stereax on April 01, 2026, 03:42:17 PMhey anyone want some half finished poetry i wrote in my head caught in a thunderstorm in cortland waiting for the bus, or are we just gonna talk in circles about debate 101 all day?

I vote for the poem.

ask and you shall receive
(https://i.ibb.co/ZpcndqxP/Screenshot-2026-04-01-11-31-20-86-a1b1bbe5f63d5b96c1a0f87c197ebfae.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9kyFnQWL)
still VERY much a work in progress lol and not even done but. the first line came to me trudging through a Severe Thunderstorm Warning and trying to flag down a Centro Cortland lmao

Promising, but I feel like Jesus is more of a Rosé kind of guy.

Quote from: Snowball on April 01, 2026, 10:44:00 PM

Quote from: stereax on April 01, 2026, 06:37:13 PM

Quote from: marty on April 01, 2026, 03:45:59 PM

Quote from: stereax on April 01, 2026, 03:42:17 PMhey anyone want some half finished poetry i wrote in my head caught in a thunderstorm in cortland waiting for the bus, or are we just gonna talk in circles about debate 101 all day?

I vote for the poem.

ask and you shall receive
(https://i.ibb.co/ZpcndqxP/Screenshot-2026-04-01-11-31-20-86-a1b1bbe5f63d5b96c1a0f87c197ebfae.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9kyFnQWL)
still VERY much a work in progress lol and not even done but. the first line came to me trudging through a Severe Thunderstorm Warning and trying to flag down a Centro Cortland lmao

Promising, but I feel like Jesus is more of a Rosé kind of guy.

Vodka carries better imagery here - high alcohol content, easier to get drunk off, especially drinking from the bottle. Plus, it complements the image of a specifically bodega Jesus, getting shitfaced in the back of a store off cheap liquor that's dubiously even his and making passes at people. Wine would be more classical - rebirth, water into wine, miracles. Miracles are mundane now. This Jesus isn't a good person, he's an entitled dick like the rest of us lol. So he drinks vodka to get wasted and forget that he died for the world to turn into this.

Quote from: BearLover on March 31, 2026, 12:38:04 PMI looked at every draft pick of the Schafer era and noted their draft year, draft round, and whether they left early. I also indicated whether they had a strong junior season (i.e. there would have been strong desire for their drafting team to sign them after their junior year).

PLAYER, DRAFT YEAR, DRAFT ROUND, LEFT EARLY? STRONG JUNIOR YEAR?

• Jean-Marc Pelletier, 1997, 2nd round, left after 2 seasons, N/A [didn't get much playing time]
• Matt Underhill, 1999, 6th round, did not leave early, Yes (.928 sv%)
• Stephen Baby, 1999, 7th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Douglas Murray, 1999, 8th round, did not leave early, Yes (11 goals and point per game as a defenseman)
• Brian Mcmeekin, 1999, 9th round, did not leave early, No
• Matt Mcrae, 2000, 5th round, did not leave early, No
• Mark Mcrae, 2000, 9th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game as a defenseman)
• Mike Knoepfli, 2001, 9th round, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games as strong defensive forward)
• David LeNeveu, 2002, 2nd round, left after 2 seasons, N/A [.950 sv% year before he left]
• Dan Glover, 2002, 8th round, did not leave early, No
• Ryan O'Byrne, 2003, 3rd round, left after 3 seasons, Yes (7-6-13 as a defenseman, good at defending)
• Shane Hynes, 2003, 3rd round, left after 3 seasons, Yes (point per game)
• Byron Bitz, 2003, 4th round, did not leave early, Yes (almost a point per game and great defensive forward)
• Mark McCutcheon, 2003, 5th round, did not leave early, No
• Matt Moulson, 2003, 9th round, did not leave early, YES (dominant numbers, 22 goals)
• Ray Sawada, 2004, 2nd round, did not leave early, No (21 points in 32 games)
• John Gleed, 2004, 7th round, did not leave early, No
• Mitch Carefoot, 2005, 8th round, did not leave early, No
• Sasha Pokuluk, 2005, 1st round, left after 2 seasons, N/A [half a point per game as a big D]
• Colin Greening, 7th round, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Tony Romano, 2006, 6th round, went to CHL after one season, N/A [had a good freshman year numbers-wise]
• Justin Krueger, 2006, 7th round, did not leave early, No
• Riley Nash, 2007, 1st round, left after three years, N/A [great college player][a 1st rounder staying 3 years I consider equivalent to a later round pick staying 4 years]
• Braden Birch, 2008, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Sean Collins, 2008, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Nick D'Agostino, 2008, round 7, did not leave early, Yes (8 goals, 20 points as a defenseman)
• Kirill Gotovets, 2009, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Brian Ferlin, 2011, round 4, left after 3 seasons, Yes (point per game)
• Joel Lowry, 2011, round 5, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games; also had a very good sophomore year)
• Reece Willcox, 2012, round 5, did not leave early, No
• John McCarron, 2012, round 6, did not leave early, Yes (24 points in 32 games)
• Joakim Ryan, 2012, round 7, did not leave early, Yes (8 goals, 24 points as a defenseman)
• Matt Buckles, 2013, round 4, did not leave early, No
• Beau Starrett, 2014, round 3, did not leave early, No
• Anthony Angello, 2014, round 5, left after 3 seasons, Yes (13-13-26 in 33 games)
• Jared Fiegl, 2014, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Dwyer Tschantz, 2014, round 7, did not leave early, No
• Misha Song, 2015, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Matt Cairns, 2016, round 4, did not leave early, No
• Morgan Barron, 2017, round 6, UNKNOWN, Yes (point per game) [Barron was forced to sign due to COVID.]
• Alex Green, 2018, round 4, did not leave early, Yes (7-9-16 in 29 games as a defenseman, defensive defenseman of the year) [Note: Green did sign during the canceled 2021 season, but confirmed on the Big Red Hockeycast that he would have returned for his senior year if not for COVID wiping out the season]
• Matthew Stienburg, 2019, round 3, did not leave early, Yes (point per game)
• Jack Malone, 2019, round 6, did not leave early, No
• Justin Ertel, 2021, round 3, left for CHL after one season, N/A
• Hank Kempf, 2021, round 7, did not leave early, No

I marked in bold the early departures.
I marked in red the players who had strong junior seasons.
I crossed out players who left early for another league besides the pros, or who we cannot say would have gone pro due to COVID knocking out the season.

