Proposal: What changes would you want to see made in the NHL?

[PuckMunchkin]

Why?

You've fallen into the same false dichotomy that I described in my subsequent post. Why are the only options a draft or no parity? Why is the draft the only system that can work? Do we or do we not have a salary cap? How would there be no parity if there is still a hard cap and a maximum # of players you can get?

Are you playing dumb?

If we let the players choose where they can go, every time there is a equal offer on the table they go to the: better team, better city, tax haven state...

Some players will go chill in the Swiss league or the KHL for a year or two to wait for "rookie contract spots" to open where they want to play.

I know what you are after with this. That the well ran teams get rewarded, but this would bury the league.

 

[Melvin]

Are you playing dumb?

If we let the players choose where they can go, every time there is a equal offer on the table they go to the: better team, better city, tax haven state...

Some players will go chill in the Swiss league or the KHL for a year or two to wait for "rookie contract spots" to open where they want to play.

I know what you are after with this. That the well ran teams get rewarded, but this would bury the league.

I don't know how many times I can say this, but: "There is a salary cap." And there are a lot of highly-touted prospects who can eat into the cap extremely fast. Look at how much trouble the leafs are having just trying to get Marner under contract, and that's with a draft and ELC's.

There are many ways to implement a system of parity that doesn't require a draft.

 

[WTG]

I would abolish the draft and entry level contracts. Let players sign wherever they want for however much they want once they are 18, but keep a strict salary cap.

Remove the franchising and have promotion tournament with a B/C league too.

The reason that these dinosaurs are still employed as GMs is because their jobs are always save. No competition no growth.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I don't know how many times I can say this, but: "There is a salary cap." And there are a lot of highly-touted prospects who can eat into the cap extremely fast. Look at how much trouble the leafs are having just trying to get Marner under contract, and that's with a draft and ELC's.

There are many ways to implement a system of parity that doesn't require a draft.

You keep repeating that I think draft is the only way to maintain parity. I dont. I just feel your idea has a HUGE flaw in it, when you let the prospects decide where they go.

 

[Melvin]

You keep repeating that I think draft is the only way to maintain parity. I dont. I just feel your idea has a HUGE flaw in it, when you let the prospects decide where they go.

My idea was to replace the draft with a different system for ensuring parity. I haven't proposed a fully-fleshed out alternative system and have even acknowledged that several rules could be added to ensure competitive balance. You keep telling me that simply not having a draft would "kill" the NHL, seemingly refusing to accept that alternative systems could work. That is equivalent to saying the draft is the only way to maintain parity, if you're not even willing to think through an alternative.

As a thought experiment consider this off-season. What if the Rangers had to choose between Panarin, Kakko, or J. Hughes? Ironically, under the current system of "parity" the biggest market team actually got to have 2 of these players, but under mine they probably only get one (depending on the details of how you implement the rules.)

 

[PuckMunchkin]

My idea was to replace the draft with a different system for ensuring parity. I haven't proposed a fully-fleshed out alternative system and have even acknowledged that several rules could be added to ensure competitive balance. You keep telling me that simply not having a draft would "kill" the NHL, seemingly refusing to accept that alternative systems could work. That is equivalent to saying the draft is the only way to maintain parity, if you're not even willing to think through an alternative.

As a thought experiment consider this off-season. What if the Rangers had to choose between Panarin, Kakko, or J. Hughes? Ironically, under the current system of "parity" the biggest market team actually got to have 2 of these players, but under mine they probably only get one (depending on the details of how you implement the rules.)

You have presented a bad proposal. Maybe if you present the rest of the proposal, the part that makes it work, I could see how.

And you think my logic has failed here...

 

[Canucker]

1) Get rid of the All-Star Game
2) Time to replace Bettman...my choice, Laurence Gilman.
3) Implement rules against perpetual tankers (ie cannot draft in the top 5 more than 4 times in a 10 year span).
4) Fix the draft lottery percentages. The only teams that should have a shot at the 1st overall pick should be the bottom 3-5 teams.
5) Create a "player safety panel" consisting of 5 people who oversee NHL discipline. The panel should consist of former players, management, referees, etc...who are subcontracted by the NHL and NHLPA and cannot serve longer than 5 years on the panel.

 

[me2]

More transparency in regards to discipline at all levels. How referees are instructed to call plays should be publicly disclosed in detail (we all see when a new call or renewed emphasis on a call is made).

