NHL Entry Draft 2020 NHL Draft Discussion - PART VI

Status
Not open for further replies.

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,677
23,395
East Coast
It’s an inexact science even with more proven players, that’s why you still see busts in the NFL draft for instance, but teams who do it well have an even higher chance of success and teams who don’t have a lesser chance of mistakes.
Well, that's the point of the draft. Waiting until they are 20 makes no sense, as players have nowhere to go aside from the NHL or AHL, outside of Europe and NCAA. Teams have no time to decide anything, they need to sign NA players immediately.

NHLPA would also not accept that.
 

DrSense

Registered User
Oct 4, 2017
783
899
Tbh, they didn't actually change it for a good reason, they changed it for an optics issue because a bad team wasn't improving enough to get out of the basement even though they got tons of top picks. Draft is designed to create parity, the lottery as it stands now is ostensibly intended to de-incentivize tanking, but the reality is teams will tank just the same either way. Toronto outright tanked start to finish in 2016, the first year they lotteried off all 3 top picks. People still argued we needed to tank because even worst case scenario you get a very strong draft pick. The real reason for the lottery being for the top 3 is because of the optics of Edmonton winning multiple times in a short span. The problem now is bad teams are more likely to be stuck in the basement for longer, defeating the whole point of the draft.

As for us, I'm happy regardless, though I do find the degree of complaining that they might revert to the old system as manufactured. If you believe that the draft is to create Parity, and the lottery is to de-incentivize tanking, both have already been accomplished as best they can with the way the league proposed, and better than had the season gone as per normal because teams acted as though there was no guarantee of a top pick, but the most in need of help will get the most help.

As you noted, it wasn't just "optics" but to actually de-incentive teams from tanking.

The reality is teams deliberately rebuild by putting a team together that is highly probable to be in the bottom 10 of the league, and a good chance at bottom 5. The playbook hasn't changed, because even if you are an unlucky lottery team and building around picks in the 3-6 range for a few years, this is still much more likely to have a major impact than picks between 8-15. The Sens and Wings are no different than the Leafs from a few years back when they landed Matthews and Marner. The Sens are following the exact same plan. New lottery or old lottery format, no real change in how a team approaches their season IMO.
 

SensHulk

Registered User
May 31, 2016
1,881
1,690
San Jose, CA
If the biggest gripe is just about how GMs can’t make trades, I think the only happy medium here is to do the draft lottery prior to the end of the season and include all 31 teams (but the rules should be restricted to how many spots you can move up, so like 5 spots or whatever the rule was before should still be in play). Hopefully this way the NHL still gets some fan engagement and relevancy.

If the season is cancelled some point this month, then the draft can just proceed a few weeks later.
 

BatherSeason

Registered User
Jun 16, 2009
6,640
3,702
Gatineau
Pitt still had to win the draft for them to get Crosby. I’m pretty confident EM does his fair share of whining for the league. The league probably has a pretty thick file on ownership issues for the Sens.
Relocation is not an issue. I am sure they have a thick file on Eugene the owner, which I am sure they aren't happy about.
 

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
Relocation is not an issue.

I generally agree... however let’s say we come out of this draft with poor selections and the team flounders for 5-7 more years.... I’m not sure where that goes if we don’t get an attendance boost.

EM won’t bankrupt himself to sell the team. It also won’t be any fun watching this tire fire.
 
Last edited:

harrisb

Registered User
Oct 6, 2009
2,217
952
I generally agree... however let’s say we come out of this draft with poor selections and the team flounders for 5-7 more years.... I’m not sure where that goes if we don’t get an attendance boost.

EM won’t bankrupt himself to sell the team. It also won’t be any fun watching this tire fire.
Not sure I understand your last sentence. If he won't bankrupt himself he will have to sell in that scenario. Relocation fee will be $200M+ then he needs to either build an arena or pay rent. That would put debt by current estimates well above $400M which is not sustainable in any available market. You dig yourself out by investing in the team, that includes the on-ice product, advertising, promotions, new facilities, etc. Your business plan should not revolve around winning a lottery.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,911
31,119
As you noted, it wasn't just "optics" but to actually de-incentive teams from tanking.

The reality is teams deliberately rebuild by putting a team together that is highly probable to be in the bottom 10 of the league, and a good chance at bottom 5. The playbook hasn't changed, because even if you are an unlucky lottery team and building around picks in the 3-6 range for a few years, this is still much more likely to have a major impact than picks between 8-15. The Sens and Wings are no different than the Leafs from a few years back when they landed Matthews and Marner. The Sens are following the exact same plan. New lottery or old lottery format, no real change in how a team approaches their season IMO.

