New system needed for free agency due to draft lottery

[PAZ]

100% agreed. People always complain about the Oilers getting top picks but nobody talks about free, developed talent in their primes like Parise/Suter/Kovalchuk/Hossa/Statsny/etc...propping up teams.

Players should always be free to go where they want. They should have compensatory picks or cap relief for teams that lose high level guys in FA (like the NFL).

The only time I would want to see compensatory picks is when a player leaves based on the following:

1) Player was drafted by the team
2) Player accepted a worse offer compared to the team he left

Team's with good management make themselves a desirable destinations. Now obviously teams like the Rangers will always have a larger advantage, but it doesn't make it impossible.

No one is going to want to go to a rebuilding team in a city that offer no extra benefits unless they get overpaid.

 

[Tripod]

If there is not a level playing field on free agency, then there should not be a draft lottery.

What is the correlation? It's not like only the small market teams finish low in the lottery.

Here is an idea for small AND large market teams. Draft good players, develop them, then keep them. The Oilers have been bad because they have had crappy mgt and poor drafting after the 1st rd. Buffalo's demise started when they refused to sign Briere and Drury who were in their prime.

UFA's just don't go to big markets. They often go to places that have a chance to win. Be competitive and guys will want to go there more.

 

[LaCarriere]

I wouldn't mind seeing something like the MLB has, where a team gets a sandwich pick between 1st and 2nd rounds if they make a qualifying offer and it's turned down and the player signs elsewhere.

That said, I think smaller market / sun-belt teams have more of an advantage in hockey vs baseball. Baseball is a summer sport, pretty much everywhere is warm for the majority of the season, and players can go live south in the winter. Hockey being a winter sport gives some of the smaller market, southern teams without Canadian media coverage a bit of advantage, especially if they are halfway competetive.

I definitely think teams should be compensated for players they have drafted and developed that sign elsewhere soon as the become a UFA, like Stastny last year. If the league comes up with a formula that makes sense (similar to the MLB using the average of the top 125 contracts), and the team makes the required qualifying offer and it gets rejected and the player signs elsewhere, the team should get something for making a fair offer and losing the talent they developed.

 

[DonskoiDonscored]

Teams like the Rangers, Minnesota will always have an advantage in free agency and that's not fair to small market teams that are only attractive when they have a chance to win the cup. No team will always be good and once a small market team is down, it's much harder for them to get better than a big market teams or teams with players who want to live near where they grew up.

There is a way to make your team better quickly, and your team is familiar with it.

Also, the way to balance that is to draft good, which many "sunbelt" teams are doing.

 

[drax0s]

Add a 1-2 year NHL allotted cash bonus for players signing with teams lower in the standings? Sign with the Sabres, and the NHL will give a player an additional 1 million bonus for 1-2 years that doesn't count towards the teams salary cap?

 

[King'sPawn]

Draft better, develop better, allocate money better.

The Kings biggest unrestricted free agency signing since 2006 has been either Willie Mitchell, Rob Scuderi, and Michal Handzus.

Sorry if I sound unsympathetic, but acquiring big names via free agency doesn't guarantee a cup. And the current system separates good managers from bad managers where some have to be creative without the league dictating every move.

 

[Rancourt Fist Pump]

Not a fan of the lottery, but I'm less a fan of limiting teams in their ability to bring in the best free agents. Not really fair to the teams, players or the fans who pay top dollar to support their favorite club.

Tanking is definitely a problem. Not so much with the players themselves (imo) as it is a problem with some teams upper management intentionally degrading their rosters to get themselves a shot at landing the big fish at the draft. That's no way to treat a fan base, or their own players who they've deemed worthy enough to play terribly.

Is there any interest in seeing a draft position tournament for the non playoff teams?

Seems like a lot more fair way of doing it imo. It would definitely eliminate the whole practice of tanking if teams were more worried about improving their draft playoff seeding. The talent gap between most teams is pretty marginal imo, but I think this system would keep everybody honest and competitive and would be worth paying to see...

That's probably the big question: whether or not fans of these teams would pay to see it? This year is supposed to be a pretty deep draft; or so they tell me, I have no idea? It would probably be an easy sell in a draft year like this. Might be a tough sell on 1 of the not so deep drafts, but the prospect of my own mediocre team potentially playing their way into the top spot in any year is very interesting, at least to me.

I'd watch it anyway. What say you's?

 

[Fish on The Sand]

 

[Dabeast]

Players should only be allowed to sign in their home province/state (or next closest if no team)

Well at least we'll get Chychrun. And get to keep Andrew Yogan, I guess?

 

[Ducks in a row]

The NHL will never do anything to prevent teams from signing free agents beyond what they have already done with salary cap.

 

[bigdirty]

Says the Leafs fan.

 

[Mc5RingsAndABeer]

The only time I would want to see compensatory picks is when a player leaves based on the following:

1) Player was drafted by the team
2) Player accepted a worse offer compared to the team he left

Team's with good management make themselves a desirable destinations. Now obviously teams like the Rangers will always have a larger advantage, but it doesn't make it impossible.

No one is going to want to go to a rebuilding team in a city that offer no extra benefits unless they get overpaid.

Those are both excellent stipulations that I'd be 100% on board with.

The compensation should be based upon how much the FA signs for, kind of like RFA deals. I don't think movement should be restricted at all once a player hits UFA, but there should be some mechanism to help the team that developed him.

 

[Tie Domi Esquire]

Players should only be allowed to sign in their home province/state (or next closest if no team)

I think this is the only fair way to go about it.