Analysis:
Cornell had 46 draft picks under Schafer.
I have chosen to exclude Riley Nash from this analysis because I don't think it would be fair to categorize him as either an early departure or a four-year player. He obviously wasn't a four-year player, but keeping a first round pick three years is way better than a program would typically hope for.
Out of 42 draft picks excluding R. Nash and those crossed out, 7 left early. (16.67%)
Out of 18 players who had strong junior seasons, 4 left before their senior year. (22%) Adding LeNeveu to that total (given he had an incredible sophomore season), 5/19 left. (26%)

Conclusions:
Under Schafer, Cornell did an incredible job retaining drafted players through their senior seasons. 16.67% early departures among drafted players is very low. Even more impressive, Cornell retained a huge majority of players who had strong sophomore/junior seasons. In many of these cases, the drafted players ended up signing with their drafting teams anyway. See, e.g., Murray, Moulson, Ryan, Greening, Stienburg, Bitz. And in each of these cases, the player got NHL time. This indicates that in many cases, a player staying four years was not due to their team not wanting them but rather a result of that player desiring to return to Cornell.

It is no surprise that the last three Ivies to make the Frozen Four - Cornell in '03, Yale in '13, and Harvard in '17 - were loaded with seniors who could have gone pro after their junior seasons but chose to return to college.

Unfortunately, this postseason we've already seen two juniors jump to the pros. This includes Hoyt Stanley, who seems like a longshot to have any kind of NHL career. This is an unfortunate development and very atypical in Cornell Hockey history. Going forward, if Cornell wants to compete with more talented programs, it will be critical that our best players stick it out for four years, as they mostly did for the past 30 seasons.

Correction: Pelletier left for the QMJHL, not pro hockey. That means only 6/42 draft picks under Schafer left early.

Quote from: Pghas on April 01, 2026, 03:34:59 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

As to the hypothetical about the #1 pick - Cornell (also Quinnipiac) is totally noncompetitive for such a player and does not even attempt to recruit him.

Exactly.  And so the question becomes, does going down that path over the next few years make sense and if so, should they?  OR should they take advantage of the transfer portal, where someone who is both talented but disgruntled (perhaps about being displaced by said hypothetical #1 pick) would welcome the opportunity (and be duly loyal) to come to Cornell and be a part of building something, and would that something be able to finish the job?

We need to be realistic about our limitations. We cannot go down the path of getting the McKennas, nor can we go down the path of bringing in a bunch of high-end transfers. These players do not want to play at an Ivy League school in the ECAC that does not offer scholarships. Any changes in philosophy will take place on the margins.

As far as how Cornell grows as a program, I'm not really sure at this point. The model has been to recruit very good, though not blue-chip, players who value an education, and develop them for four years. Stanley leaving is bearish. There's some BL catastrophizing going on here, but I really do think that if guys are leaving Cornell for a career in the AHL, then we're in trouble. Looking around the country, it's quite common for teams to retain a player of this caliber. We'd have been a top team in the country this season if we had Robertson and Bancroft back, and we'd be a top team next year if we had Castagna, Stanley, Walsh, and Fegaras back. If we want a legit chance at the Frozen Four, we need to get most of these players to stay. Beyond that, what else can we do? Casey is already recruiting the best player he can. The quality of talent coming in is pretty good. I suppose NIL is one path forward--we can't do real NIL, but some Penn basketball-style thing where we set players up with fancy internships sounds plausible and I understand Casey has already been looking into something like that.

The recruits in the pipeline look alright. But there is going to be a clear step down from the stacked 2023 recruiting class (Castagna, Walsh, Stanley, Fegaras, Robertson, Devlin, Kraft, Catalano).

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 05:14:23 PMHmm. I thought I posted this but apparently did not.

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 02:35:57 PM

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 02:10:04 PMI don't think this is true at all. The higher draft pick is a higher investment...

Sounds like sunk cost fallacy. NHL teams are smart enough reevaluate and update their beliefs based on how guys perform, without leaning much at all on draft round. If we were discussing first rounders I'd agree with you, but once you're into the middle rounds that all goes out the window...

First, the sunk cost fallacy describes how people behave, not how economic models and beings of pure rationality are supposed to behave.

Second, the same attributes that make you a projectible high-round pick are probably still there 2-3 years later. Morgan Barron, for example, definitely outperformed his draft position and expectations (including at training camps) and nudged the Rangers towards yanking him out of school (regardless of COVID imo). If you take someone in a late round you're mostly only pulling them early if they develop on their own. If you take someone earlier you probably want to mold the clay.

Right, I'm saying that you're ascribing sunk cost fallacy to NHL GMs, but I think they're smarter than that. I also think you're overstating the difference between a mid- and late-round draft pick. We're not talking about Macklin Celebrini here. Yes, draft round is a signal of how highly an NHL team values a player. It's not nothing. But I don't believe the Flames would view/treat Castagna any differently if he were drafted in the 6th round, or Walsh any differently if he were drafted in the 3rd round.

I suspect that given the accelerated movement across junior and college hockey that is impacting everyone, in the next few years that in attempt to stay nationally competitive and counteract early departures, we'll see Cornell taking in more transfers (see, i.e., Ashton and Fisher) and late recruits (see, i.e., Cornyoyer). But in the long run (and this is not profound wisdom), unless Cornell adopts some form of NIL program, likely along the lines of the Penn basketball paid internship model, it will be increasingly challenging for Cornell and the other Ivies to remain top tier D1 hockey programs.

Quote from: BearLover on April 02, 2026, 05:15:56 AM

Quote from: Pghas on April 01, 2026, 03:34:59 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

As to the hypothetical about the #1 pick - Cornell (also Quinnipiac) is totally noncompetitive for such a player and does not even attempt to recruit him.

Exactly.  And so the question becomes, does going down that path over the next few years make sense and if so, should they?  OR should they take advantage of the transfer portal, where someone who is both talented but disgruntled (perhaps about being displaced by said hypothetical #1 pick) would welcome the opportunity (and be duly loyal) to come to Cornell and be a part of building something, and would that something be able to finish the job?

We need to be realistic about our limitations. We cannot go down the path of getting the McKennas, nor can we go down the path of bringing in a bunch of high-end transfers. These players do not want to play at an Ivy League school in the ECAC that does not offer scholarships. Any changes in philosophy will take place on the margins.

As far as how Cornell grows as a program, I'm not really sure at this point. The model has been to recruit very good, though not blue-chip, players who value an education, and develop them for four years. Stanley leaving is bearish. There's some BL catastrophizing going on here, but I really do think that if guys are leaving Cornell for a career in the AHL, then we're in trouble. Looking around the country, it's quite common for teams to retain a player of this caliber. We'd have been a top team in the country this season if we had Robertson and Bancroft back, and we'd be a top team next year if we had Castagna, Stanley, Walsh, and Fegaras back. If we want a legit chance at the Frozen Four, we need to get most of these players to stay. Beyond that, what else can we do? Casey is already recruiting the best player he can. The quality of talent coming in is pretty good. I suppose NIL is one path forward--we can't do real NIL, but some Penn basketball-style thing where we set players up with fancy internships sounds plausible and I understand Casey has already been looking into something like that.

