Should the NHL change the Draft rules

[Ted Hoffman]

I thought about this some more. I'll go along with the idea of making the draft "more fair" so that everyone has a chance of the #1 overall pick, provided the following changes are made first:

1. All team revenues are pooled and then distributed evenly among the 30 teams (so every team can truly afford to ice a competitive team),
2. Teams that are more successful in the standings have their upper limits reduced below that of less successful teams (so we can help achieve parity), and
3. Any provision stating a team cannot pick in the top X more than Y years in a row (example: no team can pick in the top 3 more than 2 years in a row) regardless of how bad the team may actually be in that timeframe and for what reason, is also accompanied by a provision stating that if a team makes the conference finals in a given year, they are ineligible for the playoffs the following year regardless of their record.

After all, I'm as sick and tired of seeing the same teams be the leading contenders for the Cup and make nearly perennial appearances in the conference finals as some of you are of seeing the same teams suck year after year and get to pick high in the draft. Who wants to keep seeing teams like New Jersey, Detroit, Colorado, Dallas and Philadelphia in the CF's year after year? That's boring. It's time to give everyone a shot at the Cup - who cares if they may have earned it? If we're giving teams that don't need the help a shot at the #1 overall pick, we should at least give those teams that have sucked year in and year out the chance to try and win the Cup.

You agree to those 3 conditions, I'll lead the charge to change how the draft order is set.

 

[X0ssbar]

I thought about this some more. I'll go along with the idea of making the draft "more fair" so that everyone has a chance of the #1 overall pick, provided the following changes are made first:

1. All team revenues are pooled and then distributed evenly among the 30 teams (so every team can truly afford to ice a competitive team),
2. Teams that are more successful in the standings have their upper limits reduced below that of less successful teams (so we can help achieve parity), and
3. Any provision stating a team cannot pick in the top X more than Y years in a row (example: no team can pick in the top 3 more than 2 years in a row) regardless of how bad the team may actually be in that timeframe and for what reason, is also accompanied by a provision stating that if a team makes the conference finals in a given year, they are ineligible for the playoffs the following year regardless of their record.

After all, I'm as sick and tired of seeing the same teams be the leading contenders for the Cup and make nearly perennial appearances in the conference finals as some of you are of seeing the same teams suck year after year and get to pick high in the draft. Who wants to keep seeing teams like New Jersey, Detroit, Colorado, Dallas and Philadelphia in the CF's year after year? That's boring. It's time to give everyone a shot at the Cup - who cares if they may have earned it? If we're giving teams that don't need the help a shot at the #1 overall pick, we should at least give those teams that have sucked year in and year out the chance to try and win the Cup.

You agree to those 3 conditions, I'll lead the charge to change how the draft order is set.

Beautiful.

Some people, no matter how much you break it down for them will never ever get it until its their turn as fans to wallow in the misery of a losing season. To actually fathom an organization would rather compete for a top 5 pick rather than make the playoffs is asanine. The money and fan support lost alone by a losing season is not something any organization wants to go through and rebuild.

 

[hfboardsuser]

Some people, no matter how much you break it down for them will never ever get it until its their turn as fans to wallow in the misery of a losing season.

Thanks for patronizing everybody who doesn't agree with you. I think some of us would agree if it wasn't the same few teams tanking the season for high picks.

To actually fathom an organization would rather compete for a top 5 pick rather than make the playoffs is asanine. The money and fan support lost alone by a losing season is not something any organization wants to go through and rebuild.

Mario Lemieux: Selected by Pittsburgh Penguins round 1 #1 overall 1984 NHL Entry Draft

That was an 'asanine' decision, eh? What good EVER came from that?

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

That comment right there makes everything else you have to say pretty much irrelevant, no matter what value it might have. (I looked ... not much.) For you to suggest that St. Louis doesn't deserve a hockey team because its owner threw a tantrum over losing $30 million dollars a year because of his own actions, and his knee-jerk "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude caused the team to suck for one whole season for the first time in 25 years speaks volumes.

What next, we fold a franchise if they have a below .500 season regardless of the reason(s) why? We fold a franchise if in your opinion they didn't try hard enough? We fold a franchise if they trade a player that in anyone's view makes the team worse and thus is a sign they're obviously tanking it?

Like I said, the rest of your comments aren't even worth responding to if that's the simple-minded approach you're going to take. We'll see how long you're on the Detroit bandwagon when it's their turn to struggle and need to reload through the draft and they start doing some of these things you're complaining about other teams doing. It's not a question of "if" it will happen, it's only a matter of "when".