Ostensibly to de-incentivizing tanking. The oilers weren't in fact tanking, they were just really that bad. Edmonton being terrible and getting all the 1st OA picks while continuing to suck afterwards is bad for business, Toronto transparently and intentionally tanking, getting 1OA and immediately improving was great for business. They don't care about the tanking, they care about the optics. Hard core tanking where a team commits to it right from the start continues to happen as much after the changes even though it was fairly rare in reality, see Toronto and Matthews, arguably us, and Det but the typical tanking where teams realize midseason that their chances are nil and unload ahead of the deadline not only continues but is encouraged. They want the optics of de-incentivizing tanking despite knowing the measures they took won't accomplish a thing, to address the optics of a team getting multiple 1st OA picks.

If they actually wanted to reduce tanking, there are other ways to do it. Give all non-playoff teams equals, or base lottery odds off a 5 year span, and only allow one top 3 pick per 3 years, have the order determined by pts accumulated since being officially eliminated from the playoffs, the earlier you are eliminated the more games you amass towards the winning that top pick, but the reality is it's not discouraging actual tanking that they were after, it's the optics of Edmonton's situation that spurred the change.
 

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
Not sure I understand your last sentence. If he won't bankrupt himself he will have to sell in that scenario. Relocation fee will be $200M+ then he needs to either build an arena or pay rent. That would put debt by current estimates well above $400M which is not sustainable in any available market. You dig yourself out by investing in the team, that includes the on-ice product, advertising, promotions, new facilities, etc. Your business plan should not revolve around winning a lottery.

I agree ... I guess what I meant was that I’m not sure how much his quality of life will be affected if he gains/loses $50-100 million on any potential sale. I’m not sure he can maintain his quality of life if he eats $75 million.
 

Bileur

Registered User
Jun 15, 2004
18,536
7,285
Ottawa
Well, that's the point of the draft. Waiting until they are 20 makes no sense, as players have nowhere to go aside from the NHL or AHL, outside of Europe and NCAA.

Well presumably the players who need to “go somewhere” after junior and aren’t good enough for the AHL or ECHL wouldn’t get drafted.

It’s not really all that different than what happens now where guys who aren’t good enough for ECHL or AHL after junior go unsigned by the franchise who drafted them and find their own place to play or move on to other things. The franchise just hasn’t invested a few years of effort into the player.

That’s the advantage, you’d be drafting far more NHL/AHL ready players.

There would likely also be other adjustments, like maybe having fewer rounds in the draft to account for lower bust rate but that’s not crazy.

It’s the norm in other North American pro leagues. The NFL requires players to be 3 years out of high school to be draft eligible. The NBA requires players to be one year out of high school. The MLB seems like a free for all of combined draft and free agency.

Teams have no time to decide anything, they need to sign NA players immediately.

Yes. The decision would have to be made as you’re drafting the player. It’s no different than what they do in the NFL, NBA, or MLB. You draft a guy and bring him into your development system right away.

That said, the decision is less of a gamble because the player is further along.

NHLPA would also not accept that.

Maybe, I don’t know what they would or wouldn’t accept. The NBAPA accepted to ban players getting drafted right out of high school after the 2005 draft. It depends on what is offered in collective bargaining. Ultimately, if the offer is interesting enough for the PA membership, the interest of athletes who aren’t yet members can be set aside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emerica

guyzeur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2009
5,421
622
Ottawa
A regional omen:

BOUCHERVILLE, Que. — The Gatineau Olympiques will have the first two picks in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League draft on June 5 after winning the draft lottery on Wednesday.
The Olympiques had 85.5 per cent of the balls in the lottery with their own pick, along with picks acquired from the Acadie-Bathurst Titan and the Halifax Mooseheads. The Halifax pick was the lottery winner.
Gatineau will pick first, second and fourth.

Gatineau Olympics win QMJHL draft lottery, land three of first four picks - TSN.ca
 

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,677
23,395
East Coast
Well presumably the players who need to “go somewhere” after junior and aren’t good enough for the AHL or ECHL wouldn’t get drafted.

It’s not really all that different than what happens now where guys who aren’t good enough for ECHL or AHL after junior go unsigned by the franchise who drafted them and find their own place to play or move on to other things. The franchise just hasn’t invested a few years of effort into the player.