The recruits in the pipeline look alright. But there is going to be a clear step down from the stacked 2023 recruiting class (Castagna, Walsh, Stanley, Fegaras, Robertson, Devlin, Kraft, Catalano).

Yeah I hear you.  I dont think Stanley leaving is a catastrophe, I just look more at the results the last few years - which are certainly great ones - and can see that we could use a bit more high end elite skill to get up those last few steps.  That said, it may work out that the players we develop and have a few years of experience at this level will ultimately trump the programs that are relying on one-year lottery picks.  we will see.  Also having two sons who are Cornellians I know a bit about majors and the process  - I will say that the hardest undergraduate program to get admitted to at Cornell is the Dyson business program, and at least a few of the hockey players are actually in that program, which is a pretty big recruiting pull and also suggests what those guys' intentions may be (Walsh and Fegaras are both in that program, although they may have transferred into it) in terms of NOT only thinking about hockey. Irrespective of that, Cornell is so well-represented and networked in finance that hockey players coming out of here have fantastic opportunities and I am sure they play that up.  I wonder if they take advantage of Cayuga lake in the warmer months for recruiting purposes.

Quote from: BearLover on April 02, 2026, 05:45:53 AMRight, I'm saying that you're ascribing sunk cost fallacy to NHL GMs, but I think they're smarter than that. I also think you're overstating the difference between a mid- and late-round draft pick. We're not talking about Macklin Celebrini here. Yes, draft round is a signal of how highly an NHL team values a player. It's not nothing. But I don't believe the Flames would view/treat Castagna any differently if he were drafted in the 6th round, or Walsh any differently if he were drafted in the 3rd round.

First, I don't think they are much smarter than that. Very sophisticated systems chase sunk costs all the time. But second (and more importantly imo) I am also saying that draft position matters because the non-production aspects are baked into the earlier evaluation and remain a significant factor in how they see the players years later.

the one thing I'll say is if you ever hear a player referred to as a "former first-round pick" you know they suuuuck.

Not really sure what it would take to convince BL that the player movement, and departure, is so accelerated nowadays, that any comparison to even 5-10 years ago is meaningless - but - for the sake of everyone else ...

Today, Western Michigan lost two undrafted players and their fourth-round goaltender - all to early signings. Two of those were sophomores. This is so commonplace now, it's a yawn. I really don't have time to do deep dive on actual numbers right now - because it's not easy to do from a simple database search.

You know another way I know this? I used to write a little news blurb for every player that departed early, probably up until as recently as 4-5 years ago. Now, there are so many, and they happen so fast, I don't even bother.

Quote from: adamw on April 02, 2026, 03:49:09 PMNot really sure what it would take to convince BL that the player movement, and departure, is so accelerated nowadays, that any comparison to even 5-10 years ago is meaningless - but - for the sake of everyone else ...

Today, Western Michigan lost two undrafted players and their fourth-round goaltender - all to early signings. Two of those were sophomores. This is so commonplace now, it's a yawn. I really don't have time to do deep dive on actual numbers right now - because it's not easy to do from a simple database search.

You know another way I know this? I used to write a little news blurb for every player that departed early, probably up until as recently as 4-5 years ago. Now, there are so many, and they happen so fast, I don't even bother.

I get that it's commonplace, and I understand that it's becoming more commonplace. But the fact it's happening on a wide basis doesn't itself explain why e.g. Hoyt Stanley would make that decision--his individual calculus isn't any different than it would have been 5-10 years ago when we'd retain that type of player. These are highly personal decisions. Jackson LaCombe (high second round pick, now an NHL star) stayed at Minnesota all four years, after all.

I'm looking at it like this, basically: the last four years our season was ended by BU and Denver. How are we going to beat these teams and get to the Frozen Four? Well, we certainly can't out-recruit them. But we can out-retain them and beat them with experience. But if Cornell players are leaving early just like theirs--well, then we really have no chance at all.

Good grief!  Stanley realized a life-long dream to sign a pro contract.  That's all the calculus he needed.

"Your reach should exceed your grasp, or what's a heaven for."  Enough with the repetitive deep analysis  He's taking a shot at the prize. Good luck to him.

Yes, good for him. I am a fan of the Cornell hockey team, though.

Quote from: BearLover on April 02, 2026, 05:14:44 PMYes, good for him. I am a fan of the Cornell hockey team, though.

We all are here.  Stop your posturing

Quote from: BearLover on April 02, 2026, 05:01:22 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 02, 2026, 03:49:09 PMNot really sure what it would take to convince BL that the player movement, and departure, is so accelerated nowadays, that any comparison to even 5-10 years ago is meaningless - but - for the sake of everyone else ...

Today, Western Michigan lost two undrafted players and their fourth-round goaltender - all to early signings. Two of those were sophomores. This is so commonplace now, it's a yawn. I really don't have time to do deep dive on actual numbers right now - because it's not easy to do from a simple database search.

You know another way I know this? I used to write a little news blurb for every player that departed early, probably up until as recently as 4-5 years ago. Now, there are so many, and they happen so fast, I don't even bother.

I get that it's commonplace, and I understand that it's becoming more commonplace. But the fact it's happening on a wide basis doesn't itself explain why e.g. Hoyt Stanley would make that decision--his individual calculus isn't any different than it would have been 5-10 years ago when we'd retain that type of player. These are highly personal decisions. Jackson LaCombe (high second round pick, now an NHL star) stayed at Minnesota all four years, after all.

I'm looking at it like this, basically: the last four years our season was ended by BU and Denver. How are we going to beat these teams and get to the Frozen Four? Well, we certainly can't out-recruit them. But we can out-retain them and beat them with experience. But if Cornell players are leaving early just like theirs--well, then we really have no chance at all.

Don't disagree with any of that. I share the same concern/lament. I just disagree with comparing it to 25 or even 5 years ago, or implying that it's a trend, let alone one that's caused by the new coaching staff.  Not trying to be Casey's apologist for any of this.  I tell coaches this all the time - I don't defend you because I like you, I defend because I believe it.

So - I've laid out reasons why things are different today vs. a couple years ago - and while most of that can be dismissed as speculation, if you want, I think it's well-founded.

