What if the draft went away?

[GodPucker]

The Ottawa Senators wouldn't even be a team anymore if not for being able to draft the league superstars

Yes they would. Even terrible teams will have left over guys wanting to sign.

It's all about the MOOLAH BABAYY

I don't mind this idea

 

[Aceboogie]

Under this structure, having a cap in place in no way guarantees that smaller, stingy, or less desirable organizations are on the same playing field with the other markets that are ahead of them, just because "the Leafs can't sign everyone".

Forget about the Leafs and Rangers for a second. and remember that there are plenty of other decently attractive markets beneath them that are still ahead of the bottom dwellers of the league.

Smaller, stingy teams often have to be more resourceful/smarter. So if alot of the teams are using up their cap space to get these top prospects, that means they have less cap space to sign 27+ UFAs. So know a smaller team could instead go against the current and sign a more established UFA for cheaper than they otherwise could. Or if teams are going crazy trying to sign top prospects and are dealing away vets for cap space, stingy teams could take advantage

Scouting will also be important. Because for sure dumb teams will throw tons of money at a Lawson Crouse or Griffin Reinhart, but you could identify a Brayden Point and Aho etc and not break the bank.

 

[Aceboogie]

There was once upon a time when UFA was non existant/very limited and the notion that you could let players decide where they want to play was ludicrous. It was going to tear the league apart because New York and Toronto would collect all of the good players. But then free agency opened up and pretty much the opposite happened and the NHL is better off for it

The same arguments used then are likely copy and paste the exact ones used here

 

[Dogewow]

Yes they would. Even terrible teams will have left over guys wanting to sign.

It's all about the MOOLAH BABAYY

I don't mind this idea

Oh that’s a nice thought. Us fans of smaller, less desirable market teams can just look forward to the scraps that the big dogs don’t care about.

 

[TheOtherOne]

If we are talking salary cap still in place, a revamp of the system like you suggested would still reward locations that already have built in advantages.

Do you think a generational prospect like Crosby would ever go to a place like Pittsburgh ever again?

Teams in desirable locations whether in regards to fame/weather/tax breaks/travel would get an even bigger boost than they already have.

Other markets would suffer as they would have to overpay for prospects as well as free agents.

I don't see how that would be good for the health of the league as a whole.

Look, this is me acknowledging that this point right here is probably the biggest problem with my idea.

I can't accurately predict how it would really play out and neither can anybody without actually seeing it in action. But I will say this. If there's an NHL city that's such an undesirable location that no promising prospects will ever be willing to sign there, it's Detroit. My team's city. Nobody wants to live in Detroit on purpose if they can help it.

But I think our players are happy, and have been for decades, even when it was really bad. That's because they're millionaire athletes, and millionaires can find a way to make any location livable, and athletes are just busy training all the time, and they all get a half a year's vacation when they can go live in their second house anywhere in the world anyway.

That's why I don't think it's that big of a deal.

 

[Aceboogie]

Oh that’s a nice thought. Us fans of smaller, less desirable market teams can just look forward to the scraps that the big dogs don’t care about.

No, you could look forward to leveraging a savvy GMs ability even more. A smaller market team that never finishes bottom 5 is pretty much stuck picking mid 1st round talents, then being restricted to one pick per round. they have to wait as other teams have the exclusive right to a certain prospect. The only way for them to gain access to a top level talent is to tank. Pure and simple

Atleast now, that small market team could make a case for a top prospect to go there. Not every player wants to live in New York or Toronto, shocking I know. Some may be swayed by that small market GM stating his vision for the team and that prospect wanting to win

or, that small market GM could scout hard the 30th-80th best ranked prospects and have the skill to identify the 5 best ones, and now have the access and ability to acquire most of them.

They can also sit back and watch as teams get in a bidding war for Nail Yakupov and some team gest him for 7 years at 8 million

 

[Aceboogie]

Look, this is me acknowledging that this point right here is probably the biggest problem with my idea.