I just want consistent reffing from the preseason to the final buzzer of the SCFs.

helmet cams for refs and linesmen.

I'm not sure that wouldn't just make a mess through over scrutiny.

removing "intent" in the event of a suspension worthy action.

Logically unenforceable. How can you know it will be suspension worthy until the player is suspended by Player Safety? That's just going to end in tears and controversy.

removal hasn't been suspended before" as an excuse for a warning or a non-punishment.

Agreed. I also want to see a grading system for offences, and a fixed multiplier for repeat offenders.

100% less Bettman.

100% more Bettman!

 

[Melvin]

You have presented a bad proposal. Maybe if you present the rest of the proposal, the part that makes it work, I could see how.

And you think my logic has failed here...

Jesus. You are just flat refusing to engage.

Explain to me why parity can't be maintained if a hard cap stays in place? What is the flaw? Where do Hughes, Kakko etc end up this year without a draft and why is it worse than the Rangers getting both Kakko and Panarin under the current system?

If necessary, rules could be in place to limit how many contracts you can sign or the nature of those contracts but it's not clear to me where it's necessary. You have called my proposal bad five times but refuse to elaborate why the hard salary cap would fail to maintain parity. Explain what the flaw is and then I can propose solutions. You are giving me nothing to work with.

 

[valkynax]

Add New Jersey to the list

I myself would hold for NJD for now, they had a lot of draft luck, but we're not sure what if anything they can achieve with all these top end talents yet.

That Albertan city, however, already has a solid track record of blowing multiple generations worth of first round picks like a fart in the wind while achieving f*** all.

 

[Shattered Dreams]

Jesus. You are just flat refusing to engage.

Explain to me why parity can't be maintained if a hard cap stays in place? What is the flaw? Where do Hughes, Kakko etc end up this year without a draft and why is it worse than the Rangers getting both Kakko and Panarin under the current system?

If necessary, rules could be in place to limit how many contracts you can sign or the nature of those contracts but it's not clear to me where it's necessary. You have called my proposal bad five times but refuse to elaborate why the hard salary cap would fail to maintain parity. Explain what the flaw is and then I can propose solutions. You are giving me nothing to work with.

Yeah, I don't see what the problem is with abolishing the draft if you establish safe guards. It makes sense to me to pay players at their best instead of waiting 3-7 years for them to cash in. Plus, wouldn't that eliminate the stupidity that dominates July 1st? If a dumb team caps themselves out, they can't sign any of the new up and coming players. The league should be forced to change so operate with the best people in place instead of giving stupid people umpteenth chances and safety nets. I sincerely doubt the entire league will be ruined when only a handful of GMs would have to be fired to fix the messes made by incompetent fools.

EDIT: Also, if one hypothetically will miss the lead up in prospect coverage before the draft, that wouldn't go away. I would assume they would just be part of the free agent pool or perhaps a separate date is reserved to make pitches to future stars and try to sign them. You can just switch the coverage over to which team will secure the hottest prospects instead of which team is going to light a tonne of cash on fire on 30-year-old players.

 

[sting101]

My top 10.

1. Offside challenges only in the 3rd period and are nulified once a possession change happens.
2. Diving reviews by a retainer of a few thousand by complaint team. If guilty..... diver is punished by fines then games.... increasing as it goes. (This will greatly help officiating)
3. Neutral zone infraction penalty for teams that dont forecheck with at least one player.....last 10 minutes is excempt and OT (get rid of safe boring play)
4. Reduce goalie equipment sizes and pad thigh rise 2/3inches
5. Home team gets to put the stick down last on faceoffs again
6. No leaving your feet to block passes and shots by players below the hash marks. The crease is a penalty shot if no goal is scored
7. No crossover in the playoffs if you cant finish top4 in your division too f***ing bad. a 1st place team should get an easier path...that or go back to the 1-8 we had before
8. Re structure the point system. 3pts for a 4 goal reg. win. 2pts for wins........no loser pts period (creates incentive to attack and gets rid of safe boring play)
9. Instead of a draft lottery have all teams as they become officially eliminated play for the highest pick possible based on pts. The worse you are the greater the chance to move up. Teams eliminated on the last day wouldn't get any games to create points. (So much for tanking and ripping off the season ticket holders with junk rosters)
10. Already mentioned but start by Sept 15th and wrap up by mid to late May

edit: lets get the best on best tourneys back....If China or wherever sucks then go to the Summer olympics..get er done

 

[Dana Murzyn]

Jesus. You are just flat refusing to engage.

