ATD#8 to begin in September

[VanIslander]

I can't name 30 players (1 per team) who I actually like who played pre-1930

Pre-1940 is the operative category, players who were rookies in 1939-or-earlier.

I have learned about more than 30 of those guys simply by participating in the all-time drafts. You are newbie to this. The Hockey Hall of Fame website has tons of early stars, and from 1939-or-earlier, means guys who were rookies before 1940, like: Frank Brimsek, Eddie Shore, Dit Clapper, Syl Apps, Gordie Drillon, Toe Blake, Art Ross, Roy Conacher, Ab DeMarco, Sid Abel, Jack Stewart, Earl Seibert, Neil Colville, Bobby Bauer, Johnny Gottselig, Clint Smith, Tiny Thompson, Aurel Joliat, Pit Lepine, Hap Day, Ching Johnson, Bill Cowley, Lester Patrick, Dave Kerr, Normie Smith, Ebbie Goodfellow, Marty Barry, Buster Jackson, Milt Schmidt, Turk Broda, Howie Morenz, Lionel Conacher, Lorne Chabot, Hooley Smith, Woody Dumont, Tommy Gorman, Charlie Conacher, Charlie Gardiner, Roy Worters, Ace Bailey. That's 40+ guys right there. If you don't know them, you should, in an all-time draft.

It's time we set some standards, minimum standards, easy to achieve with a tiny bit of effort. We should all be doing research when making picks in an all-time draft. The more you learn about the past of the game, the more likely you can appreciate the picks of players pre-50s.

If the goal is to stretch the player pool, why not clip an era from hockey history? Make the draft only for players active 1950-1959 or something like that. Or only draft Canadian or European players. Just another idea.

Because it's an all-time draft, that's the point! One should not be only drafting post-1960 players or only early era guys. Hence the value of minimum standards. It accomplishes a spreading out of picks, encourages greater education of the history of the game, and makes for truly all-time teams.

 

[vancityluongo]

Pre-1940 is the operative category, players who were rookies in 1939-or-earlier.

I have learned about more than 30 of those guys simply by participating in the all-time drafts. You are newbie to this. The Hockey Hall of Fame website has tons of early stars, and from 1939-or-earlier, means guys who were rookies before 1940, like: Frank Brimsek, Eddie Shore, Dit Clapper, Syl Apps, Gordie Drillon, Toe Blake, Art Ross, Roy Conacher, Ab DeMarco, Sid Abel, Jack Stewart, Earl Seibert, Neil Colville, Bobby Bauer, Johnny Gottselig, Clint Smith, Tiny Thompson, Aurel Joliat, Pit Lepine, Hap Day, Ching Johnson, Bill Cowley, Lester Patrick, Dave Kerr, Normie Smith, Ebbie Goodfellow, Marty Barry, Buster Jackson, Milt Schmidt, Turk Broda, Howie Morenz, Lionel Conacher, Lorne Chabot, Hooley Smith, Woody Dumont, Tommy Gorman, Charlie Conacher, Charlie Gardiner, Roy Worters, Ace Bailey. That's 40+ guys right there. If you don't know them, you should, in an all-time draft.

It's time we set some standards, minimum standards, easy to achieve with a tiny bit of effort. We should all be doing research when making picks in an all-time draft. The more you learn about the past of the game, the more likely you can appreciate the picks of players pre-50s.


Because it's an all-time draft, that's the point! One should not be only drafting post-1960 players or only early era guys. Hence the value of minimum standards. It accomplishes a spreading out of picks, encourages greater education of the history of the game, and makes for truly all-time teams.

Personally, I think it's okay to have restrictions, but start off easier. How about have half the roster pre-1965? It doesn't make it so that say with your last pick, a guy like Frank Brimsek is still available, but you don't yet have a player from the 70's forcing you to go with the much worse guy, when Brimsek or whoever would've made you a force to reckon with. It probably won't happen, but it could cost some team a round or two in the playoffs. Being that one player away.

 

[VanIslander]

How about have half the roster pre-1965

Half a roster pre-1965??? That's too much. I'm only suggesting three players pre 1965 (1939-or-earlier, 40s, 50s) required.

I understand why cottonking is concerned, as the minor league draft is his first with us, and he only has two players who haven't played in the 80s or more recently: Dickie Boon and Bruce Stewart. He has nobody from the 60s, 50s, 40s, nor any non-NHLers. At the other extreme, pappyline's team is chocked full of early era guys. Both of you guy's habits would be a little affected by minimum standards. wisent's tendency to take non-NHL Europeans wouldn't be much affected as he only has 8-10 of those per team, and he does pick players from different eras. We could each focus more on whatever eras and contexts we want in the history of hockey, but having minimum dispersion requirements from every major period of hockey history ensures more coverage and balance and comparability.