That’s the advantage, you’d be drafting far more NHL/AHL ready players.

There would likely also be other adjustments, like maybe having fewer rounds in the draft to account for lower bust rate but that’s not crazy.

It’s the norm in other North American pro leagues. The NFL requires players to be 3 years out of high school to be draft eligible. The NBA requires players to be one year out of high school. The MLB seems like a free for all of combined draft and free agency.



Yes. The decision would have to be made as you’re drafting the player. It’s no different than what they do in the NFL, NBA, or MLB. You draft a guy and bring him into your development system right away.

That said, the decision is less of a gamble because the player is further along.



Maybe, I don’t know what they would or wouldn’t accept. The NBAPA accepted to ban players getting drafted right out of high school after the 2005 draft. It depends on what is offered in collective bargaining. Ultimately, if the offer is interesting enough for the PA membership, the interest of athletes who aren’t yet members can be set aside.
Are we also getting rid of ELC's and decreasing the UFA cycle? I'm sure McDavid wouldn't have been happy making 750k the past 2 seasons.
 

RAFI BOMB

Registered User
May 11, 2016
7,389
7,646
Well presumably the players who need to “go somewhere” after junior and aren’t good enough for the AHL or ECHL wouldn’t get drafted.

It’s not really all that different than what happens now where guys who aren’t good enough for ECHL or AHL after junior go unsigned by the franchise who drafted them and find their own place to play or move on to other things. The franchise just hasn’t invested a few years of effort into the player.

That’s the advantage, you’d be drafting far more NHL/AHL ready players.

There would likely also be other adjustments, like maybe having fewer rounds in the draft to account for lower bust rate but that’s not crazy.

It’s the norm in other North American pro leagues. The NFL requires players to be 3 years out of high school to be draft eligible. The NBA requires players to be one year out of high school. The MLB seems like a free for all of combined draft and free agency.



Yes. The decision would have to be made as you’re drafting the player. It’s no different than what they do in the NFL, NBA, or MLB. You draft a guy and bring him into your development system right away.

That said, the decision is less of a gamble because the player is further along.



Maybe, I don’t know what they would or wouldn’t accept. The NBAPA accepted to ban players getting drafted right out of high school after the 2005 draft. It depends on what is offered in collective bargaining. Ultimately, if the offer is interesting enough for the PA membership, the interest of athletes who aren’t yet members can be set aside.

You aren't factoring in how development camps impact prospects. If prospects were only able to get drafted at 20 then they would not have the opportunity to have NHL development staff do a thorough evaluation of them and then offer them expertise in skill and physical development that they would not be able to afford otherwise. Case in point would be Drake Batherson. He was passed over in his first year of eligibility and then drafted at 19. He got the benefit of the Sens development staff and they happened to employ Chris Kelly at the time who used his connection with Brad Marchand to get Batherson the opportunity to spend the summer practicing and training with Marchand, Crosby and Mackinnon. That played a significant role in his development and lead to him being a more capable player and a prospect with a greater likelihood of being a top line player.

I haven't followed this whole discussion but what is your central argument around why the NHL should only draft players at 20? Is it just to increase the probability that NHL draft picks become NHL players? If that is the case there are plenty of ways to do that without changes to age eligibility. Development staff play a big role with that and the quantity and quality of scouts as well as the types of methodologies they use to evaluate players. If the league changed draft eligibility to 20 it would likely result in smaller staff for development teams and for scouts. Additionally, both scouts and development teams would likely get paid less because there would be less of an opportunity to prove their worth.

In addition it would likely have a major impact to junior and feeder leagues. Junior leagues would end up with teams full of 20 year olds with only a few younger than that. This could change what age they draft from feeder leagues and/or it could impact how long prospects play in feeder leagues before they make the jump to major junior. This could even eliminate the possibility that some prospects make it to major junior. So this kind of approach could really hurt project picks who may have high upside but need the right kind of development to become capable or high end NHL players. It could also result in the draft being much less exciting as there would likely be fewer star caliber project picks available in the later rounds.
 

Bileur

Registered User
Jun 15, 2004
18,536
7,285
Ottawa
Are we also getting rid of ELC's and decreasing the UFA cycle? I'm sure McDavid wouldn't have been happy making 750k the past 2 seasons.

