What if the draft went away?

[NotProkofievian]

I would much rather see a change to player contract structure to encourage more trades, and make younger, more high profile free agents available more regularly. The draft has its power because, after drafting a player, you essentially control them for the lion's share of their best years. They don't even get arbitration rights for 5 years.

I would propose that after the ELC, players are immediately eligible for arbitration rights and are RFA for only a single year. Teams get 3 essentially ''free'' years, and a one time shot at exclusive negotiating rights on an equal playing field.

If that's not enough for your team to convince your elite talent to sign long term, then too bad.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Without getting into all the points in your post, I'm just curious: what all are the players giving up to the owners to get UFA rights as early as age 22? Because the players are going to have to give up a whole lot of stuff to get the owners to remotely consider biting on that.

 

[BobbyShehan]

Getting rid of the draft would force teams to focus on drafting? Ok.

Fair. I meant a League official draft. Focus on scouting and picking players at a young age...

 

[alko]

It’s not a good idea. In fact,it’s a horrible idea. The draft is one of the best parts of NA sports.

Especially in NFL, when they closed the stadiums for about 9 months.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Without getting into all the points in your post, I'm just curious: what all are the players giving up to the owners to get UFA rights as early as age 22? Because the players are going to have to give up a whole lot of stuff to get the owners to remotely consider biting on that.

That's a good question. The only ideas I can come up with are 1.) revenue, because that's what the owners fought over last time, and 2.) contract structure, the ultimate and most important feature being guaranteed contracts.

 

[BruinsFan1990]

I already know people are going to think that. The point of this thread is to discuss why? Do you actually have good reasons, or are you just appealing to tradition? I don't care much about tradition for tradition's sake.

My Uncle and I make the trip to the draft every year, no matter where it is. Its one of the best parts of the year for us and I'm willing to bet most of the people here feel the same way too.

 

[bobholly39]

Please at the very least think this through before knee-jerk reactions. I've been wondering about this for a bit now.
- I honestly don't know if this would be a good idea.
- I know it won't happen anytime soon.
- I understand it's a complicated ask and brings a lot of issues that I haven't considered (and that's why I want to start a discussion on it).

Here's the foundation of my idea: There is no longer a draft. All players everywhere are UFAs until they sign their first NHL contract, which can be with any team the player chooses, but then they become an RFA with that team with the normal rules intact.

What would this do, and what additional rules would we have to add to make it work?

What is the purpose of the draft?
- To fairly distribute incoming talent to all teams, giving everyone a fair chance.
Is this wrong? Are there more goals?

"But how will bad teams attract top prospects?"
Here is the key, and I'm not sure how well it will work, but let's think it through. The salary cap still applies! Top teams competing for the Cup are already paying top dollar to the best players in the world, so they simply won't be able to offer an 18-year-old Connor McDavid a king's ransom and still make the cap work. If your team legitimately believes they can compete for a Cup in 19/20, are they going to be able to clear the space necessary to pay Jack Hughes, who has never played an NHL game in his life? Or at least that's the idea. Maybe more restrictions need to be added to ensure it?
Phoenix or Arizona or whatever, they're not competing, they have a bunch of cap space laying around, they can make a kid rich making him the face of a franchise's rebuild.

This means landing top talent requires certain skills now. You can use money, but everyone is on the same playing field so a franchise will have to sell itself in other ways too. The franchises who can afford the young talent has to also convince them that they'll be the ones capable of doing the best rebuild. I think this is great because it removes the luck of the lottery balls and makes every aspect of team development controllable. Instead of applauding your luck at landing the number one pick, you get to applaud your management's ability to lure the number one pick to your team!

Here is the main benefit for me and I really think it's huge. Fans will never have to cheer for losses again. Losing more games will not help a team get better. The games themselves will be separate from the salary structure. Each and every time your team wins a game, it will be a good thing, something to cheer about. But at the same time, if your team does bad overall, that means you either have free cap space, or you have mediocre players to let go of to make room for promising kids who can turn your franchise around.