Oh boo hoo.
I've been a Detroit fan long enough to remember the dark days, IB.
If St. Louis can only afford to ice a team witha $25 million pay roll, well than what I am supposed to do with it.

I said that St. Louis could easily get right back into the thick of things with a couple good UFA signings.
You said they couldn't and shouldn't even try.

So what am I supposed to do? First of all, as a Wings fan, I get sick of playing mediocre teams like St. Louis, Chicago and Columbus.
At least Columbus TRIED to put a team out there for its fans.
St. Louis and Chicago Blow. And I get stuck watching them 16 times a year because their owner doesn't want to invest --- even after they just won a huge lockout.

Now you're telling me that St. Louis can't go out and make a run for some UFAs and battle for a playoff spot next year.
That they shouldn't even try.

That they should just sit around and suck for another year. And that their fans should suffer. ANd that fans of teams that play them have to sit through another year of putrid blues hockey.

And yet you think they should be rewarded with high draft picks for the next two years.

That's bloody nonsense.

Teams should not have incentive to suck. It's not good for ANYBODY in hockey.

All I'm saying is open it up a bit.

Don't let a GM with a mediocre team think, hey, we're probalby not going anywhere, so why not trade our best center and best winger, save some dough, and make a run at last place so we can have a shot at Crosby or Ovechkin or whoever.

And you still haven't answered my question, IB.

You continue to duck it.

How would you feel if you found out a coach or a player threw a game because he made a bet on it?

Explain how that is fundamentally different than an owner or GM who dismantles his team knowing full well that it is going to suck once he does it....

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I thought about this some more. I'll go along with the idea of making the draft "more fair" so that everyone has a chance of the #1 overall pick, provided the following changes are made first:

1. All team revenues are pooled and then distributed evenly among the 30 teams (so every team can truly afford to ice a competitive team),

Fine by me. I don't care who gets the profits. Maybe more revenue sharing would lessen Illitch's desire to raise ticket prices.

2. Teams that are more successful in the standings have their upper limits reduced below that of less successful teams (so we can help achieve parity), and

You mind trying that in english?

3. Any provision stating a team cannot pick in the top X more than Y years in a row (example: no team can pick in the top 3 more than 2 years in a row) regardless of how bad the team may actually be in that timeframe and for what reason, is also accompanied by a provision stating that if a team makes the conference finals in a given year, they are ineligible for the playoffs the following year regardless of their record.

That's positively asinine and completely weak.
You might get the braindead around here to post their favorite smilies for you, but you know damn well that that is a weak argument.
See, IB, I know you're a smart dude. And right now you're just pandering.

You're equating the reward of success --- what we should aspire to --- to a reward for failure.

That's a pretty weak mindset to have.
There should not be a reward for failure. The high draft picks for bad teams are supposed to help them out ...
But they should not be a freaking AUTOMATIC given.

GMs should not be able to tank the season knowing that some stud is waiting in the wings.

It's not fair to his fans. And its not good for the league.

After all, I'm as sick and tired of seeing the same teams be the leading contenders for the Cup and make nearly perennial appearances in the conference finals as some of you are of seeing the same teams suck year after year and get to pick high in the draft. Who wants to keep seeing teams like New Jersey, Detroit, Colorado, Dallas and Philadelphia in the CF's year after year? That's boring. It's time to give everyone a shot at the Cup - who cares if they may have earned it? If we're giving teams that don't need the help a shot at the #1 overall pick, we should at least give those teams that have sucked year in and year out the chance to try and win the Cup.

You agree to those 3 conditions, I'll lead the charge to change how the draft order is set.

Weak, IB. Weak.

You've ducked the question twice now.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

As I said TinCan, part of me wishes that you could get what you asked for. It would come back to bite Detroit in the rear right when your team begins to blow and is rebuilding and when mine is on the way up.

Long and short of it is that no team under the current cap structure is going to suck on purpose if they have a chance at the playoffs. I am not saying that managements of some teams have not played with rosters at the end of some years to have a better chance at a top pick, but even then it was just shuffling of a spot or two at the very bottom 2 or 3 in the draft so did not do what you say. And I see none of that this year. What would you have the team who sucked big time this year do? Pittsburgh tried to do what you claim the Blues should, adding huge names to the point where they were actually, and laughably now, hammered for 'trying to buy the cup' in one thread. On the other end the Caps and Blackhawks knowing that they were no where near close did little. You have both ends of the spectrum and yet in your silly world both ways of doing it were wrong, eh? It is really simple, in this cap world it will be very hard to never go through a rebuild, and on the other hand the FA market and spending ranges between the highest spenders and lowest will do something to keep teams more competitive more often. That is good for the game. The goal of all of this is to keep fan bases with playoffs a reasonable amount of times and every year legit hope for the future. The draft is part of that and is just fine as it is. And I say that with zero self interest at all. My Pens, even with another top three pick this year, are almost assuredly out of the lottery the next ten years. And you will not see me ***** and moan when your beloved wings start their cycle of lottery picks in a couple of years or so.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