Notice how there is a category for 2000-or-later: No dissing a Kovalchuk pick then! we'd each have to get at least one player who has been a rookie this century.

 

[ck26]

Pre-1940 is the operative category, players who were rookies in 1939-or-earlier. I have learned about more than 30 of those guys simply by participating in the all-time drafts. You are newbie to this. The Hockey Hall of Fame website has tons of early stars, and from 1939-or-earlier, means guys who were rookies before 1940, like ...
It's time we set some standards, minimum standards, easy to achieve with a tiny bit of effort. We should all be doing research when making picks in an all-time draft. The more you learn about the past of the game, the more likely you can appreciate the picks of players pre-50s.

Because it's an all-time draft, that's the point! One should not be only drafting post-1960 players or only early era guys. Hence the value of minimum standards. It accomplishes a spreading out of picks, encourages greater education of the history of the game, and makes for truly all-time teams.

I understand why cottonking is concerned, as the minor league draft is his first with us, and he only has two players who haven't played in the 80s or more recently: Dickie Boon and Bruce Stewart. He has nobody from the 60s, 50s, 40s, nor any non-NHLers. At the other extreme, pappyline's team is chocked full of early era guys. Both of you guy's habits would be a little affected by minimum standards. wisent's tendency to take non-NHL Europeans wouldn't be much affected as he only has 8-10 of those per team, and he does pick players from different eras. We could each focus more on whatever eras and contexts we want in the history of hockey, but having minimum dispersion requirements from every major period of hockey history ensures more coverage and balance and comparability.

Know and want is the operative phrase ... not everybody wants the same type of players, that's all I'm saying. I hope that I haven't disappointed or offended anybody with the way I picked the Icebreakers, but there's a difference between a main draft and an expansion draft. The guys on your list -- Toe Blake and Sid Abel and such -- weren't among my options for MLD7. I want a bunch of old-timers in the top 400 (quite a few of those guys you listed), but when you're talking about 800's and 900's, you're talking about guys who are neither famous nor well-publicized, and it's hard to justify picking a team full of players I've never seen play and whom I'm only reading about on LoH or wikipedia. We're not talking about Eddie Shore and Sprague Cleghorn, we're talking about Dave Maloney and Billy Coutu. I'm having trouble accepting that the "hockey legend" status of Billy Coutu is miles better than that of Steve Chiasson 70 years later.
You said in the inbrief, "It's an open question whether it's better for a minor league team to select the best players available (in the interest of scouting for the parent club/organization) or the best performing team now (limited upside, line chemistry, clearly minor leaguers)", and I opted for the latter -- drafting a team where chemistry and cohesiveness were paramount, chemistry I forged by picking mostly-Canadian players who played a similar style in a similar era. Again, if that isn't in the spirit of the game, OK then ... that's why we're having the discussion now.

 

[vancityluongo]

Half a roster pre-1965??? That's too much. I'm only suggesting three players pre 1965 (1939-or-earlier, 40s, 50s) required.

I understand why cottonking is concerned, as the minor league draft is his first with us, and he only has two players who haven't played in the 80s or more recently: Dickie Boon and Bruce Stewart. He has nobody from the 60s, 50s, 40s, nor any non-NHLers. At the other extreme, pappyline's team is chocked full of early era guys. Both of you guy's habits would be a little affected by minimum standards. wisent's tendency to take non-NHL Europeans wouldn't be much affected as he only has 8-10 of those per team, and he does pick players from different eras. We could each focus more on whatever eras and contexts we want in the history of hockey, but having minimum dispersion requirements from every major period of hockey history ensures more coverage and balance and comparability.

Notice how there is a category for 2000-or-later: No dissing a Kovalchuk pick then! we'd each have to get at least one player who has been a rookie this century.

Okay, that seems a lot better when you explain it. Yeah, having one guy from each "era" sounds reasonable and fair.