I could probably go on and on for a while longer but it's probably a better idea to just open it up for discussion and see where it goes. Anyone interested?

Im Canadian too so i hope fans of those cities wont get too offended when i talk down on them but.....Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary....assuming those teams are bad at time of draft how would they ever attract top players?

Mcdavid is Canadian but im sure if he could have picked hed have picked Toronto or maybe even Montreal for its history for a Canadian city. How about Tampa? Or a big city like NY or LA.

Laine.....is there any chance at all he signs in Winnipeg? Id say less than 0.1%.

Remember its one thing for ufa like Tavares whose nearing 30 to sign with a good team to win the cup. 18 year olds like Laine and McDavid were im sure care less about that- they want to go somewhere where they could personally succeed, where the climate is nice, maybe where the media isn't too crazy, etc. The desire to sacrifice other aspects to be able to win a cup tends to only surface after you grow older and havent won yet.

Basically with no draft some teams would constantly get the best players and some teams would be left with the bad ones.

I understand salaray cap but so what? Toronto would find a way to fit Hughes if they had him. As would any other team

 

[TheOtherOne]

It’s the best way to distrubute talent that is coming into the league, cheering for losses or tanking aren’t big issues at all. The lottery is there for a reason. If there was a bidding war for Jack Hughes in July fan interest in the sport would quickly decline IMO, mainly because there would be no excitement. He’s not signing in Arizona or Edmonton, because Arizona couldn’t afford him, and Edmonton doesn’t have cap space. See where I’m going? ELC’s are there so rookies can’t demand 10M a year.

Edit: it would **** up the foundation and structure of the league too. It’s really not an idea worth considering IMO.

- cheering for losses is and has always been a huge issue for me. If it's a problem for me it's probably a problem for a lot of other people (I don't think I'm that special.)

- if Arizona and Edmonton can never afford anyone worth betting the franchise on, then they don't deserve to have good teams anyway. I don't see how that's different from the current situation.

- yes, it would absolutely f*** up the foundation and structure of the league. I don't think that disqualifies it from consideration.

So what happens when every team is out of cap room?

I dunno, what happens under the current rules? I guess they have to decide who to pay less money. What does the draft have to do with this?

The point of the draft is so that teams like New York, LA, Chicago, Toronto, Quebec, Hartford or Atlanta don't rule the world as hockey destinations.

Seriously though, its so that a few teams don't collect all the good young players because they are better places to play/live/or the player's home. Imagine the Rangers or Kings in this situation? Would I rather be 18-25 in LA or in Calgary?

Rich people can live in the nicest part of any city. Would you rather get crammed under a stacked team's full cap, or make a few million bucks more a year from a team that can afford it?

You have this backwards.

Why should the league get rid of the draft?

Your job is to argue why it should be different. No one must argue why it should stay the same.

Bullshit, don't tell me what my job is. I never argued "the league should do this!" In fact I even admitted that I don't know if it's a good idea. I'm asking the question and opening the discussion. If you don't have anything to contribute, you don't have to participate, but just saying "no" is not helpful for anyone.





One question I want everyone to consider: is every good prospect going to get max salary? We're not only talking about 1oas here. We're talking about 18 year olds who have never played pro hockey. For any contending team who's up against the cap, paying even a few million for an unproven 18 year old is a huge gamble. Will some big hockey market make room for McDavid? Probably. But what about all the 2nds and 3rds and so on? I think that's where the bidding war starts to get really interesting. I want to be talking about the team who cleared 3 million to hire an unproven 15oa who goes on to lead the franchise.

For those of you talking about how the draft itself is a fun event: think how this sets up an even better event. Instead of the draft, you have the day where the year's eligible prospects announce where they're headed. It will be full of surprises and at least as interesting as the draft itself.