ever[/I] get it until its their turn as fans to wallow in the misery of a losing season. To actually fathom an organization would rather compete for a top 5 pick rather than make the playoffs is asanine. The money and fan support lost alone by a losing season is not something any organization wants to go through and rebuild.

We won't get it because, for the most part, it's not true.
Washington traded Lang to Detroit for a first/fourth/prospect.
That year they also traded Gonchar, Jagr and Bondra.

But noooooo. They weren't tanking the season.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

As I said TinCan, part of me wishes that you could get what you asked for. It would come back to bite Detroit in the rear right when your team begins to blow and is rebuilding and when mine is on the way up.

Long and short of it is that no team under the current cap structure is going to suck on purpose if they have a chance at the playoffs. I am not saying that managements of some teams have not played with rosters at the end of some years to have a better chance at a top pick, but even then it was just shuffling of a spot or two at the very bottom 2 or 3 in the draft so did not do what you say. And I see none of that this year. What would you have the team who sucked big time this year do? Pittsburgh tried to do what you claim the Blues should, adding huge names to the point where they were actually, and laughably now, hammered for 'trying to buy the cup' in one thread. On the other end the Caps and Blackhawks knowing that they were no where near close did little. You have both ends of the spectrum and yet in your silly world both ways of doing it were wrong, eh? It is really simple, in this cap world it will be very hard to never go through a rebuild, and on the other hand the FA market and spending ranges between the highest spenders and lowest will do something to keep teams more competitive more often. That is good for the game. The goal of all of this is to keep fan bases with playoffs a reasonable amount of times and every year legit hope for the future. The draft is part of that and is just fine as it is. And I say that with zero self interest at all. My Pens, even with another top three pick this year, are almost assuredly out of the lottery the next ten years. And you will not see me ***** and moan when your beloved wings start their cycle of lottery picks in a couple of years or so.

I don't care dude.
Detroit may or may not suck two years from now.

If you think GMs aren't tanking seasons on purpose with an eye on the draft, you're absolutely crazy.

You guys have heard the stories about Sam Pollock and the Lafleur draft, right?

And it's not like I'm calling for the Cup winner to get an equal shot at the number 1 pick.

They'd have a one in 450 chance

The worst team would have a 1/15 chance.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I don't care dude.
Detroit may or may not suck two years from now.

If you think GMs aren't tanking seasons on purpose with an eye on the draft, you're absolutely crazy.

You guys have heard the stories about Sam Pollock and the Lafleur draft, right?

Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. So your solution to some funny jockeying now and then that shifts a team maybe from third worst to second is to have Ovechkin possibly end up on the Cup winner. Damn, what a brilliant solution man. I have to hand it to you.

Seriously, they have addressed that now. The bottom team has won the lottery, what, twice since it was instituted or something like that? But no, that is not good enough for you. Fairness dictates that the Wings have their shot at generational players the same year that they shoot for the cup.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

In related news Bill Gates thinks that because he has read a story about a welfare fraud case in the papers that he should get a welfare check too.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. So your solution to some funny jockeying now and then that shifts a team maybe from third worst to second is to have Ovechkin possibly end up on the Cup winner. Damn, what a brilliant solution man. I have to hand it to you.

Seriously, they have addressed that now. The bottom team has won the lottery, what, twice since it was instituted or something like that? But no, that is not good enough for you. Fairness dictates that the Wings have their shot at generational players the same year that they shoot for the cup.

Great. We've got another sarcastic, rhetorical post from a guy who doesn't want to tackle the issue.

Look, we've allready got a lottery, right?
There's a reason for that, right?
I'm saying, increase the lottery.

Am I saying Detroit deserved Ovechkin? No.
But neither did Washington.

Washington needed him more, And Washington should have had a greater chance at landing him.

But Washington should be able to drop 4 NHL superstars in one season and EXPECT to get Ovechkin or Malkin, see?
But it's

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

In related news Bill Gates thinks that because he has read a story about a welfare fraud case in the papers that he should get a welfare check too.