Obviously transferring is WAY easier now than before, right? So any comparison before two years ago is pretty much irrelevant.  Robertson left, and two transfers came in.  Both of these things were unheard of just a couple years ago. That has nothing to do with Cornell doing something wrong. You don't know if 100 players would've transferred out in Schafer's tenure if it were that easy. No way to know. But credit to Casey for being prepared to replace him. Not just with two transfers in, but in being ready to get Veilleux when that opportunity presented itself, and same with Cournoyer. I'd venture to say he's way more pro-active on all of this stuff now than the past staff, partially because you have to be, and partially because you can be.

We can't get inside Stanley's head to know for sure -- but circumstances have changed, even if it's just the "atmosphere" in college sports these days.  Coaches are doing so much more recruiting to cover their rear ends for anyone leaving, that it can create a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not saying that's the case here - I'm just giving one point to consider as a difference that explains things beyond "the coach is different." Maybe Ottawa wanted him more than other 4th rounders Cornell has had in the past. Could be a one off.

You're right on Lacombe. There are others. Dylan James this year. Etc... There will always be examples in the micro.  I am just referring to the macro atmosphere. I have no clue why Stanley made that decision. But usually, if an NHL team wants you after junior year, you go. That kind of pressure is very prevalent in college hockey these days. I don't think it's unusual. I don't think it should be a cause for worry beyond the usual worry.  And I think Casey and the staff are extremely prepared to adapt to it.

And Cornell has it a lot better off than Clarkson, St. Lawrence, Union, Colgate and RPI right now.

Quote from: Al DeFlorio on April 02, 2026, 05:10:33 PMGood grief!  Stanley realized a life-long dream to sign a pro contract.  That's all the calculus he needed.

"Your reach should exceed your grasp, or what's a heaven for."  Enough with the repetitive deep analysis  He's taking a shot at the prize. Good luck to him.

FWIW anyone want to see BLer's calculus credentials? Didn't he "proactively" stop arguing about this a few weeks ago after the horse had already been rendered into glue?

I can't wait to read the apoplectic tirades when Cournoyer signs or transfers next season.

Quote from: marty on April 02, 2026, 05:33:22 PM

Quote from: Al DeFlorio on April 02, 2026, 05:10:33 PMGood grief!  Stanley realized a life-long dream to sign a pro contract.  That's all the calculus he needed.

"Your reach should exceed your grasp, or what's a heaven for."  Enough with the repetitive deep analysis  He's taking a shot at the prize. Good luck to him.

FWIW anyone want to see BLer's calculus credentials? Didn't he "proactively" stop arguing about this a few weeks ago after the horse had already been rendered into glue?

Back by popular demand!

Quote from: BearLover on April 02, 2026, 05:01:22 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 02, 2026, 03:49:09 PMNot really sure what it would take to convince BL that the player movement, and departure, is so accelerated nowadays, that any comparison to even 5-10 years ago is meaningless - but - for the sake of everyone else ...

Today, Western Michigan lost two undrafted players and their fourth-round goaltender - all to early signings. Two of those were sophomores. This is so commonplace now, it's a yawn. I really don't have time to do deep dive on actual numbers right now - because it's not easy to do from a simple database search.

You know another way I know this? I used to write a little news blurb for every player that departed early, probably up until as recently as 4-5 years ago. Now, there are so many, and they happen so fast, I don't even bother.

I get that it's commonplace, and I understand that it's becoming more commonplace. But the fact it's happening on a wide basis doesn't itself explain why e.g. Hoyt Stanley would make that decision--his individual calculus isn't any different than it would have been 5-10 years ago when we'd retain that type of player. These are highly personal decisions. Jackson LaCombe (high second round pick, now an NHL star) stayed at Minnesota all four years, after all.

I'm looking at it like this, basically: the last four years our season was ended by BU and Denver. How are we going to beat these teams and get to the Frozen Four? Well, we certainly can't out-recruit them. But we can out-retain them and beat them with experience. But if Cornell players are leaving early just like theirs--well, then we really have no chance at all.

I mean that last paragraph is pretty much my point. Totally agree.  That's why I'm asking can we out-recruit them or out-retain them? And how? I don't think it's realistic to expect kids to say no to the NHL.  More on that later.

Quote from: The Rancor on April 02, 2026, 10:42:31 PMI can't wait to read the apoplectic tirades when Cournoyer signs or transfers next season.

Goalies are different and need a lot more time to develop. Plus the goalie room in MTL is stacked between Fowler, Dobes, and Montembeault. He almost certainly won't sign after his sophomore year. Transfers, who the hell knows anymore.

That being said, we do have Cirka recruited...

Quote from: adamw on April 02, 2026, 05:20:31 PMAnd Cornell has it a lot better off than Clarkson, St. Lawrence, Union, Colgate and RPI right now.

For sure. But the story of the last 30 years of Cornell Hockey is that we have been very good in conference and tantalizingly close to hanging with the blue bloods, but never getting there. So while I'm thankful we're not in the same boat as these other schools, I'm looking ahead of us more so than behind us. I'm focused on being ~competitive with BU and Denver, which seems possible based on recent history. How does the program get 5% better to bring us to that point? I do believe Casey is open to new ideas, and I know he's trying very hard. Of course, most improvements are going to happen on the margins - get one extra kid to stay his senior year, get one extra transfer, win a couple recruiting battles.

The blue chip CHL talent matriculating at the top schools these days is scary. Unclear yet how Cornell fits in. Cournoyer was a big win, but aside from him we've seemed pretty noncompetitive for kids looking to make an immediate jump to the NCAAs. 

Quote from: stereax on April 02, 2026, 11:58:20 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 02, 2026, 10:42:31 PMI can't wait to read the apoplectic tirades when Cournoyer signs or transfers next season.

Goalies are different and need a lot more time to develop. Plus the goalie room in MTL is stacked between Fowler, Dobes, and Montembeault. He almost certainly won't sign after his sophomore year. Transfers, who the hell knows anymore.

That being said, we do have Cirka recruited...

Yes, Cournoyer is extremely unlikely to sign after his sophomore year and there are obviously no indications he'll transfer, so that post was just trolling.

Quote from: BearLover on April 03, 2026, 12:56:23 AM

Quote from: stereax on April 02, 2026, 11:58:20 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 02, 2026, 10:42:31 PMI can't wait to read the apoplectic tirades when Cournoyer signs or transfers next season.

Goalies are different and need a lot more time to develop. Plus the goalie room in MTL is stacked between Fowler, Dobes, and Montembeault. He almost certainly won't sign after his sophomore year. Transfers, who the hell knows anymore.

That being said, we do have Cirka recruited...

Yes, Cournoyer is extremely unlikely to sign after his sophomore year and there are obviously no indications he'll transfer, so that post was just trolling.