I can't accurately predict how it would really play out and neither can anybody without actually seeing it in action. But I will say this. If there's an NHL city that's such an undesirable location that no promising prospects will ever be willing to sign there, it's Detroit. My team's city. Nobody wants to live in Detroit on purpose if they can help it.

But I think our players are happy, and have been for decades, even when it was really bad. That's because they're millionaire athletes, and millionaires can find a way to make any location livable, and athletes are just busy training all the time, and they all get a half a year's vacation when they can go live in their second house anywhere in the world anyway.

That's why I don't think it's that big of a deal.

No kidding. And I live in Edmonton, aka a less desirable city and FAR worse run franchise. And the Oilers are STILL able to sign Lucic/Sekera even while LA/Montreal are only offering slightly less

Or take this. The Oilers signed top UFA, mega hyped Justin Schultz (aka a prospect) from the NCAA. They couldnt offer him more money than other teams, And all 30 teams were after him. Or, the Oilers sign Drake Cagguila, again the best college UFA of the time, even as Philly, Chicago, New York and Vancouver all made massive pitches. The Oilers didnt offer him more money, they sold him on what the team was building (which was a lie, sorry Drake)There was a period from 2014-2017 when the Oilers were with landing, or in the top 3, top NCAA FAs. If this myth that only certain big cities would get all the prospects in the world, this wouldnt be have happened

 

[TheOtherOne]

I have a non-loaded question for everyone. I promise it's not a trap, it's really just a question and I'm looking for opinions.

What kind of contracts do you think kids would actually get under the draftless system?

An 18-year-old McDavid might actually get max salary because of the bidding war. But what about other guys?

15oa to 31oa are highly sought after prospects. But they are unproven, they are risks. They have never played in the NHL in their lives. Are teams really going to offer them multi-year multimillion dollar contracts?

What are these first contracts realistically going to look like under this system?

 

[Aceboogie]

I have a non-loaded question for everyone. I promise it's not a trap, it's really just a question and I'm looking for opinions.

What kind of contracts do you think kids would actually get under the draftless system?

An 18-year-old McDavid might actually get max salary because of the bidding war. But what about other guys?

15oa to 31oa are highly sought after prospects. But they are unproven, they are risks. They have never played in the NHL in their lives. Are teams really going to offer them multi-year multimillion dollar contracts?

What are these first contracts realistically going to look like under this system?

This is a great question. I think we would see some crazy ones at first. I think some young D prospects would get major pay days. But after a few seasons it would go back to normal. teams would realize, 18 year olds have major swings in development and its hard to project.

I think elite top 5 picks would get around 6-7 mil right off the bat. Mid 1st level talent would be around 2-3 million

One of the only issues I see with No Draft, is that development could be very hard. Right now, when a team has the rights to a player, theyll funnel resources and time into developing that player. Then teams have AHL squads exclusively for development. Most players after the 1st round go to the AHL. So a kink in the system would be that these players wouldnt be signed until they are 19-20, so they would need to find AHL clubs.

A solution could be found though

 

[Garbageyuk]

If the draft went away, where would it go?

 

[Habsfunk]

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.

This is my thought. The rich teams would sign as many prospects as possible and establish an elaborate farm system for them in the hopes of uncovering the next Henrik Zetterberg or Pavel Datsyuk, The top talents might get distributed evenly because of cap constraints and players wanting to go where they have the most chance of success. Where it gets interesting is all those guys who are projected for the third round or later. What's to stop the rich teams from snapping them up in the hopes that a few pan out? Or they could offer them more to play in the minors. Montreal can afford to have a huge farm system, or pay their minor leaguers good wages, but Arizona can't, giving the Habs a better chance of attracting talent.

Think of it like a venture capitalist throwing money around to all sorts of start-ups. Most will fail, but if one becomes a billion dollar company, you're sitting pretty. A rich team would be better positioned to take a chance on a marginal prospect in the hopes they turn out.

 

[GodPucker]

Oh that’s a nice thought. Us fans of smaller, less desirable market teams can just look forward to the scraps that the big dogs don’t care about.