Bill Gates gets a helluvalot more welfare than you know, dude.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Great. We've got another sarcastic, rhetorical post from a guy who doesn't want to tackle the issue.

Look, we've allready got a lottery, right?
There's a reason for that, right?
I'm saying, increase the lottery.

Am I saying Detroit deserved Ovechkin? No.
But neither did Washington.

Washington needed him more, And Washington should have had a greater chance at landing him.

But Washington should be able to drop 4 NHL superstars in one season and EXPECT to get Ovechkin or Malkin, see?
But it's

Washington deserved him a hell of a lot more than a playoff team did. For that matter their fans deserved him more. We pay thousands of dollars a year, just as you do, for season tickets. And yes, I am a full season ticket holder. You get the playoffs, we get to look toward the future. It is hardly an even trade for our money put down on season tickets but we will take it. This is about the fans, and keeping most of them coming to the games. That means keeping fans of all teams with hope for their team, now or in the future. The current system does that and that is why the NHL is at an all time high in popularity this year. Face it buddy, your position is all about you wanting to get your cake and eat it too, not about some Don Quioxti quest to right the wrong of a 27th place team supplanting the 28th place team in the race for the bottom some hypothetical year by some shady call ups. You can try to lawyer this all you want but we all see through your true motivation here.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Washington deserved him a hell of a lot more than a playoff team did. For that matter their fans deserved him more. .

No. No they didn't.
Nobody DESERVES Oveckin.

What did washington to do DESERVE him?
Seriously?

Washington NEEDS him more. That's a fair and accurate statement.
But Washington does not DESERVE him.

The draft order is a COURTESY designed to smooth out imbalances.

But the salary cap will fix those imbalances faster than the draft.


.

We pay thousands of dollars a year, just as you do, for season tickets. And yes, I am a full season ticket holder. You get the playoffs, we get to look toward the future. It is hardly an even trade for our money put down on season tickets but we will take it. This is about the fans, and keeping most of them coming to the games. .

Yeah, Okay,
Dropping Jagr, Bondra, Gonchar and Lang was about the fans, and keeping them in the seats.


.[/QUOTE]Face it buddy, your position is all about you wanting to get your cake and eat it too, not about some Don Quioxti quest to right the wrong of a 27th place team supplanting the 28th place team in the race for the bottom some hypothetical year by some shady call ups. You can try to lawyer this all you want but we all see through your true motivation here.[/QUOTE]

Dude, why don't you try responding to what I am saying, instead of what you think I am saying.

Do you not have the intelligence to debate this without resorting to these tactics?

Where do you think the Detroit red wings are going to be in about two years? They're most likely going to be a bottom feeder.

This has nothing to do with Detroit.
This has to do with a draft policy that HELPS weak teams rebuild without giving teams the incentive to INTENTIONALLY blow their teams apart.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Are you seriously buying what you are saying? The only teams that will 'blow themselves apart' are teams that are seriously flawed, getting older, and coming to a realization that it is time to rebuild. Do you seriously think that a team that is a legit playoff team is going to say, 'damn, look at that Ovechkin dude. Never mind that he could Daigle on us, he looks pretty cool for a 17 year old. We have a chance at the cup, but screw it, let us blow up the team big time and go for him.'

Name me one team that blew themselves up to go for a player. Just one. The 'problem' you state is peripheral at best and was addressed very well, ironically when the Sens did indeed tank for . . . you guessed it, Daigle. But they were a woefully sucky team already to begin with. You are as I said totally destroying the credibility of the game and fairness of the sport overall in order to keep the 28th ranked team from pulling up an AHL goalie in the last two weeks of the season to go to 30th and get a 25% chance at number one instead of a 15% chance. Great logic there.

 

[hfboardsuser]

I didn't realize there was much

credibility of the game and fairness of the sport overall

in

pulling up an AHL goalie in the last two weeks of the season to go to 30th and get a 25% chance at number one instead of a 15% chance.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I didn't realize there was much



in

Again, the solution you all are advocating would be the equivilent of burning the house down because your wife saw a mouse. The problem has been addressed as well as it can be without causing more problems elsewhere.

 

[hfboardsuser]

You advocate a solution then.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

You advocate a solution then.