I know it was a joke, I was just thinkin about it lol

Quote from: Pghas on April 02, 2026, 10:56:46 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 02, 2026, 05:01:22 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 02, 2026, 03:49:09 PMNot really sure what it would take to convince BL that the player movement, and departure, is so accelerated nowadays, that any comparison to even 5-10 years ago is meaningless - but - for the sake of everyone else ...

Today, Western Michigan lost two undrafted players and their fourth-round goaltender - all to early signings. Two of those were sophomores. This is so commonplace now, it's a yawn. I really don't have time to do deep dive on actual numbers right now - because it's not easy to do from a simple database search.

You know another way I know this? I used to write a little news blurb for every player that departed early, probably up until as recently as 4-5 years ago. Now, there are so many, and they happen so fast, I don't even bother.

I get that it's commonplace, and I understand that it's becoming more commonplace. But the fact it's happening on a wide basis doesn't itself explain why e.g. Hoyt Stanley would make that decision--his individual calculus isn't any different than it would have been 5-10 years ago when we'd retain that type of player. These are highly personal decisions. Jackson LaCombe (high second round pick, now an NHL star) stayed at Minnesota all four years, after all.

I'm looking at it like this, basically: the last four years our season was ended by BU and Denver. How are we going to beat these teams and get to the Frozen Four? Well, we certainly can't out-recruit them. But we can out-retain them and beat them with experience. But if Cornell players are leaving early just like theirs--well, then we really have no chance at all.

I mean that last paragraph is pretty much my point. Totally agree.  That's why I'm asking can we out-recruit them or out-retain them? And how? I don't think it's realistic to expect kids to say no to the NHL.  More on that later.

We can't out-recruit the blue bloods, or come close, but maybe we can inch a little closer? We've gotten some good talent lately, but the Denvers and BUs are getting even better talent than before so I'm not sure who has improved more on net.

Honestly, the ECAC has to get better as a conference. But that's looking bleak. The Ivies are doing alright at the moment but the other non-Q schools are getting picked apart in the transfer portal and in recruiting. It's not enough that Q is consistently good; the issue is that the bottom 6-8 teams are consistently very bad.

We can out-retain the blue bloods, or at least we have done so in the past. Again, not expecting to keep the Castagnas (likely NHL) four years but it will be key to keep the Stanleys (likely AHL).

Quote from: stereax on April 02, 2026, 11:58:20 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 02, 2026, 10:42:31 PMI can't wait to read the apoplectic tirades when Cournoyer signs or transfers next season.

Goalies are different and need a lot more time to develop. Plus the goalie room in MTL is stacked between Fowler, Dobes, and Montembeault. He almost certainly won't sign after his sophomore year. Transfers, who the hell knows anymore.

That being said, we do have Cirka recruited...

When they're stacked, he's expendable... trade-able. One bag of pucks and a salary dump and he's signing with a team that didn't draft him. LeNeveu went after his Sophomore year, and, honestly, if he puts up numbers again like he did this season, what more is there to prove at the NCAA level? I don't want to say Bon Voyage, but it isn't unrealistic, especially if we make a deep playoff run.

Quote from: BearLover on April 03, 2026, 01:04:05 AM

Quote from: Pghas on April 02, 2026, 10:56:46 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 02, 2026, 05:01:22 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 02, 2026, 03:49:09 PMNot really sure what it would take to convince BL that the player movement, and departure, is so accelerated nowadays, that any comparison to even 5-10 years ago is meaningless - but - for the sake of everyone else ...

Today, Western Michigan lost two undrafted players and their fourth-round goaltender - all to early signings. Two of those were sophomores. This is so commonplace now, it's a yawn. I really don't have time to do deep dive on actual numbers right now - because it's not easy to do from a simple database search.

You know another way I know this? I used to write a little news blurb for every player that departed early, probably up until as recently as 4-5 years ago. Now, there are so many, and they happen so fast, I don't even bother.

I get that it's commonplace, and I understand that it's becoming more commonplace. But the fact it's happening on a wide basis doesn't itself explain why e.g. Hoyt Stanley would make that decision--his individual calculus isn't any different than it would have been 5-10 years ago when we'd retain that type of player. These are highly personal decisions. Jackson LaCombe (high second round pick, now an NHL star) stayed at Minnesota all four years, after all.

I'm looking at it like this, basically: the last four years our season was ended by BU and Denver. How are we going to beat these teams and get to the Frozen Four? Well, we certainly can't out-recruit them. But we can out-retain them and beat them with experience. But if Cornell players are leaving early just like theirs--well, then we really have no chance at all.

I mean that last paragraph is pretty much my point. Totally agree.  That's why I'm asking can we out-recruit them or out-retain them? And how? I don't think it's realistic to expect kids to say no to the NHL.  More on that later.

We can't out-recruit the blue bloods, or come close, but maybe we can inch a little closer? We've gotten some good talent lately, but the Denvers and BUs are getting even better talent than before so I'm not sure who has improved more on net.

Honestly, the ECAC has to get better as a conference. But that's looking bleak. The Ivies are doing alright at the moment but the other non-Q schools are getting picked apart in the transfer portal and in recruiting. It's not enough that Q is consistently good; the issue is that the bottom 6-8 teams are consistently very bad.

We can out-retain the blue bloods, or at least we have done so in the past. Again, not expecting to keep the Castagnas (likely NHL) four years but it will be key to keep the Stanleys (likely AHL).

If it makes you feel any better, the ECAC was in pretty bad shape circa 2003 when Cornell last made the FF. I don't know what that means, but just sayin'.

As for getting high-end CHL jumpers to NCAA ... this is one area where Cornell may be a bit hamstrung, unfortunately. See article and previous comments here where the admissions cutoff was discussed. Many CHL players don't want to discuss or commit until after their seasons are over, so as not to offend their CHL teams. But those seasons end after the Ivy cutoff.

Quote from: The Rancor on April 03, 2026, 11:03:45 AM

Quote from: stereax on April 02, 2026, 11:58:20 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 02, 2026, 10:42:31 PMI can't wait to read the apoplectic tirades when Cournoyer signs or transfers next season.

Goalies are different and need a lot more time to develop. Plus the goalie room in MTL is stacked between Fowler, Dobes, and Montembeault. He almost certainly won't sign after his sophomore year. Transfers, who the hell knows anymore.

That being said, we do have Cirka recruited...

When they're stacked, he's expendable... trade-able. One bag of pucks and a salary dump and he's signing with a team that didn't draft him. LeNeveu went after his Sophomore year, and, honestly, if he puts up numbers again like he did this season, what more is there to prove at the NCAA level? I don't want to say Bon Voyage, but it isn't unrealistic, especially if we make a deep playoff run.

Notably, our prior two starting goalies, Galajda and Shane, had much better freshman year numbers than Cournoyer.