Good question, it would certainly be a starting point for negotiations. The NFL and NBA both set rookie salaries based on scales tied to draft position, that could be an idea to explore.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,880
1,542
Ottawa
Ostensibly to de-incentivizing tanking. The oilers weren't in fact tanking, they were just really that bad. Edmonton being terrible and getting all the 1st OA picks while continuing to suck afterwards is bad for business, Toronto transparently and intentionally tanking, getting 1OA and immediately improving was great for business. They don't care about the tanking, they care about the optics. Hard core tanking where a team commits to it right from the start continues to happen as much after the changes even though it was fairly rare in reality, see Toronto and Matthews, arguably us, and Det but the typical tanking where teams realize midseason that their chances are nil and unload ahead of the deadline not only continues but is encouraged. They want the optics of de-incentivizing tanking despite knowing the measures they took won't accomplish a thing, to address the optics of a team getting multiple 1st OA picks.

If they actually wanted to reduce tanking, there are other ways to do it. Give all non-playoff teams equals, or base lottery odds off a 5 year span, and only allow one top 3 pick per 3 years, have the order determined by pts accumulated since being officially eliminated from the playoffs, the earlier you are eliminated the more games you amass towards the winning that top pick, but the reality is it's not discouraging actual tanking that they were after, it's the optics of Edmonton's situation that spurred the change.

That rings so true. I have to suspect you are right about the perception over reality. But DrSense makes a good point that notwithstanding the anti-tanking incentives, no one actually operates differently. We still wanted to tank cause we wanted the highest floor for our pick.

So I guess I was initially on board with the lottery idea thinking the uncertainty it created would act as somewhat of a deterrent for tanking. Or maybe to also serve as a small punishment for it? (maybe some Oiler resentment too) So now im wondering whether I have to accept that the idea did not work as intended and so I must rethink it.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,911
31,119
That rings so true. I have to suspect you are right about the perception over reality. But DrSense makes a good point that notwithstanding the anti-tanking incentives, no one actually operates differently. We still wanted to tank cause we wanted the highest floor for our pick.

So I guess I was initially on board with the lottery idea thinking the uncertainty it created would act as somewhat of a deterrent for tanking. Or maybe to also serve as a small punishment for it? (maybe some Oiler resentment too) So now im wondering whether I have to accept that the idea did not work as intended and so I must rethink it.


Oh, i definately agree the lottery is ineffective as a deterrent whether we use the old or new system. The real point though is that what little effect in terms of deterence it was going to have was already achieved so reverting to the old system yields the same result with the added benefit of imroving league parity, the primary goal of a reverse standing draft order.
 

IlTerrifico

Registered User
Oct 24, 2016
615
432
Chabot is not weak defensively. He makes some bad decisions because he has too much to handle, too many minutes and WITHOUT a top pairing D-man to play with. Give him a top pairing Dman (Drysdale?) and watch him dominate. He's already one of the players who has the puck the most in a game in the whole league.

We already explained it to you before but you are wrong here. You will probably continue to ignore it as you can't let go your old beliefs but a Chabot-Drysdale pairing would/should be a possession monster, no time to get intimated in the corners.

Hockey has changed a lot and defending is not really about tangling up guys in corners ala Chris Phillips anymore, it's about retrieving the puck very fast, making quick decisions and go back the other way. It's the reason why Cody Ceci can't be more than a 4th/5th at this level, his decision making isn't quick enough to take too much responsability, despite all his amazing tools.

Really, defending is not about size and strenght anymore, but more poise and quickness.

I'm saying that as someone who hope we get 2 and maybe 3 forwards in the 1st round.

Note : The Bruins seem to do fine defensively. Sure they have Chara who is a monster (but kinda old for the NHL now) and Carlo who is also very tall but looking at that, it should really be a "disaster":

Connor Clifton us D 24 5-11 175
Matt Grzelcyk us D 26 5-9 174
Torey Krug us D 28 5-9 186
Jeremy Lauzon ca D 22 6-1 204
Charlie McAvoy us D 22 6-0 208

Granted Boston has a couple of outlier tiny defensemen this year, in the 5th or lower slot for TOI.

But overall, the top 6 in games played on defense in 2020 for the top teams Average out at:

Boston 6 foot 1 201 lbs
Washington 6 foot 1 205 lbs
Vegas 6 foot 3 206 lbs
St. Louis 6 foot 3 214 lbs
Tampa 6 foot 3 218 lbs

A Sens top 7 of Chabot, Reilly, Wolanin, Zaitsev, Boro, Bernard Docker (added 5 lbs from current) and Thomson (added 5 lbs from current) comes in at:
6 foot 1, 193 lbs, and Boro is the only one over 200 lbs.