My team isn't a top 5 money maker. Edmonton. It's a neat idea. With a cap you cant blow your load on everybody ala NYR pre cap

 

[Kamaya Painters]

We've gone kind of hyperbolic on the "best years" argument. It's now getting thrown around as if when a player hits 27, they're pretty much crap. Yes, a player's peak year is most likely to happen at 27 or younger - but they can still be fairly productive players into their mid-30s or later. Let's quit acting like half or more of a player's career production happens in the first 3-4 years of his pro/NHL career or so.

As to "why don't players get rid of the draft" - it's pretty simple. Other than the point about the NHLPA not wanting big dollars thrown at kids like I've mentioned a few times now, even the NHLPA recognizes that the league is not stable if a few teams have a direct pipeline to all the great young players and everyone else gets table scraps. That sets up the long-term scenario where only a few teams compete for the title and everyone else is hoping for a miracle. Fan interest wanes for teams that aren't successful, those teams get weaker, and get forced to shut the doors or find another place to operate. Neither of those are optimal for league stability or the financial well-being of the players. [Spoiler: players have lives, too. They don't want to have to pick up every couple of years looking for a new job and/or place to stay because their past team called it quits / relocated yet again].

The draft is the means by which talent is allocated around the league. You can argue about how it's done and whether there's better ways to do so, but the more one tries to create a system that "favors" certain teams [which always seem to be the case with these ideas; the beneficiaries always magically turn out to be the higher-revenue, more desirable ones and never the lower-revenue, less desirable ones], the more you set a league up for instability. And one thing advertisers, league partners, and governments hate is instability because it reduces incentives to participate with and help out member teams and the league as a whole.

My argument isn't aimed towards players losing out on their "best years" but rather on several of their initial years in the league. They'd also improve a lot more by playing with better players if they're competitive enough.

The lack of interest (unless there are good players available) is a typically North American thing. A good fan base isn't solely created through having great players but an identity and sporting direction. North American fan culture is unfortunately not particularly strong because everything circles around making as much money as possible and not creating a proper identity which is long lasting.

The draft system is just there to secure that everyone (who've paid their way into the league) get their share while it's amazing how players still accept being RFA's for an example.

 

[Jayan]

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?

Well the homer in me wouldnt mind but where is Marner and Elias Pettersson?

 

[Kamaya Painters]

1. The NHL is hands-down the best league in the world. The vast majority of elite players in the world want to play there and not in the Allsveskan or the VHL and hope they can scratch out a contract in the Elitseiren or the KHL. You ask even mid-level guys in European leagues if they'd like to come play in the NHL for even a couple seasons, I suspect the vast majority of them would jump at the chance. It's better money, it's a bigger stage, and it's a chance to compete against the world's best; few people are passing that up because "nah, I love it here in the Serie A, the level of competition is fantastic and the salaries are great!"

2. If anything, increasing the low transfer fees that you complain about European teams not getting "for the players that they've educated and produced" would, if we take the "no draft" approach and carry it over, would (A) represent a "true free market" where interested NHL teams would have to bid closer to market price for those players [which you would arguably claim is good, because now teams are getting more fairly compensated, but also (B) become an artificial barrier that restricts player movement so that they really didn't have the freedom to choose where they want to play [which runs completely contrary to the "no draft, players have greater freedom" notion being pitched endlessly here]. If you're going to be consistent on this, then there shouldn't be any transfer fees at all.

3. Maybe those teams struggling to break even should find better management that helps the team run more efficiently; if not, then we shouldn't be rewarding them for being semi-incompetent and happening to get lucky with a couple of guys they've found that someone else wants. [Which is consistent with the "no draft, quit rewarding poor teams" message being pitched endlessly here.]

1) The NHL should pay a higher compensation when they're taking a player from a club in for an example SHL. They should also get some money every time a player is being traded to another NHL-club. The players will always want to play in the NHL because of the money and that's completely normal.