 

[SotasicA]

They should do a collaboration with the World Series of Poker and have all 15 non-playoff GM's take part in a No Limit Hold 'Em tournament. Teams then pick players in reverse order of elimination, winner gets #1 etc.

You can help the lower ranked weaker teams by giving their GMs larger starting stacks.

 

[ES]

I think other counteract should be introduced - no more waiver exemption for anyone.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

In fact I even admitted that I don't know if it's a good idea.

Spoiler: it's not a good idea.

- if Arizona and Edmonton can never afford anyone worth betting the franchise on, then they don't deserve to have good teams anyway. I don't see how that's different from the current situation.

Spoiler: this isn't Lake Wobegone. Not all teams can be "above average" over the long term.

For those of you talking about how the draft itself is a fun event: think how this sets up an even better event. Instead of the draft, you have the day where the year's eligible prospects announce where they're headed. It will be full of surprises and at least as interesting as the draft itself.

We already have something like that. It's called "the start of free agency." We also have something vaguely similar where we find out where players may be playing for the balance of the season and the playoffs. It's called "the trade deadline."

That's a good question. The only ideas I can come up with are 1.) revenue, because that's what the owners fought over last time, and 2.) contract structure, the ultimate and most important feature being guaranteed contracts.

I've got this back-of-the-envelope list:

1. No guaranteed contracts.
2. Reduced share of revenues. [Where "revenues" probably gets even more narrowly defined.]
3. All contracts are 1-year. [Very max length, 3 years - but still, not guaranteed.]
4. No signing bonuses.
5. No pension plan or defined contribution plan funding by the owners.
6. No NTC/NMCs.
7. Rollbacks on protections for scheduling, practices, travel to/from cities, along with requirement that players wanting single-accommodation rooms on the road must foot the bill for it.

I can probably list a dozen others, but those are the big ones that jump out immediately.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

If we're abolishing the draft and letting teams compete for the best young talent, can we also go back to the pre-draft era policy of establishing territorial rights for each team so that teams have first crack at local players to help build fan interest in the local club? Sure, it would tilt heavily toward certain teams over others, but hey ... we're giving those kids a chance to play for anyone else if they really want, right?

 

[Cotton]

Yes please,

Signed Toronto.

 

[SotasicA]

Without getting into all the points in your post, I'm just curious: what all are the players giving up to the owners to get UFA rights as early as age 22? Because the players are going to have to give up a whole lot of stuff to get the owners to remotely consider biting on that.

Why do owners care? They still get 50% of the pot.

It's the veteran PA members who will vote against this. No way do they want kids just entering the league making big money. It's away from the pockets of the veterans via available cap space and escrow.

 

[SotasicA]

If we're abolishing the draft and letting teams compete for the best young talent, can we also go back to the pre-draft era policy of establishing territorial rights for each team so that teams have first crack at local players to help build fan interest in the local club? Sure, it would tilt heavily toward certain teams over others, but hey ... we're giving those kids a chance to play for anyone else if they really want, right?

Tampa gets Russia and Carolina Finland.

 

[Mickey Marner]

Toronto would buy up most of the CHL teams and use them as an intermural farm system.

 

[NotProkofievian]

I've got this back-of-the-envelope list:

1. No guaranteed contracts.
2. Reduced share of revenues. [Where "revenues" probably gets even more narrowly defined.]
3. All contracts are 1-year. [Very max length, 3 years - but still, not guaranteed.]
4. No signing bonuses.
5. No pension plan or defined contribution plan funding by the owners.
6. No NTC/NMCs.
7. Rollbacks on protections for scheduling, practices, travel to/from cities, along with requirement that players wanting single-accommodation rooms on the road must foot the bill for it.

I can probably list a dozen others, but those are the big ones that jump out immediately.

Just curious, but why do you think owners would wish to target signing bonuses given their recent popularity?

But as for contract structure, assuming the players would want to lower the UFA age in the first place (which I think is an interesting question on its own), I would expect that guaranteed contracts would be something of a sacred cow used to get concessions on the points lower in the list that you gave. Ultimately I think the owners care most about the cut of the revenue and I expect that to be the battle ground should either side opt to not extend the current CBA.