Both undrafted.

Quote from: The Rancor on April 03, 2026, 11:03:45 AM

Quote from: stereax on April 02, 2026, 11:58:20 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 02, 2026, 10:42:31 PMI can't wait to read the apoplectic tirades when Cournoyer signs or transfers next season.

Goalies are different and need a lot more time to develop. Plus the goalie room in MTL is stacked between Fowler, Dobes, and Montembeault. He almost certainly won't sign after his sophomore year. Transfers, who the hell knows anymore.

That being said, we do have Cirka recruited...

When they're stacked, he's expendable... trade-able. One bag of pucks and a salary dump and he's signing with a team that didn't draft him. LeNeveu went after his Sophomore year, and, honestly, if he puts up numbers again like he did this season, what more is there to prove at the NCAA level? I don't want to say Bon Voyage, but it isn't unrealistic, especially if we make a deep playoff run.

He's also a goalie lol

Quote from: stereax on April 03, 2026, 12:33:40 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 03, 2026, 11:03:45 AM

Quote from: stereax on April 02, 2026, 11:58:20 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 02, 2026, 10:42:31 PMI can't wait to read the apoplectic tirades when Cournoyer signs or transfers next season.

Goalies are different and need a lot more time to develop. Plus the goalie room in MTL is stacked between Fowler, Dobes, and Montembeault. He almost certainly won't sign after his sophomore year. Transfers, who the hell knows anymore.

That being said, we do have Cirka recruited...

When they're stacked, he's expendable... trade-able. One bag of pucks and a salary dump and he's signing with a team that didn't draft him. LeNeveu went after his Sophomore year, and, honestly, if he puts up numbers again like he did this season, what more is there to prove at the NCAA level? I don't want to say Bon Voyage, but it isn't unrealistic, especially if we make a deep playoff run.

He's also a goalie lol

Yegorov went from freshman cheat code to sophomore scapegoat. Even Augustine stayed 3 years. I think UDFA goalies are more likely to leave early after a hot year than those drafted after the 2nd round.

I can't remember which analytics person said it, but the NHL market inefficiency is undersized defensemen and goalies. Maybe that's the recruiting trick to get a veteran team.

Quote from: tretiak on April 03, 2026, 02:19:14 PM

Quote from: stereax on April 03, 2026, 12:33:40 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 03, 2026, 11:03:45 AM

Quote from: stereax on April 02, 2026, 11:58:20 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 02, 2026, 10:42:31 PMI can't wait to read the apoplectic tirades when Cournoyer signs or transfers next season.

Goalies are different and need a lot more time to develop. Plus the goalie room in MTL is stacked between Fowler, Dobes, and Montembeault. He almost certainly won't sign after his sophomore year. Transfers, who the hell knows anymore.

That being said, we do have Cirka recruited...

When they're stacked, he's expendable... trade-able. One bag of pucks and a salary dump and he's signing with a team that didn't draft him. LeNeveu went after his Sophomore year, and, honestly, if he puts up numbers again like he did this season, what more is there to prove at the NCAA level? I don't want to say Bon Voyage, but it isn't unrealistic, especially if we make a deep playoff run.

He's also a goalie lol

Yegorov went from freshman cheat code to sophomore scapegoat. Even Augustine stayed 3 years. I think UDFA goalies are more likely to leave early after a hot year than those drafted after the 2nd round.

I can't remember which analytics person said it, but the NHL market inefficiency is undersized defensemen and goalies. Maybe that's the recruiting trick to get a veteran team.

Precisely. Goalies take longer to cook anyway. It is INCREDIBLY hard to predict them. Courns will stay in the NCAA 3 years at least, unless he's swept off his feet with an offer he can't refuse. Also undersized D but I think that's more "GMs hate drafting people under 6 foot".

Quote from: The Rancor on April 03, 2026, 11:03:45 AM

Quote from: stereax on April 02, 2026, 11:58:20 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 02, 2026, 10:42:31 PMI can't wait to read the apoplectic tirades when Cournoyer signs or transfers next season.

Goalies are different and need a lot more time to develop. Plus the goalie room in MTL is stacked between Fowler, Dobes, and Montembeault. He almost certainly won't sign after his sophomore year. Transfers, who the hell knows anymore.

That being said, we do have Cirka recruited...

When they're stacked, he's expendable... trade-able. One bag of pucks and a salary dump and he's signing with a team that didn't draft him. LeNeveu went after his Sophomore year, and, honestly, if he puts up numbers again like he did this season, what more is there to prove at the NCAA level? I don't want to say Bon Voyage, but it isn't unrealistic, especially if we make a deep playoff run.

I don't know - goalies are different.  None of the great Cornell goalies other than Dryden have gone on to even notable NHl careers - and ncaa does not appear to be a real pathway for goalies.  So he may leave but there won't be nearly as much of a push.  Goalies wind up not in the nhl or AHL after Cornell but the ECHL

Hopefully word is finally penetrating that goalies who go pro don't realize any advantage over those who stick it out for 4.  Forwards and D-men, it's to their advantage to go.

Quote from: Trotsky on April 03, 2026, 05:54:08 PMHopefully word is finally penetrating that goalies who go pro don't realize any advantage over those who stick it out for 4.  Forwards and D-men, it's to their advantage to go.

Wut

I would argue Brian Hayword had a pretty good NHL career.

He set the Jets franchise record for season wins, he played behind Roy when they won the award for fewest goals. He won the first ever game for the Sharks franchise.

Not bad for an undrafted guy, played about 10 yrs. Played about 25-30 games or more eight times. Won 20 games three times. 

"NCAA is not a pathway for goalies"

Hellebuyck, Connor
Oettinger, Jake
Swayman, Jeremy

Quote from: stereax on April 03, 2026, 08:19:58 PM"NCAA is not a pathway for goalies"

Hellebuyck, Connor
Oettinger, Jake
Swayman, Jeremy

Miller, Quick

Quote from: ugarte on April 03, 2026, 08:23:58 PM

Quote from: stereax on April 03, 2026, 08:19:58 PM"NCAA is not a pathway for goalies"

Hellebuyck, Connor
Oettinger, Jake
Swayman, Jeremy

Miller, Quick

Elliott

Couns is 6'4 and already was a QMJHL goalie... Seems Michigan State needs a goalie? I'm just teasing, of course, but it is a real possibility. And as others stated, yes, NCAA does develop goaltending. Ours just don't always work out, because of, ahem, The System.
Scrivens had a pretty good NHL career, I'd say. And, FWIW, he's the Team Manager for Denver. Think on that. (if true)