 

[MXD]

Know and want is the operative phrase ... not everybody wants the same type of players, that's all I'm saying. I hope that I haven't disappointed or offended anybody with the way I picked the Icebreakers, but there's a difference between a main draft and an expansion draft. The guys on your list -- Toe Blake and Sid Abel and such -- weren't among my options for MLD7. I want a bunch of old-timers in the top 400 (quite a few of those guys you listed), but when you're talking about 800's and 900's, you're talking about guys who are neither famous nor well-publicized, and it's hard to justify picking a team full of players I've never seen play and whom I'm only reading about on LoH or wikipedia. We're not talking about Eddie Shore and Sprague Cleghorn, we're talking about Dave Maloney and Billy Coutu. I'm having trouble accepting that the "hockey legend" status of Billy Coutu is miles better than that of Steve Chiasson 70 years later.
You said in the inbrief, "It's an open question whether it's better for a minor league team to select the best players available (in the interest of scouting for the parent club/organization) or the best performing team now (limited upside, line chemistry, clearly minor leaguers)", and I opted for the latter -- drafting a team where chemistry and cohesiveness were paramount, chemistry I forged by picking mostly-Canadian players who played a similar style in a similar era. Again, if that isn't in the spirit of the game, OK then ... that's why we're having the discussion now.

Billy Coutu is obviously a legend
Case in point : If you want a complete maniac on defense (and I mean a COMPLETE maniac) in a MLD, you obviously cannot expect to land Eddie Shore or Sprague Cleghorne.

 

[MXD]

Okay, that seems a lot better when you explain it. Yeah, having one guy from each "era" sounds reasonable and fair.

The problem I have with picking 2000 or later : Look at Brendan Morrow being selected in Top-300.

 

[Leaf Lander]

This draft is for fun

pick the players that you want for your team
but make sure they have note worthy careers to date.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Maybe don't be quite so specific with the restrictions? Maybe minimum 4 players from pre-1960 + 1 active player? I'm sure GBC or Nayld would call me crazy, but I can't name 30 players (1 per team) who I actually like who played pre-1930, but there are hundreds from the 50's and 60's. Is Doug Harvey any less "all-time" than Cyclone Taylor? I think you're going to drive up the value on certain decades and drive down the value on others disproportionately.

I actually agree with you.

As we saw last time, as teams increase, value of defencemen increase. As we expand, I suspect value of goalies will increase, we saw last time that teams with goalies outside the top 20 were punished, should we expand to 32, I suspect those top 20 will be gone very quickly as teams can ill afford to miss out, leaving guys like Grant Fuhr as potentially 2nd round picks.

Such a layout would create undo pressure on modern players. How many post 2000 players belong, is there 32? Crosby, Luongo, Ovechkin... Those are the only one's I'd say absolutly should be taken, I'd take Lundqvist, but, cloearly many disagree.

All particpants should be willing to make the effort to research the past as much as possible. But restrictions could and likely would further create discrepancies that have nothing to do with ability.

 

[Sturminator]

I'd like to note that I'm going to be Nalyd's sidekick for ATD#8.

My two cents: the ATD GMs seem to be a very knowledgeable group of guys. Any GM who doesn't do his homework well enough to track on the older players is screwing himself most of all. I say draft who you want, regardless of era, NHL status or whatnot.

As far as active players go, I don't look much at "career potential" when evaluating players. I see Lidstrom as a guy who's won five Norris trophies, not as one who could win six or seven. Mileage may vary, though, and in a 28-team league the talent gets thin quick. A guy like Crosby may very well be a viable second liner in this format. A Hart is a Hart is a Hart.

 

[Leaf Lander]

I believe that the rookie of the yr got drafted every all time draft

thats how barret jackman got selected but luckily raycroft wasnt haha

do not change the draft if a gm makes a bad pick hes gonna hear about it and no one else wil lpick that player till they are deemed worthy to be selected again

2006-07 Evgeni Malkin Pittsburgh Penguins
2005-06 Alexander Ovechkin Washington Capitals
2004-05 No winner due to the 2004-05 NHL lockout
2003-04 Andrew Raycroft Boston Bruins
2002-03 Barret Jackman St. Louis Blues
2001-02 Dany Heatley Atlanta Thrashers
2000-01 Evgeni Nabokov San Jose Sharks
1999-00 Scott Gomez New Jersey Devils
1998-99 Chris Drury Colorado Avalanche
1997-98 Sergei Samsonov Boston Bruins
1996-97 Bryan Berard New York Islanders
1995-96 Daniel Alfredsson Ottawa Senators
1994-95 Peter Forsberg Quebec Nordiques
1993-94 Martin Brodeur New Jersey Devils
1992-93 Teemu Selänne Winnipeg Jets
1991-92 Pavel Bure Vancouver Canucks
1990-91 Ed Belfour Chicago Blackhawks

 

[MXD]

I believe that the rookie of the yr got drafted every all time draft

thats how barret jackman got selected but luckily raycroft wasnt haha

do not change the draft if a gm makes a bad pick hes gonna hear about it and no one else wil lpick that player till they are deemed worthy to be selected again