2) It's not a matter of restrictions. A player should always have the freedom to choose where he wants to play. Completely normal. The NHL, however, don't really care about the clubs that educate and produce these players so they're just handing some sort of minimum. There should definitely be transfer fees, not only because of how much money a NHL-club is generating but also because it'd help smaller clubs survive. It's easy to argue as you do when you're on NHL's side.

3) It's not a matter of competence, especially in countries like Sweden where taxes are an enormous burden for everyone involved. It's also a small country where it's incredibly expensive to play hockey and where the number of players is descending. The instructors and coaches are doing an incredible job of actually producing this amount of players for the North American game. Sooner or later the production line will dry up though and it's just another indicator of how little you know about the system and way things are being done outside of your own territory.

 

[Spazkat]

This would be a boon for them. They let role players walk, and sign high talent kids at cheap ELCs

Yes, I can totally see the players association thinking that's a good plan.

 

[Machinehead]

The draft going away but the cap staying would be fun to watch.

It wouldn't be healthy, productive, or sustainable in any way, but it would be fun.

 

[Kamaya Painters]

I doubt it. The English Premier League has been around in it's current format for 23 seasons.

3 clubs have won the Championships a combined 21 times. Man U has won 13 of those.

That is what you would see. McDavid and 10 other stars on the NYR. No fun for fans of the 25 teams that don't have infinite wealth.

You'd have to shorten the regular season down to about 20 games because anything more would just be a joke.
I don't see the appeal of that at all.

Let's get one thing straight. The Premier League isn't like the NHL meaning it isn't the ONLY league and certainly not the STRONGEST in terms of quality, coaching and youth development. The NHL has no competition in this department because they grab 90-95% of all the talent available in the world of hockey.

Premier League-clubs are also some of the worst organizations in terms of sporting structure and football competence when it comes to European football. Mainly because of their arrogance and lack of willingness to look further than their own territory when it comes to development of the sport. Only in the past few years have they started to improve their youth teams thanks to the English FA's willingness to invest in qualified UEFA Pro-coaches and by looking at what's being done in Spain, Germany, Italy and France. They've got the best marketed league in the world by a large, large distance and still can't compete properly in Europe which is where the real ability is being measured.

Their TV-deals are outrageous and not comparable to what clubs in other countries get. It's the foundation of their wealth alongside what they actually generate from match days. Possessing a lot of money isn't the only way of creating strong sporting structures and competitive teams. Clubs with a strong financial backing will always be candidates to win titles but it doesn't mean they'll always do it.

Atlético Madrid are a perfect example of a club that's constantly competitive and improving because of their sporting structure and they're drawing large advantages thanks to their domestic competition being Barcelona and Real Madrid. A league like the NHL (who have no competition from maybe the odd Russian player in the KHL) would be a even more entertaining and better league with a different system where player movement would be a lot more free. It's when you haven't got a lot of money that you actually start taking care of every dollar and as a result you'll need a strong sporting structure.

As things stand right now, lots of teams are being given a free pass and still can't handle it.

EDIT: Oh and by the way, there was something called football in England 100 years before the Premier League kicked off in 1992.

 

[Bank Shot]

Atlético Madrid are a perfect example of a club that's constantly competitive and improving because of their sporting structure and they're drawing large advantages thanks to their domestic competition being Barcelona and Real Madrid. .

I don't see how the Spanish League is any different than the English.

20 teams and Real Madrid and Barcelona have won 15 of the last 19 championships and 13 out of the last 14.

90+% chance that one of two teams will win every season. That makes for a boring league in my opinion.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

1) The NHL should pay a higher compensation when they're taking a player from a club in for an example SHL. Why? If you're the league that's got the guy, work harder to keep him. Can't do that? Too bad, so sad. Especially in this "no draft" world you seem to be a fan of, where the strongest attract talent and go on to greatness and everyone else can suck eggs. They should also get some money every time a player is being traded to another NHL-club. This is totally nuts. Let me guess: the NHL should also cut a check every time the guy signs a new contract, too? The players will always want to play in the NHL because of the money and that's completely normal. So, the problem is ... they don't want to play for the "home" team? There's 3 words that come to mind: life isn't fair.