Quote from: The Rancor on April 03, 2026, 11:25:58 PMCouns is 6'4 and already was a QMJHL goalie... Seems Michigan State needs a goalie? I'm just teasing, of course, but it is a real possibility. And as others stated, yes, NCAA does develop goaltending. Ours just don't always work out, because of, ahem, The System.
Scrivens had a pretty good NHL career, I'd say. And, FWIW, he's the Team Manager for Denver. Think on that. (if true)

Mich State is getting Ravensbergen I think

Quote from: stereax on April 03, 2026, 11:50:53 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 03, 2026, 11:25:58 PMCouns is 6'4 and already was a QMJHL goalie... Seems Michigan State needs a goalie? I'm just teasing, of course, but it is a real possibility. And as others stated, yes, NCAA does develop goaltending. Ours just don't always work out, because of, ahem, The System.
Scrivens had a pretty good NHL career, I'd say. And, FWIW, he's the Team Manager for Denver. Think on that. (if true)

Mich State is getting Ravensbergen I think

Yes. Thankfully, he isn't going to an ECAC school, or RPI's projected backup, Ethan McCallum, may be in trouble.
https://www.instagram.com/reels/DU12nIwjJQZ/
They do smile at the end, so maybe this was staged.

Quote from: Pghas on April 03, 2026, 05:38:09 PMI don't know - goalies are different.  None of the great Cornell goalies other than Dryden have gone on to even notable NHl careers - and ncaa does not appear to be a real pathway for goalies.

Others have chimed in already but .... wha??????  If you said the opposite, you'd be correct :)

Quote from: stereax on April 03, 2026, 11:50:53 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 03, 2026, 11:25:58 PMCouns is 6'4 and already was a QMJHL goalie... Seems Michigan State needs a goalie? I'm just teasing, of course, but it is a real possibility. And as others stated, yes, NCAA does develop goaltending. Ours just don't always work out, because of, ahem, The System.
Scrivens had a pretty good NHL career, I'd say. And, FWIW, he's the Team Manager for Denver. Think on that. (if true)

Mich State is getting Ravensbergen I think

I meant that he could go to another school, not specifically Mich State- or pro.

Quote from: stereax on April 01, 2026, 06:06:48 PM

Quote from: tretiak on April 01, 2026, 05:34:53 PMTom Fitzgerald (thanks for catching that BL) goes "BIG good" and he's a (worthless) GM.

Absolutely fucking worthless. We could've had fucking Buium or Dickenson but noooo Silayev big.

Fml. I need to stop letting the Devils ruin my life.

SO GUESS WHAT JUST HAPPENED

Quote from: stereax on April 06, 2026, 06:57:02 PM

Quote from: stereax on April 01, 2026, 06:06:48 PM

Quote from: tretiak on April 01, 2026, 05:34:53 PMTom Fitzgerald (thanks for catching that BL) goes "BIG good" and he's a (worthless) GM.

Absolutely fucking worthless. We could've had fucking Buium or Dickenson but noooo Silayev big.

Fml. I need to stop letting the Devils ruin my life.

SO GUESS WHAT JUST HAPPENED

I was worried the devils had signed caton ryan

Quote from: BearLover on April 06, 2026, 07:05:04 PM

Quote from: stereax on April 06, 2026, 06:57:02 PM

Quote from: stereax on April 01, 2026, 06:06:48 PM

Quote from: tretiak on April 01, 2026, 05:34:53 PMTom Fitzgerald (thanks for catching that BL) goes "BIG good" and he's a (worthless) GM.

Absolutely fucking worthless. We could've had fucking Buium or Dickenson but noooo Silayev big.

Fml. I need to stop letting the Devils ruin my life.

SO GUESS WHAT JUST HAPPENED

I was worried the devils had signed caton ryan

lmfao no he's still draft eligible this year (and if he goes to a team i hate i will be Depressed about it, kempf on the rags was bad enough)

woooooooooooooooop fitz is OUT

Quote from: stereax on April 06, 2026, 07:06:29 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 06, 2026, 07:05:04 PM

Quote from: stereax on April 06, 2026, 06:57:02 PM

Quote from: stereax on April 01, 2026, 06:06:48 PM

Quote from: tretiak on April 01, 2026, 05:34:53 PMTom Fitzgerald (thanks for catching that BL) goes "BIG good" and he's a (worthless) GM.

Absolutely fucking worthless. We could've had fucking Buium or Dickenson but noooo Silayev big.

Fml. I need to stop letting the Devils ruin my life.

SO GUESS WHAT JUST HAPPENED

I was worried the devils had signed caton ryan

lmfao no he's still draft eligible this year (and if he goes to a team i hate i will be Depressed about it, kempf on the rags was bad enough)

woooooooooooooooop fitz is OUT

I found out via text: The hockey terrorist is gone.

Quote from: tretiak on April 07, 2026, 12:08:40 AM

Quote from: stereax on April 06, 2026, 07:06:29 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 06, 2026, 07:05:04 PM

Quote from: stereax on April 06, 2026, 06:57:02 PM

Quote from: stereax on April 01, 2026, 06:06:48 PM

Quote from: tretiak on April 01, 2026, 05:34:53 PMTom Fitzgerald (thanks for catching that BL) goes "BIG good" and he's a (worthless) GM.

Absolutely fucking worthless. We could've had fucking Buium or Dickenson but noooo Silayev big.

Fml. I need to stop letting the Devils ruin my life.

SO GUESS WHAT JUST HAPPENED

I was worried the devils had signed caton ryan

lmfao no he's still draft eligible this year (and if he goes to a team i hate i will be Depressed about it, kempf on the rags was bad enough)

woooooooooooooooop fitz is OUT

I found out via text: The hockey terrorist is gone.

I'm terrified and if they promote Chuck Fletcher I'm just gonna be a (Vegas) Knights fan full time but for now WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP

TIL Casty was a theater kid. (https://archive.ph/tyGQu) (Prospect pipelines, Calgary. Jon is #10 on the list.)

I wish I could say I was surprised.

Quote from: stereax on April 07, 2026, 09:55:33 PMTIL Casty was a theater kid. (https://archive.ph/tyGQu) (Prospect pipelines, Calgary. Jon is #10 on the list.)

I wish I could say I was surprised.

Embellishment!

Quote from: Give My Regards on April 08, 2026, 11:59:18 AM

Quote from: stereax on April 07, 2026, 09:55:33 PMTIL Casty was a theater kid. (https://archive.ph/tyGQu) (Prospect pipelines, Calgary. Jon is #10 on the list.)

I wish I could say I was surprised.

Embellishment!

