What if the draft went away?

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,511
4,178
Essentially you're asking if the league would be better if every 1st overall would sign their ELC with Toronto/NYR instead of a random lottery team.

ELC:s are cheap, so of course the most coveted destinations would benefit hugely. By the time they hit RFA, those teams would also have huge amounts of trade assets in the form of blue chip young stars.

Let's say in the last decade all of McDavid, Hall, Seguin, Matthews, Laine, Eichel, MacKinnon, Dahlin and now also Hughes and Kakko would all have signed their ELC's with the Rangers. Would that be a good look for the league?

He doesn't outright say it, but his idea is scrapping ELCs all together. Thats the implication of this statement.

"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."
 

Oak

Registered User
Apr 22, 2012
3,931
691
MA
This sounds like fun. And since it's Japan, I can't help but imagine the "draw" is actually a silly game show where GM's compete for the player they picked:



Man I can watch this show every day for the rest of my life.
 

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,511
4,178
I've always been in favor of the relatively free market. Keep the salary cap with a 50% player/owner split and keep guaranteed contracts, and scrap ELC and RFA systems. The cap combined with guaranteed contracts is enough regulation to stop a team or even 5 from dominating the talent distribution of new players.

The Owners really shouldn't care, because they still get the same cut regardless. GMs will hate it, because it makes their job more important. But they can eat it, no more skating through a rebuilding being bad on purpose.
 

CodeE

step on snek
Dec 20, 2007
9,938
4,996
Los Angeles, CA
It's been done before and failed. Montreal grabbed all the best young talent and won a billion Stanley Cups with their superteam.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Irish Blues

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,511
4,178
It's been done before and failed. Montreal grabbed all the best young talent and won a billion Stanley Cups with their superteam.

A league with no salary cap and basically zero free agency isn't the same as having a strict cap, and un-restricted free agency.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: daddyohsix

TheOtherOne

Registered User
Jan 2, 2010
8,265
5,257
Montreal may have dominated pre-draft but that doesn't mean the pre-draft system couldn't be modified to fix that. For example with a salary cap.

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

Clearly it IS broken, as the draft is continuously modified. That's why there's a lottery system, and the current iteration of the lottery system is almost brand new. So obviously someone sees a problem and has been trying to fix it.

Granted HOW broken the problem is is in the eye of the beholder. I, personally, REALLY REALLY hate that every time my team loses I can't help but feel a little happy that the loss may directly lead to a better future player. I want to remove that connection no matter how much work it takes.

Under my system, for every team overpaying Crosby and winning Cups for it, there will be a team overpaying Yakupov and setting themselves back for it, and a team jumping the gun on Larkin and getting themselves an earned advantage. I think you're all really underestimating how complex it would be. A GM can't just say "throw all our money at all the best 18 year olds all the time" and expect to succeed. There will be a lot of franchise skill involved in choosing which prospects to invest in. And I think that's a great thing for the league.
 

tfong

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 29, 2008
10,402
972
www.instagram.com
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.

Luxury taxes haven't stopped baseball teams or NBA. The same few teams dominate and there is little parity. The NHL's vision is to create parity so this is how they've run it.

I don't know why its hilarious, fundamentally its what they aim for in order to expand the product other wise un-traditional markets. Its pretty simple, cause hockey is a niche sport for all intents and purposes due to its lack of accessibility.

I'm perfectly fine either way, I'm ok going back to a non salary cap era too.
 

SnuggaRUDE

Registered User
Apr 5, 2013
8,946
6,480
Montreal may have dominated pre-draft but that doesn't mean the pre-draft system couldn't be modified to fix that. For example with a salary cap.



Clearly it IS broken, as the draft is continuously modified. That's why there's a lottery system, and the current iteration of the lottery system is almost brand new. So obviously someone sees a problem and has been trying to fix it.

Granted HOW broken the problem is is in the eye of the beholder. I, personally, REALLY REALLY hate that every time my team loses I can't help but feel a little happy that the loss may directly lead to a better future player. I want to remove that connection no matter how much work it takes.