2) It's not a matter of restrictions. A player should always have the freedom to choose where he wants to play. Completely normal. The NHL, however, don't really care about the clubs that educate and produce these players so they're just handing some sort of minimum. That's not the NHL's problem. That's the problem of the league that team is in. The NHL isn't supposed to be the hockey world's financial counselor. There should definitely be transfer fees which again is inconsistent with the "free market" approach you advocate for with no draft, not only because of how much money a NHL-club is generating I can't wait to hear the "this is such a socialistic" take from whoever previously criticized the draft as a socialist idea but also because it'd help smaller clubs survive. Well, unless they're run poorly. Then, they should crash and burn - or, maybe fans should go on strike and demand new ownership ... which I've been told by someone in this thread is very easy to do and pull off. It's easy to argue as you do when you're on NHL's side. I'm not on anyone's side. I am however being critical of the idea of "we should get more money" while simultaneously arguing "get rid of the draft, don't worry about anyone's needs or ability to financially compete for entry-level talent; those who can't get must suffer and do without."

3) It's not a matter of competence, especially in countries like Sweden where taxes are an enormous burden for everyone involved. Again, I'm sure the NHL has no interest in being the world's financial advisor. I'm really sure it really has no interest in trying to equalize everything across the globe based on taxes, cost of living, need, etc. Hell, people who think the NHL's salary cap lobbed a thread out about it and there's no agreement on what "equal" means there; you think that's going to be solved by taking that problem to a global scale? It's also a small country where it's incredibly expensive to play hockey kind of like everywhere else in the world; don't pretend Sweden is some outlier on that and the rest of the world has made hockey inexpensive to play and where the number of players is descending. So what if the hockey-playing population is decreasing? Why is that the responsibility of the NHL to somehow fix or remedy? The instructors and coaches are doing an incredible job of actually producing this amount of players for the North American game. This sounds like a fantastic idea for someone to put together a plan to develop players just as good or better, at a lower cost. You know ... innovation - that thing that helps make the world a better place. Sooner or later the production line will dry up though and it's just another indicator of how little you know about the system and way things are being done outside of your own territory. Please, let's not pretend Sweden is the sole source of great hockey players in the world. If no more great players come out of Sweden, ... yeah, it would suck, but I'm pretty sure the sport would still somehow survive.

Comments in italics. If you're going to put forth an argument for money going to Europe to compensate for player development, don't turn around and claim it's somehow consistent to create an entry-level system where the haves are able to exploit their financial ability to control the market at the expense of the have-nots. It's not.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Atlético Madrid are a perfect example of a club that's constantly competitive and improving because of their sporting structure and they're drawing large advantages thanks to their domestic competition being Barcelona and Real Madrid.

Atletico can also spend up to 293 million Euros on player salaries, coaches, the youth system, and other aspects of the club this season per the salary cap for La Liga this season. Only 2 other teams outside of Real and Barcelona can spend even half that much. 12 of them can't spend even 30% of that, one of them can't even spend 10% of that.

Put another way: Real's 632 million Euro salary cap is more than the bottom 13 teams can spend combined. 11 of those 13 can't even spend 10% of that figure, two of them can't even spend 5% of it. Why aren't you speaking up for Rayo Vallecano, or Huerta, or Real Valladolid, or Girona? Don't they likely produce good players who just get plucked by the high rollers for a pittance, leaving them nearly broke and constantly struggling to hang in La Liga for more than a season or two?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

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).

I allude to the "french rule" because of the provision granted the Canadiens in the 1963-67 drafts. Not because it made the Canadiens great or that they got anyone even decent out of it, but because it was inserted at the request of Sam Pollock in order to "preserve the French-Canadien legacy of the Montreal franchise." Or some shit like that. [What really fueled the Canadians run in the 70s was Pollock taking a few of the expansion GMs behind the woodshed in trades and loading up on 1st-round picks to get future superstar players.]

 

[Pyrophorus]

Just Imagine....

No salary cap and no draft...me likey!