 

[TheOtherOne]

I really think the worst-case-scenarios you guys are imagining are very unrealistic.

Toronto is going to what, offer huge money to the 1oa for 5 years in a row? Then what happens, they're basically Edmonton with no money for established veterans who know how to win in the NHL? And they have guys like Yakupov and Hall locked up for more money and term than they're actually worth? Sounds like a losing strategy.

Arizona never lures a single good prospect? I dunno, there are a lot of good players every year, and not all of them will fit on contenders right away. Grab a guy with huge potential early before he's ready, and watch him develop into the guy you need while other teams are kicking themselves that they didn't jump on him. Or alternatively, wait for the year that the truly generational guy pops up and offer him the world, then build your franchise around him. Beyond money, maybe as a GM you have to get creative. Maybe you have to market your team's future to him. Maybe you have to show him how your city is better than people think. This is a skill too, and if a GM can't figure it out, maybe he should step aside for a GM who can.

Beyond the earliest draft picks, there are always guys who overperform their expectations. If a team is unable to lure McDavid, then they have more shots at those secondary guys, because they can spend less on each one. Think of it as trading a 1st for 3 2nds. Another legit way to build up to a contender.

Here's a possible modification to the whole idea: Have a second, separate salary cap, that is only used to hire those UFA draft-eligible prospects. Not sure how this would change things but I think it's worth considering.

 

[Rebels57]

Of all the bad ideas in all the world, this is the worst.

 

[Burke the Legend]

There wasn't a draft until this 1960s or 1970s, and the Canadiens dominance was fueled by the fact that their farm system was twice as big as the rest of the league combined (no it wasn't the special "french rule", that is a myth). Wealthier clubs/owners will go back to this kind of investment, poorer teams or cheap owners will not.

I don't even know how many rich clubs would even want this though even though it would help them gain a big advantage over half the league, because it would force them to spends millions more in a talent race with each other. I feel owners like MLSE, Dolan, Molson, etc. would rather everyone just kept costs down, avoid excessive competition and pocket their profits.

 

[Five Alarm Fire]

You'd have to remove ELC's to maintain the balance of the league, and that would result in:
- Older players pushed out the league much quicker.
- Dead cap space spent on young players who don't pan out. The higher contracts right away would also hurt the development of talent in general.

If you don't remove ELCs, then you likely get dynasties. Imagine Chicago adding Matthews in 2016 after purging talent for cap reasons.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

FIFA has a similar system. So, I guess the NHL would be a lot like the Champions League or whatever. You'd probably have to also introduce a promotion/relegation system with NHL/AHL/ECHL or there'd probably be some real awful teams in the NHL

 

[tfong]

Basically hockey regions and high pop regions like Montreal Quebec would dominate as they would would get all the kids that only want to play for their regional teams.

They did this way back in the day and its how the Habs always kept getting the top talents from their areas and the major hockey playing areas would also get alot of the players locally.

Teams on the fringe would cease to exist because they wouldn't have a large enough pool of players probably interested in signing with them to play at a reasonable competitive level.

See NHL pre-draft 1963.

 

[Dogewow]

All of this just seems like a lot of unnecessary work to fix something that isn't broken.

 

[justafan22]

Basically hockey regions and high pop regions like Montreal Quebec would dominate as they would would get all the kids that only want to play for their regional teams.

They did this way back in the day and its how the Habs always kept getting the top talents from their areas and the major hockey playing areas would also get alot of the players locally.

Teams on the fringe would cease to exist because they wouldn't have a large enough pool of players probably interested in signing with them to play at a reasonable competitive level.

See NHL pre-draft 1963.

Not if there's a luxury tax and limit on how much you can spend on the draft.

It is hilarious that pro sports, a capitalist enterprise, has a socialist idea in the draft in it.