Explain to me why parity can't be maintained if a hard cap stays in place? What is the flaw? Where do Hughes, Kakko etc end up this year without a draft and why is it worse than the Rangers getting both Kakko and Panarin under the current system?

If necessary, rules could be in place to limit how many contracts you can sign or the nature of those contracts but it's not clear to me where it's necessary. You have called my proposal bad five times but refuse to elaborate why the hard salary cap would fail to maintain parity. Explain what the flaw is and then I can propose solutions. You are giving me nothing to work with.

I don’t understand how, say, the Jets function in your system. All else being equal, players won’t choose to sign in Winnipeg. A premium will be required to lure players to the small market teams, as is already the case. Won’t the effects of that be exacerbated under your proposal?

 

[Javaman]

Ok my second crazy idea.


I really wish they would push the draft eligibility age limit up by a year, maybe even two.

This would make projecting the drafted players far less volatile.

Drafting for need could become a thing. 2nd rounders are actually worth A LOT.

There's probably a charter rights violation somewhere in this proposal. Probably wouldn't fly to simultaneously return the draft age to 20 and prohibit players from earning a living in the NHL unless they have been drafted.

It seems to me that drafting a player's employment rights in their 18th year is already a pretty sketchy compromise.

 

[Luongos Knob]

Change to the playoffs - top 8 teams in each conference go into a round robin, 2 games against each other team, 14 games total. Then, the top team in each conference plays in a 7 game final series.Now the road to the final is more even and less based on chance and matchups, and each team gets at least 7 home games in the playoffs ($$$$$$$$$).

 

[Siludin]

I think they should bring down the maximum offersheet compensation so it's more attractive to offersheet players.
4 1sts is too much. 3 firsts would be a good start but I think there's a combination of 1st and later-round picks which could also make sense - or maybe even a couple of options which the team whose player is receiving the offersheet can choose from.

 

[Javaman]

I don’t understand how, say, the Jets function in your system. All else being equal, players won’t choose to sign in Winnipeg. A premium will be required to lure players to the small market teams, as is already the case. Won’t the effects of that be exacerbated under your proposal?

I think Melvin's point is that the draft is one way, not the only way, to bring about parity. And that the current system, which includes not just the draft, but the whole ELC/RFA/UFA regime is not automatically the best way to level the playing field for small market teams.

It's the offseason, why not delve into the topic? In the end, we may all come to the conclusion that Melvin's ideas are stupid and unworkable, but I'd like to at least explore his ideas.

Sure beats finding new ways to say "Benning sucks" for the next 3 months.

 

[Dana Murzyn]

I think Melvin's point is that the draft is one way, not the only way, to bring about parity. And that the current system, which includes not just the draft, but the whole ELC/RFA/UFA regime is not automatically the best way to level the playing field for small market teams.

It's the offseason, why not delve into the topic? In the end, we may all come to the conclusion that Melvin's ideas are stupid and unworkable, but I'd like to at least explore his ideas.

Sure beats finding new ways to say "Benning sucks" for the next 3 months.

Yeah I’m into the discussion and always keen to hear what Melvin has to say. I just don’t get how it’d work. How do you solve the Winnipeg problem?

 

[Javaman]

I think they should bring down the maximum offersheet compensation so it's more attractive to offersheet players.
4 1sts is too much. 3 firsts would be a good start but I think there's a combination of 1st and later-round picks which could also make sense - or maybe even a couple of options which the team whose player is receiving the offersheet can choose from.

Yeah I agree. RFA compensation pretty much nullifies the "FA" in RFA.

Maybe get rid of RFA compensation and instead give teams cap-hit exemptions for resigning players they've drafted?

 

[Javaman]

Yeah I’m into the discussion and always keen to hear what Melvin has to say. I just don’t get how it’d work. How do you solve the Winnipeg problem?

Can you please elaborate on what the "Winnipeg problem" is?

Edit: I changed "specify" to "elaborate" because I genuinely want to understand. Not trying to be snarky.

 

[RandV]

Why?

You've fallen into the same false dichotomy that I described in my subsequent post. Why are the only options a draft or no parity? Why is the draft the only system that can work? Do we or do we not have a salary cap? How would there be no parity if there is still a hard cap and a maximum # of players you can get?

I think it would be a horrible idea to get rid of the draft. Other leagues around the world may do things differently but this has always been a big part of North American sports - NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and it's always an exciting draw for the more dedicated fans. Not to mention the huge hand it has in facilitating trades between team, especially at the deadline.