Starring role much? (https://youtu.be/RDqxp3Rt-i0?t=33)

Quote from: stereax on April 08, 2026, 12:15:11 PM

Quote from: Give My Regards on April 08, 2026, 11:59:18 AM

Quote from: stereax on April 07, 2026, 09:55:33 PMTIL Casty was a theater kid. (https://archive.ph/tyGQu) (Prospect pipelines, Calgary. Jon is #10 on the list.)

I wish I could say I was surprised.

Embellishment!

Starring role much? (https://youtu.be/RDqxp3Rt-i0?t=33)

Always hogging the limelight, that guy. (Would've been nice to have him hog the limelight for one more season, alas.)

Quote from: Will on April 09, 2026, 09:31:06 AM

Quote from: stereax on April 08, 2026, 12:15:11 PM

Quote from: Give My Regards on April 08, 2026, 11:59:18 AM

Quote from: stereax on April 07, 2026, 09:55:33 PMTIL Casty was a theater kid. (https://archive.ph/tyGQu) (Prospect pipelines, Calgary. Jon is #10 on the list.)

I wish I could say I was surprised.

Embellishment!

Starring role much? (https://youtu.be/RDqxp3Rt-i0?t=33)

Always hogging the limelight, that guy. (Would've been nice to have him hog the limelight for one more season, alas.)

Hey, if he hogs the spotlight in the NHL, that's fine by me ;)

Quote from: Pghas on April 01, 2026, 05:21:26 PM

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 05:14:23 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 04:56:24 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 04:42:18 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (https://puckpedia.com/player/hoyt-stanley#:~:text=Hoyt%20Stanley%20is%20signed%20to,him%20a%20Restricted%20Free%20Agent.) (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Yeah - Castagna got over $1 million a year for 3 years so chances are Calgary has him slotted into a middle 6 position at worst.  500k over 3 years is nice cheddar too and he can easily go back and finish his degree with $ in the bank.  So yeah he is just getting paid to walk away from a fourth year of Cornell hockey.

Damn? 1 million a year? I went into the wrong profession

Quote from: ER on April 09, 2026, 08:02:15 PM

Quote from: Pghas on April 01, 2026, 05:21:26 PM

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 05:14:23 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 04:56:24 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 04:42:18 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (https://puckpedia.com/player/hoyt-stanley#:~:text=Hoyt%20Stanley%20is%20signed%20to,him%20a%20Restricted%20Free%20Agent.) (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Yeah - Castagna got over $1 million a year for 3 years so chances are Calgary has him slotted into a middle 6 position at worst.  500k over 3 years is nice cheddar too and he can easily go back and finish his degree with $ in the bank.  So yeah he is just getting paid to walk away from a fourth year of Cornell hockey.

Damn? 1 million a year? I went into the wrong profession

Still needs to actually make the NHL. Otherwise he's making less than the average Cornell graduate.

Quote from: BearLover on April 09, 2026, 08:04:42 PM

Quote from: ER on April 09, 2026, 08:02:15 PM

Quote from: Pghas on April 01, 2026, 05:21:26 PM

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 05:14:23 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 04:56:24 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 04:42:18 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (https://puckpedia.com/player/hoyt-stanley#:~:text=Hoyt%20Stanley%20is%20signed%20to,him%20a%20Restricted%20Free%20Agent.) (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Yeah - Castagna got over $1 million a year for 3 years so chances are Calgary has him slotted into a middle 6 position at worst.  500k over 3 years is nice cheddar too and he can easily go back and finish his degree with $ in the bank.  So yeah he is just getting paid to walk away from a fourth year of Cornell hockey.

Damn? 1 million a year? I went into the wrong profession

Still needs to actually make the NHL. Otherwise he's making less than the average Cornell graduate.

Pretty good incentive, one would think. Plus, he's a college dropout ;)

Quote from: The Rancor on April 03, 2026, 11:03:45 AM

Quote from: stereax on April 02, 2026, 11:58:20 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 02, 2026, 10:42:31 PMI can't wait to read the apoplectic tirades when Cournoyer signs or transfers next season.

Goalies are different and need a lot more time to develop. Plus the goalie room in MTL is stacked between Fowler, Dobes, and Montembeault. He almost certainly won't sign after his sophomore year. Transfers, who the hell knows anymore.

That being said, we do have Cirka recruited...

When they're stacked, he's expendable... trade-able. One bag of pucks and a salary dump and he's signing with a team that didn't draft him. LeNeveu went after his Sophomore year, and, honestly, if he puts up numbers again like he did this season, what more is there to prove at the NCAA level? I don't want to say Bon Voyage, but it isn't unrealistic, especially if we make a deep playoff run.

Quote from: The Rancor on April 04, 2026, 06:50:29 AM

Quote from: stereax on April 03, 2026, 11:50:53 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 03, 2026, 11:25:58 PMCouns is 6'4 and already was a QMJHL goalie... Seems Michigan State needs a goalie? I'm just teasing, of course, but it is a real possibility. And as others stated, yes, NCAA does develop goaltending. Ours just don't always work out, because of, ahem, The System.
Scrivens had a pretty good NHL career, I'd say. And, FWIW, he's the Team Manager for Denver. Think on that. (if true)

Mich State is getting Ravensbergen I think

I meant that he could go to another school, not specifically Mich State- or pro.

Quote from: The Rancor on April 14, 2026, 10:17:57 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 03, 2026, 11:03:45 AM

Quote from: stereax on April 02, 2026, 11:58:20 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 02, 2026, 10:42:31 PMI can't wait to read the apoplectic tirades when Cournoyer signs or transfers next season.

Goalies are different and need a lot more time to develop. Plus the goalie room in MTL is stacked between Fowler, Dobes, and Montembeault. He almost certainly won't sign after his sophomore year. Transfers, who the hell knows anymore.

That being said, we do have Cirka recruited...

When they're stacked, he's expendable... trade-able. One bag of pucks and a salary dump and he's signing with a team that didn't draft him. LeNeveu went after his Sophomore year, and, honestly, if he puts up numbers again like he did this season, what more is there to prove at the NCAA level? I don't want to say Bon Voyage, but it isn't unrealistic, especially if we make a deep playoff run.

Quote from: The Rancor on April 04, 2026, 06:50:29 AM

Quote from: stereax on April 03, 2026, 11:50:53 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 03, 2026, 11:25:58 PMCouns is 6'4 and already was a QMJHL goalie... Seems Michigan State needs a goalie? I'm just teasing, of course, but it is a real possibility. And as others stated, yes, NCAA does develop goaltending. Ours just don't always work out, because of, ahem, The System.
Scrivens had a pretty good NHL career, I'd say. And, FWIW, he's the Team Manager for Denver. Think on that. (if true)

Mich State is getting Ravensbergen I think

I meant that he could go to another school, not specifically Mich State- or pro.

Don't remind me.