This average goes down even further adding Drysdale in, even if he gets up to 180-185 lbs.

The Cup winner and President's trophy winners have a defense that measures 2 inches and 20-25 lbs more per man than our defense. Seems like a relatively large defense is a Gord Wilson key to victory.
 

Bileur

Registered User
Jun 15, 2004
18,536
7,285
Ottawa
You aren't factoring in how development camps impact prospects. If prospects were only able to get drafted at 20 then they would not have the opportunity to have NHL development staff do a thorough evaluation of them and then offer them expertise in skill and physical development that they would not be able to afford otherwise. Case in point would be Drake Batherson. He was passed over in his first year of eligibility and then drafted at 19. He got the benefit of the Sens development staff and they happened to employ Chris Kelly at the time who used his connection with Brad Marchand to get Batherson the opportunity to spend the summer practicing and training with Marchand, Crosby and Mackinnon. That played a significant role in his development and lead to him being a more capable player and a prospect with a greater likelihood of being a top line player.

I don’t think I’m not factoring it in, development camps are certainly a benefit to players. That said, they aren’t necessary for a successful development nor are there guarantors of successful development.

Lots of NCAA players become successful players without taking the chance of affecting their eligibility by attending a camp.

Similarly, lots of players attend several camps without making the NHL. For every Batherson, how many Fransoo’s or Culek’s are there?

If anything, Batherson is an example that sometimes it’s better to wait until later, and more advanced physical/mental maturity to decide whether to draft a player.

I like development camps and don’t really have a problem with the current Draft format, heck I’ve been following sens dev camps for 20 years, I just notice after years of watching lots of sports that there are certainly other ways to do things.

There’s also nothing in the idea of drafting players at 20 that makes development camps impossible. NFL teams hold rookie camps exclusively for recent draft picks, UDFA’s and try out players.

I haven't followed this whole discussion but what is your central argument around why the NHL should only draft players at 20? Is it just to increase the probability that NHL draft picks become NHL players? If that is the case there are plenty of ways to do that without changes to age eligibility. Development staff play a big role with that and the quantity and quality of scouts as well as the types of methodologies they use to evaluate players. If the league changed draft eligibility to 20 it would likely result in smaller staff for development teams and for scouts. Additionally, both scouts and development teams would likely get paid less because there would be less of an opportunity to prove their worth.

Yes, the idea is higher hit rate. I agree there are other ways but this is one thing (among others) that could be done at a league level rather that at an individual team level.

I’m sure that if you pitched smaller staffs Melnyk would be on board lol.

In addition it would likely have a major impact to junior and feeder leagues. Junior leagues would end up with teams full of 20 year olds with only a few younger than that. This could change what age they draft from feeder leagues and/or it could impact how long prospects play in feeder leagues before they make the jump to major junior. This could even eliminate the possibility that some prospects make it to major junior. So this kind of approach could really hurt project picks who may have high upside but need the right kind of development to become capable or high end NHL players.

How much impact would it have really. I don’t have stats on how many players leave major junior before they turn 20. It would be interesting to know.

Major junior teams would certainly have to adjust how they develop their prospects and manage their rosters but ultimately I’m sure they would be excited to keep star players longer and have longer windows for championships, on top of additional gate revenue and larger TV audiences.

I’m sure this approach would hurt some projects but help others.

It could also result in the draft being much less exciting as there would likely be fewer star caliber project picks available in the later rounds.

Here I disagree, I think the draft would be far more exciting because the likelihood of drafting a guy who can step in right away is significantly higher. Rather than having only a handful of teams drafting an NHL ready player, you might have almost the entire first round of NHL ready talent.

We’re quite the specialized group here on HFBoards but I think the average fan and the networks would like prospects who can step in right away a lot more.
 
Last edited:

FormentonTheFuture

Registered User
Sep 29, 2017
7,761
3,732
I don’t think I’m not factoring it in, development camps are certainly a benefit to players. That said, they aren’t necessary for a successful development nor are there guarantors of successful development.

Lots of NCAA players become successful players without taking the chance of affecting their eligibility by attending a camp.

Similarly, lots of players attend several camps without making the NHL. For every Batherson, how many Fransoo’s or Culek’s are there?

If anything, Batherson is an example that sometimes it’s better to wait until later, and more advanced physical/mental maturity to decide whether to draft a player.

I like development camps and don’t really have a problem with the current Draft format, heck I’ve been following sens dev camps for 20 years, I just notice after years of watching lots of sports that there are certainly other ways to do things.