Now In Europe you have the academy system (which I get the basic idea of but am not really familiar with), but I don't feel like that would work with such a regional sport like hockey... and what the heck would you do with European players?

It seems like you don't like the way the top few players are handed out so you want to completely wipe the current system and install some sort of anarchy-capitalism system. I mean sure you could do that but there's just so much that could go wrong between massive parity gaps and GM's being stupid - the league/owners may have the upper hand against the PA when it comes to CBA negotiations, but when it comes to contracts players and agents murder GM's. And open season on 18 year old's would be even more brutal because you can just never tell what you're getting. I mean it's one thing if you're talking about open bidding on a Connor McDavid or Austin Matthews, but what happens when a team goes and gives an 8 year $80M contract to a Nail Yakupov?

 

[Canucks1096]

Ok my second crazy idea.


I really wish they would push the draft eligibility age limit up by a year, maybe even two.

This would make projecting the drafted players far less volatile.

Drafting for need could become a thing. 2nd rounders are actually worth A LOT.

That's a great idea. Also those elite players like Taveres and Matthews that were born a few days after September 15. They don't have to wait an extra year to play in the nhl.

When next Crosby and Mcdavid comes along. We can see them in the nhl at age 17.

 

[RandV]

I'm generally much more lenient in my opinion on rule changes the league makes, but I do really think they need to scrap the playoff seeding rules. Two division winners, then the rest of the conference seeded 3-8. I get the idea but it's just too imbalanced how it is because you're always going to have swings in quality of the divisions, and the 'intense rivalry' isn't so fun when you're in the stacked div during your teams window and keep seeing the same strong opponents.

 

[Javaman]

I think it would be a horrible idea to get rid of the draft. Other leagues around the world may do things differently but this has always been a big part of North American sports - NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and it's always an exciting draw for the more dedicated fans. Not to mention the huge hand it has in facilitating trades between team, especially at the deadline.

Now In Europe you have the academy system (which I get the basic idea of but am not really familiar with), but I don't feel like that would work with such a regional sport like hockey... and what the heck would you do with European players?

It seems like you don't like the way the top few players are handed out so you want to completely wipe the current system and install some sort of anarchy-capitalism system. I mean sure you could do that but there's just so much that could go wrong between massive parity gaps and GM's being stupid - the league/owners may have the upper hand against the PA when it comes to CBA negotiations, but when it comes to contracts players and agents murder GM's. And open season on 18 year old's would be even more brutal because you can just never tell what you're getting. I mean it's one thing if you're talking about open bidding on a Connor McDavid or Austin Matthews, but what happens when a team goes and gives an 8 year $80M contract to a Nail Yakupov?

Responding specifically to the comment in bold... the kind of GM who agrees to such a crappy deal doesn't last long as an NHL GM. I think that is one of the points Melvin is trying to make... the draft has the unintended effect of masking the incompetence of poor GMs. In other words, a competent GM would never make such an offer to a player like Yakupov, but they would definitely make it to McDavid or Matthews.

In general... wow... what's with the "anarchy-capitalism" label. That's so weird and out there. There's a lot of violent imagery in your post... why is that?

I'll agree in general that soccer/football is completely different beast with regards to professional sports compared to NA sports.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Jesus. You are just flat refusing to engage.

Explain to me why parity can't be maintained if a hard cap stays in place? What is the flaw? Where do Hughes, Kakko etc end up this year without a draft and why is it worse than the Rangers getting both Kakko and Panarin under the current system?

If necessary, rules could be in place to limit how many contracts you can sign or the nature of those contracts but it's not clear to me where it's necessary. You have called my proposal bad five times but refuse to elaborate why the hard salary cap would fail to maintain parity. Explain what the flaw is and then I can propose solutions. You are giving me nothing to work with.

Not so much refusing as unable to . It was 3am and I could not sleep.

Im stupid at the best of times. Shouldn't post dead tired.


Ok I'll try to explain my self like a grown up now that I got some shut eye. But first I need to clarify some things:

Do I assume correctly that in your system the player is free to choose if he wants to sign or not? There is nothing that limits his ability to sign with a team on his end. A team might not be able to sign him because of cap reasons or limited contracts available to give?

There would be no RFA system? When a contract ends player is UFA again.

There would be no separate salary structure limitations for the entry level players? You could give LaFreniere the same contract Panarin just signed?