Sometimes there is no perfect solution. Sometimes there is no 100% way to stop something. So you do the best solution that you can choose. I think that what is in place is pretty close to that. Right now if a team plays games with the system they still only modify their chances slightly. Even at last place the chance is 25% to get the first pick (50/50 with modifications, but still). And no way a call up or two is going to effect a roster that much unless you are bottom two or three to begin with. And the players are still going to play their hearts out. So I do not see where it is such a huge problem. Name one team who manipulated the system since the draft was instituted and benefitted from it. The only one that I can think of is the Caps and their bringing up Yeats the year that they got Ovechkin and starting him 4 of their last 6 games instead of Kolzig. But in that case they beat the odds big time mving up from . . .third? fourth? to get Ovechkin. It made a slight difference but only because they beat very very long odds. The system is just fine as is and I am betting that you can name no time where it has failed. The problem you state does not exist except in theory and even there it is insignificant.

 

[alecfromtherock]

Someone said Pens 1st in their division relatively soon because of all of the top 5 picks they have been ‘storing’.

Until the Pens D improves leaps and bounds they will never be in Cup contention.

Contention in my books means having a chance, take the Leafs for instance who are usually in the playoffs each and single year yet no one is/has been worried about Toronto winning the Cup.

By only participating in the playoffs the Leafs always drafted in the lower part of the draft and do not have a strong prospect pool.

Pens are the polar opposite of the Toronto model: They have missed the playoffs each year but they have a great prospect pool.

Besides never contending for the Cup the Leafs are quite different in the Pens because they are a money printing machine.



Drafted players are works of art and usually require many years of seasoning before they even step on NHL ice.

Rare is it to draft a player at 18 and have them playing the same season.

What is the % of draftees actually making the NHL?


The Rangers are one of the most successful teams since the salary cap was introduced, and are now the poster child of the salary cap era.

Jagr and his countrymen + Lund + Stall = great future for the Rangers.

I do not see the Pens being a better team then the Rangers in the upcoming seasons.

When Jagr retires he is going to be sorely missed, the only light at the end of the tunnel is that the Rangers will have millions of dollars the following season to buy any player(s) they wish to.

 

[hfboardsuser]

Sometimes there is no perfect solution. Sometimes there is no 100% way to stop something...

Translation: I don't have anything better.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Translation: No one has anything better.

Fixed.

 

[hfboardsuser]

I'm pretty sure if we can send a spaceship to the moon, we can fix the goddamned NHL draft. You're just stepping aside the issue.

 

[ShadowFax]

Thanks for patronizing everybody who doesn't agree with you. I think some of us would agree if it wasn't the same few teams tanking the season for high picks.


Mario Lemieux: Selected by Pittsburgh Penguins round 1 #1 overall 1984 NHL Entry Draft

That was an 'asanine' decision, eh? What good EVER came from that?

Seriously who is tanking? I really want to hear this.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Are you seriously buying what you are saying?.

Yes. I believe that no team DESERVES any draft pick. They haven't EARNED it with suckage. People seem to think that SUCKING ENTITLES them to things. It's a crappy mindset to have (and I say that as someone who considers himself 'left of center' politically).

Do you believe that Teams DESERVE the first pick in the draft? That they've earned it?

The only teams that will 'blow themselves apart' are teams that are seriously flawed, getting older, and coming to a realization that it is time to rebuild. Do you seriously think that a team that is a legit playoff team is going to say, 'damn, look at that Ovechkin dude. Never mind that he could Daigle on us, he looks pretty cool for a 17 year old. We have a chance at the cup, but screw it, let us blow up the team big time and go for him.'.

Do I believe a legit playoff team says that? Nope.
But may a good team that has a bad year (like that Caps team) or a team that is on the playoff bubble. Or a team's a step below playoff contention.

We consider it a crime if a player or coach bets against his own team.

We're willing to strip a player of everything he ever did if he gets caught.

But we don't care at all every year when an owner purposely guts his team of all its proven talent.

.

Name me one team that blew themselves up to go for a player. Just one. The 'problem' you state is peripheral at best and was addressed very well, ironically when the Sens did indeed tank for . . . you guessed it, Daigle. But they were a woefully sucky team already to begin with. You are as I said totally destroying the credibility of the game and fairness of the sport overall in order to keep the 28th ranked team from pulling up an AHL goalie in the last two weeks of the season to go to 30th and get a 25% chance at number one instead of a 15% chance. Great logic there.

For one player? I can't. But I guarantee you that teams purposely tank seasons for high draft picks.
They say, We could place 20th and lose $6 million and get the 10th overall pick.
Or we could place 27th, get a shot at the #1, and break even.

You don't think that draft choice figures into the equation?
I sure do.

If you think Ottawa is the only team that thinks of this, you're crazy.

If you're not going to make the playoffs, where's the incentive to finish 17th? Why not finish 25th and get a top 5 pick