Under my system, for every team overpaying Crosby and winning Cups for it, there will be a team overpaying Yakupov and setting themselves back for it, and a team jumping the gun on Larkin and getting themselves an earned advantage. I think you're all really underestimating how complex it would be. A GM can't just say "throw all our money at all the best 18 year olds all the time" and expect to succeed. There will be a lot of franchise skill involved in choosing which prospects to invest in. And I think that's a great thing for the league.

And here's your central conceit. You believe that your emotional reaction indicates a system is mechanically broken. They tinker with the draft to appeal to the emotional responses of audiences; not because it's a good idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Irish Blues

SnuggaRUDE

Registered User
Apr 5, 2013
8,946
6,480
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.

You're viewing the league incorrectly, it isn't 31 separate entities competing. It's one entity competing against other entertainment options. That they've formed a cartel to do so is just how capital has decided to operate in this environment.
 

justafan22

Registered User
Jun 22, 2014
11,629
6,249
And here's your central conceit. You believe that your emotional reaction indicates a system is mechanically broken. They tinker with the draft to appeal to the emotional responses of audiences; not because it's a good idea.

but assuming there's a cap on the draft pool, would a prospect go to a team for less vs a bad market offering tens of millions more?
 

CodeE

step on snek
Dec 20, 2007
9,938
4,996
Los Angeles, CA
Montreal may have dominated pre-draft but that doesn't mean the pre-draft system couldn't be modified to fix that. For example with a salary cap.

Clearly it IS broken, as the draft is continuously modified. That's why there's a lottery system, and the current iteration of the lottery system is almost brand new. So obviously someone sees a problem and has been trying to fix it.

Granted HOW broken the problem is is in the eye of the beholder. I, personally, REALLY REALLY hate that every time my team loses I can't help but feel a little happy that the loss may directly lead to a better future player. I want to remove that connection no matter how much work it takes.

Under my system, for every team overpaying Crosby and winning Cups for it, there will be a team overpaying Yakupov and setting themselves back for it, and a team jumping the gun on Larkin and getting themselves an earned advantage. I think you're all really underestimating how complex it would be. A GM can't just say "throw all our money at all the best 18 year olds all the time" and expect to succeed. There will be a lot of franchise skill involved in choosing which prospects to invest in. And I think that's a great thing for the league.

You're too busy fixating on the Crosbys and Yakupovs.

Take a team like Tampa - good location, good foundation, no income tax, strong team. Stevie Y making all these 18-year-old kids starstruck. 2018 draft - bidding war for Dahlin & Svech, teams outbidding each other, alright. But then Stevie goes to work, signing Kravtsov, Boqvist, Dobson, Farabee, Kaut, Smith, Kupari, Miller, Veleno - because no team is willing to severely overpay to see what kind of players these prospects will be in 2-3 years.

Meanwhile the Ottawa Senators sign... nobody really. Because their owner is cheap and their team isn't very good.

It simply leads to a situation where the rich continuously get richer while the poor get poorer. Whatever bittersweet feeling you get when your team loses but it helps your draft odds is just a feeling you're gonna have to deal with - the parity of the NHL is absolutely necessary and must be protected.
 

Ezekial

Cheap Pizza, Bad Hockey
Sponsor
Nov 22, 2015
22,377
14,884
Chicago
After about the first 15-20 players it starts to turn into a terrible option in terms of player development. The draft puts players into organizations that give them structure and guidance even while they're unsigned.
 

SotasicA

Registered User
Aug 25, 2014
8,489
6,402
He doesn't outright say it, but his idea is scrapping ELCs all together. Thats the implication of this statement.
Then the PA says no. Removing ELC's is taking money away from current NHLPA members' pockets, because it's a zero sum game. Every dollar away from a rookie is a dollar in a vet's wallet.
 

TheOtherOne

Registered User
Jan 2, 2010
8,265
5,257
And here's your central conceit. You believe that your emotional reaction indicates a system is mechanically broken. They tinker with the draft to appeal to the emotional responses of audiences; not because it's a good idea.

OF COURSE emotional response of audience is important. Why in the world would you believe otherwise?

Product provokes poor emotional response -> fewer people willing to pay for product.
Product provokes good emotional response -> more people willing to pay for product.

Meanwhile the Ottawa Senators sign... nobody really. Because their owner is cheap and their team isn't very good.