 

[LaCarriere]

Not a fan of the lottery, but I'm less a fan of limiting teams in their ability to bring in the best free agents. Not really fair to the teams, players or the fans who pay top dollar to support their favorite club.

Tanking is definitely a problem. Not so much with the players themselves (imo) as it is a problem with some teams upper management intentionally degrading their rosters to get themselves a shot at landing the big fish at the draft. That's no way to treat a fan base, or their own players who they've deemed worthy enough to play terribly.

Is there any interest in seeing a draft position tournament for the non playoff teams?

Seems like a lot more fair way of doing it imo. It would definitely eliminate the whole practice of tanking if teams were more worried about improving their draft playoff seeding. The talent gap between most teams is pretty marginal imo, but I think this system would keep everybody honest and competitive and would be worth paying to see...

That's probably the big question: whether or not fans of these teams would pay to see it? This year is supposed to be a pretty deep draft; or so they tell me, I have no idea? It would probably be an easy sell in a draft year like this. Might be a tough sell on 1 of the not so deep drafts, but the prospect of my own mediocre team potentially playing their way into the top spot in any year is very interesting, at least to me.

I'd watch it anyway. What say you's?

Dumb idea, yet you're not the first to suggest it.

The players / PA would never sign off on players playing multiple games in a tournament risking injury when they don't get paid. Playing for the cup, Olympics, world cup, etc is different, because there's a huge demand for it.

Think about this -- pretend they did a tournament for McDavid, how many guys will still be on Buffalo in 3-5+ years when McDavid starts to really dominate the league? A handful if they are lucky. Probably 80-90% of the team wouldn't give a ****, because they aren't franchise players and won't be around when McDavid is in his prime. They'd be better off throwing the games and hoping they land on the same team as McDavid in the future. There's no personal benefit to players putting 110% into a tournament that doesn't benefit them.

 

[LaCarriere]

Edit: I mean edmonton

 

[LaCarriere]

It's also stupid because a team like LA or Boston would have probably won McDavid, or at least have a significant edge.

I'm sure when last year's cup champions or a perennial contender in a down year win #1 overall people will be nodding their head in approval thinking that things are much better this way.

 

[NHL Dude 120]

Stupid idea to be honest things are fine the way they are.

 

[CBJx614]

I'd like the idea of draft compensation if the draft were deeper, but it's not.

this. Jackets are about to miss out on Reilly because of the rule allowing players that go back to college for 3 years to become UFA after 3 years. And all were gonna ge4 is a 5th round compensentory pick, when hes probably a 1st round talent.

As for changing the FA for smaller market teams. Its fine just the way it is, Columbus is a relativlely small market and we attracted Horton. Obviously it didnt work out but that was because of injuries.

 

[CBJx614]

Draft better, develop better, allocate money better.

The Kings biggest unrestricted free agency signing since 2006 has been either Willie Mitchell, Rob Scuderi, and Michal Handzus.

Sorry if I sound unsympathetic, but acquiring big names via free agency doesn't guarantee a cup. And the current system separates good managers from bad managers where some have to be creative without the league dictating every move.

Exactly. Jarmo Kekalainen had to be creative when he made the trade for Clarkson. Wasnt exactly the best trade ever, but at least he got a player that can skate and play hockey (albeit poorly) for a player that cant even walk for more than an hour at a time.

 

[Dicky113]

Dumb idea, yet you're not the first to suggest it.

The players / PA would never sign off on players playing multiple games in a tournament risking injury when they don't get paid. Playing for the cup, Olympics, world cup, etc is different, because there's a huge demand for it.

Think about this -- pretend they did a tournament for McDavid, how many guys will still be on Buffalo in 3-5+ years when McDavid starts to really dominate the league? A handful if they are lucky. Probably 80-90% of the team wouldn't give a ****, because they aren't franchise players and won't be around when McDavid is in his prime. They'd be better off throwing the games and hoping they land on the same team as McDavid in the future. There's no personal benefit to players putting 110% into a tournament that doesn't benefit them.

And even more to the point, half the team would be playing for the chance to pick the guy that is going to come in and potentially take their job

 

[Roof Daddy]

I'd like the idea of draft compensation if the draft were deeper, but it's not.

One thing they can do is limit how many big contracts a team can sign in a certain number of years.

I don't think draft depth has anything to do with compensatory picks no longer being offered for UFA's exiting, more the fact the last time it was offered, GM's turned the process into a complete mockery by "manufacturing" picks via trade. (Remember when Mike Richter was an Oiler for a day???)

The only time I would want to see compensatory picks is when a player leaves based on the following:

1) Player was drafted by the team
2) Player accepted a worse offer compared to the team he left

Team's with good management make themselves a desirable destinations. Now obviously teams like the Rangers will always have a larger advantage, but it doesn't make it impossible.

No one is going to want to go to a rebuilding team in a city that offer no extra benefits unless they get overpaid.

These are the types of stipulations that could make compensatory picks work again. Good job.

 

[Dr Quincy]

I'm not saying that a player has no choice. I'm saying that a team can't sign up the best free agents year after year. A team like Minnesota wouldn't have been able to get Suter and Parise in the same year under my system (unless they traded for more points). The player (free agent) would still be able to go to all other teams that qualify.

1) If you are restricting where an unrestricted free agent can go, it's not unrestricted free agency.
2) Why would the NHLPA ever agree to such a system that would deflate salaries and take away choice.

The analogy to the draft lottery is flawed.