2006-07 Evgeni Malkin Pittsburgh Penguins
2005-06 Alexander Ovechkin Washington Capitals
2004-05 No winner due to the 2004-05 NHL lockout
2003-04 Andrew Raycroft Boston Bruins
2002-03 Barret Jackman St. Louis Blues
2001-02 Dany Heatley Atlanta Thrashers
2000-01 Evgeni Nabokov San Jose Sharks
1999-00 Scott Gomez New Jersey Devils
1998-99 Chris Drury Colorado Avalanche
1997-98 Sergei Samsonov Boston Bruins
1996-97 Bryan Berard New York Islanders
1995-96 Daniel Alfredsson Ottawa Senators
1994-95 Peter Forsberg Quebec Nordiques
1993-94 Martin Brodeur New Jersey Devils
1992-93 Teemu Selänne Winnipeg Jets
1991-92 Pavel Bure Vancouver Canucks
1990-91 Ed Belfour Chicago Blackhawks

If we're talking about "past" Calder awards...
No one ever drafted Pentti Lund(with cause...) or Eric Vail

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Pentti Lund is a great trivia question.

He wouldn't be a bad minor league pick...

 

[shawnmullin]

I don't see why we need to have any such restrictions. You make the team you want and the results will speak to how wise that was.

 

[MXD]

Oh... BTW, what's happening?

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Oh... BTW, what's happening?

Yeah, I'm chompin' at the bit here.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Patience, gentlemen. It's only August. Draft probably will start in another three or four weeks, based on traditional timelines.

In other news, I am delighted to announce that I will have a co-GM in this draft. Borrowing from the "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" motif that worked so well in the minor league draft, raleh will be my co-G.M. for ATD #8. This should work well, as raleh and I are like-minded in a lot of ways (players to pick, strategies, style of play). And, it'll keep raleh a part of the draft.

 

[BM67]

We are less than two weeks from September, so GMs wanting co-GMs should be looking for partners, and any changes we want should be voiced.

Many want to do away with the 3rd goalie, (Majority?) so do we want an extra forward spare or one less round in the draft.

 

[MXD]

We are less than two weeks from September, so GMs wanting co-GMs should be looking for partners, and any changes we want should be voiced.

Many want to do away with the 3rd goalie, (Majority?) so do we want an extra forward spare or one less round in the draft.

I'd really keep the 3rd goalie...

 

[VanIslander]

Many want to do away with the 3rd goalie, (Majority?)

we should have a formal vote on this in september

i for one think 2 goalies is enough, and it helps tremendously boost the quality of options in a 28-32 team league

and i never heard anyone talk about third goalies in deliberations of a team's strength...

anyways, it's a good vote question

(for now, enjoy your summer )

 

[Murphy]

I like the three goalie option, I guess I don't like change........

I would like to throw my two cents in for a 12 hr clock right off the bat, I'm even good for an 8 hr clock.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I don't mind tightening the clock, especially with more co-gms.

I really don't care about the 3rd goalie, I kind of like it, but how often do teams carry a 3rd goalie? Although I did get some use out of mine last time.

I say let the 23rd man be a free for all, think a 3rd goalie will help (If you've got Gardiner and Lindburgh as your 1-2, I think it would be wise.) then pick one, got two rocks with long careers, then get a d-man or a forward.

 

[shawnmullin]

I'd like to keep the third goalie simply because if a goalie is ever hurt you need someone there. Not that he'll necessarily be thrown into a starting role, but you need someone.

Even if you're down to 5 D or 11 forwards you can play.

But you HAVE to have two goalies.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I would say go with the time limits similar to the last draft: 12 hours during those all-important first six rounds, and then eight hours for rounds 7 to 24, when the draft is more of a crapshoot. If your pick is skipped, your time limit drops one hour for each time. So if you're skipped six times, you're working on a two-hour limit.

We had a few pretty good No. 3 goalies in the last draft. Guys like Chico Resch. The days of getting Andy Moog or Alex Connell as a No. 3 are over. I wouldn't complain if we dropped the third goalie, especially if this draft hits 32 teams. An assistant coach, perhaps, to replace the third goalie, or go with a free-for-all with that last roster spot. (If you want a third goalie, fine, but if you want a 14th forward or eighth defenceman, also fine).

 

[kruezer]

I would be interested in being a co-GM this time around, I would need someone who is online a lot, as I most likely won't be, and wouldn't want to hold the draft up much, but would still like to throw in my two cents .