To be perfectly honest... if a team sucks because their owner is cheap, then I don't have any f***ing sympathy for them whatsoever. The team's fans should strike and demand new ownership. And in any case, that's not an indictment of my system because those teams suck anyway and will suck no matter what system we have.

The key here is that IF management is skilled and committed to winning, they CAN thrive in the system because everyone has a level playing field. If Ottawa gets a new owner who wants to build a real competitor, they can go out of their way to do everything they can to lure the upcoming top prospects. The ones Toronto can't afford because they're busy competing with the highest paid 25-30 year olds in the game.

At the end of the day even if ownership sucks on purpose they're still going to be signing a bunch of what are essentially 2nd rounders for cheap, some of whom will grow into great players by accident.
 

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,511
4,178
You're too busy fixating on the Crosbys and Yakupovs.

Take a team like Tampa - good location, good foundation, no income tax, strong team. Stevie Y making all these 18-year-old kids starstruck. 2018 draft - bidding war for Dahlin & Svech, teams outbidding each other, alright. But then Stevie goes to work, signing Kravtsov, Boqvist, Dobson, Farabee, Kaut, Smith, Kupari, Miller, Veleno - because no team is willing to severely overpay to see what kind of players these prospects will be in 2-3 years.

Meanwhile the Ottawa Senators sign... nobody really. Because their owner is cheap and their team isn't very good.

It simply leads to a situation where the rich continuously get richer while the poor get poorer. Whatever bittersweet feeling you get when your team loses but it helps your draft odds is just a feeling you're gonna have to deal with - the parity of the NHL is absolutely necessary and must be protected.

And we should reward that ownership style with high draft picks (or attempt to atleast if their incompetance didn't lead them to trading them away).

You've illustrated perfectly why this would work. Stevie Y is a good GM, and those are the types of GMs/teams that will have success. And those are the ones that should have success. A decade ago they were a mess that would have been listed among the Coyotes and Panthers as teams this would kill. But they got strong management, who turned them around. No reason they couldn't be as strong under a free market system.

There is no reason Ottawa shouldn't be in the hunt for all those pieces you listed, because they have more available roster spots than anyone. Opportunity is a huge selling point. And if your owner and management are too cheap to take advantage of that, that's too bad.

I would much rather see a system that drives an mgmt team out rather than rewards them with exciting pieces to sell to their fanbase. At some point they'd hire someone who can make it work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheOtherOne

stepdad gaary

Registered User
Dec 5, 2011
7,249
814
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.

im sorry but its not like a new idea
 

SnuggaRUDE

Registered User
Apr 5, 2013
8,946
6,480
OF COURSE emotional response of audience is important. Why in the world would you believe otherwise?

Product provokes poor emotional response -> fewer people willing to pay for product.
Product provokes good emotional response -> more people willing to pay for product.



To be perfectly honest... if a team sucks because their owner is cheap, then I don't have any ****ing sympathy for them whatsoever. The team's fans should strike and demand new ownership. And in any case, that's not an indictment of my system because those teams suck anyway and will suck no matter what system we have.

You do know that no matter what system is built some teams will 'suck'; and through no fault of their own? As a previous poster said this isn't Lake Woebegone.
 

TheOtherOne

Registered User
Jan 2, 2010
8,265
5,257
And we should reward that ownership style with high draft picks (or attempt to atleast if their incompetance didn't lead them to trading them away).

You've illustrated perfectly why this would work. Stevie Y is a good GM, and those are the types of GMs/teams that will have success. And those are the ones that should have success. A decade ago they were a mess that would have been listed among the Coyotes and Panthers as teams this would kill. But they got strong management, who turned them around. No reason they couldn't be as strong under a free market system.

There is no reason Ottawa shouldn't be in the hunt for all those pieces you listed, because they have more available roster spots than anyone. Opportunity is a huge selling point. And if your owner and management are too cheap to take advantage of that, that's too bad.

I would much rather see a system that drives an mgmt team out rather than rewards them with exciting pieces to sell to their fanbase. At some point they'd hire someone who can make it work.
Thanks, you did a great job putting my thoughts into words.



You guys with all your arguments are describing a league in which good management lures top talent to become competitive. Shitty management has to deal with the scraps until they're replaced by someone better who's willing to step up to improve their franchise.

This is the league I want to see!
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->