There’s also nothing in the idea of drafting players at 20 that makes development camps impossible. NFL teams hold rookie camps exclusively for recent draft picks, UDFA’s and try out players.



Yes, the idea is higher hit rate. I agree there are other ways but this is one thing (among others) that could be done at a league level rather that at an individual team level.

I’m sure that if you pitched smaller staffs Melnyk would be on board lol.



How much impact would it have really. I don’t have stats on how many players leave major junior before they turn 20. It would be interesting to know.

Major junior teams would certainly have to adjust how they develop their prospects and manage their rosters but ultimately I’m sure they would be excited to keep star players longer and have longer windows for championships, on top of additional gate revenue and larger TV audiences.

I’m sure this approach would hurt some projects but help others.



Here I disagree, I think the draft would be far more exciting because the likelihood of drafting a guy who can step in right away is significantly higher. Rather than having only a handful of teams drafting an NHL ready player, you might have almost the entire first round of NHL ready talent.

We’re quite the specialized group here on HFBoards but I think the average fan and the networks would like prospects who can step in right away a lot more.
would have to agree with you. it should be like it is in the NBA and NFL. It adds more importance to the draft and more reason to watch it. Look at the 2018 draft, only 19 players have played at least one game, and only four have played 82 games.

you could also implement an exceptional status rule like the CHL does so guys like McDavid could just jump to the draft at 18
 

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,677
23,395
East Coast
would have to agree with you. it should be like it is in the NBA and NFL. It adds more importance to the draft and more reason to watch it. Look at the 2018 draft, only 19 players have played at least one game, and only four have played 82 games.

you could also implement an exceptional status rule like the CHL does so guys like McDavid could just jump to the draft at 18
The NBA only has 60 picks in the entire draft, and has been trying to lower the age to 18, they want a 1 and done scenario out of NCAA off the table. The still need to opt into the draft, that's not something that is needed for the NHL, though they used to use it for guys like Heatley who were going the NCAA route.

Most guys drafted to the NFL are 21/23 years old. Burrow went 1st and turns 24 this year. The youngest guy in the 1st taken was 21. That doesn't work in the NHL for obvious reasons. The average length of an NFL career is something like 3 years, so it makes no difference if they start in their mid 20's, they would not be able to hold up in the league as 18/19 year olds. That doesn't apply with hockey as much, or at all.

An exceptional status rule would cause chaos in the NHL, no chance that would happen. Teams would just be arguing what an exceptional status player is every single year. It would cause a bigger headache than it already does in the CHL, because there would be teams arguing about ~20+ players each year.
 
Last edited:

FormentonTheFuture

Registered User
Sep 29, 2017
7,761
3,732
The NBA only has 60 picks in the entire draft, and has been trying to lower the age to 18, they want a 1 and done scenario out of NCAA off the table. The still need to opt into the draft, that's not something that is needed for the NHL, though they used to use it for guys like Heatley who were going the NCAA route.

Most guys drafted to the NFL are 21/23 years old. Burrow went 1st and turns 24 this year. The youngest guy in the 1st taken was 21. That doesn't work in the NHL for obvious reasons. The average length of an NFL career is something like 3 years, so it makes no difference if they start in their mid 20's, they would not be able to hold up in the league as 18/19 year olds. That doesn't apply with hockey as much, or at all.

An exceptional status rule would cause chaos in the NHL, no chance that would happen. Teams would just be arguing what an exceptional status player is every single year. It would cause a bigger headache than it already does in the CHL, because there would be teams arguing about ~20+ players each year.
It would never be that many players arguing exceptional status. Only the guys who could actually compete in the NhL at 18
 

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,677
23,395
East Coast
It would never be that many players arguing exceptional status. Only the guys who could actually compete in the NhL at 18
And you would have tons of teams arguing xxx was their highest rated player and they want them as an exceptional player in this draft. Leafs had Reilly ranked higher than the guys taken ahead of him, would he have been eligible if they wanted him as an exceptional player?
 

Gil Gunderson

Registered User
May 2, 2007
30,736
16,248
Ottawa, ON
On 31 thoughts, Elliotte Friedman said he thinks the draft will probably happen in late June and there seems to be more teams who are fine with it or indifferent than there are who are fully against it.

He thinks (his opinion only) that the BoG might just agree to go back to the regular (current) draft lottery rules after realizing how many teams get left out of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NB613
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad