News today that the NHL has changed their draft order beginning this season. It's typical of the League to change a rule and institute it immediately, and they have routinely changed the rules over the years.
In 1967 when the NHL doubled in size Sam Pollock (who was charged with setting up the draft rules for expansion btw, while also being the Habs GM. No conflict there!) suggested that each expansion team be forced to keep their picks for at least two seasons after the draft and that they shouldn't be allowed to trade their first round picks. The league said no, and then Pollock proceeded to collect them aggressively (one of the key reasons Montreal dominated in post expansion 67-79).
Teams like the Oakland Seals and Pittsburgh Penguins rarely got a chance to draft players near the top early in their history, so the league decided to award the 1970 expansion teams (Buffalo and Vancouver) the top 2 picks. They did it again in 1972 and 1974, but by 1979 when the WHA came in the NHL decided the new teams would once again go to the back of the line.
The NHL draft is flawed, so flawed that they should have done much more today in terms of rule change. A few suggestions:
- A snake draft. You win the Cup, you pick 30th. and 31st.
- No team gets a top 5 pick two years in a row, and no NHL team can have more than two top 5 picks in a five year span.
- No team can improve their draft position by more than three slots after the trade deadline.
Any other suggestions?
11 comments:
LT, are you referring to trades or a team dropping like a fly with #3?
Also, I have no problem with a team getting as many #1 picks in a row as they want - if they're that inept, they deserve them.
I like the idea of snaking the draft.
pdo: Yeah, #3 is kind of a shot at the current Oilers. But the idea of having more than 1 top 5 in a row is pretty much the same thing. I don't see any reason for teams in markets like PITT should get a decade-long romp just because they decided they could rip off the public and get a deal plus a dynasty.
It doesn't ring true as sportsmanship.
I'd like to see teams get a minor discount in the salary cap on players drafted by that team (say 5% of their salary). It'd promote a throwback to the days where teams stayed together for longer than two years, and allows a smart team to build through the draft to create a dynasty.
Love your idea for limiting the number of top5 picks a team gets in successive years. Some teams just stockpile talent while maintaining the bottom-dweller status. That'd make franchises like Washington and LA turn themselves around much quicker and would increase competitiveness throughout the league. That being said, i don't see it passing through league GM's any time soon. Unfortunately, some owners would prefer to take the money and run, leaving their team without the cash they need to pay their players to stay...goddamn that sounds familiar to the mid 90's Oilers. Go figure.
A suggestion
How about:
If a team,
lets call them the Dead Things,
tops its pansy division,
then gets blown out in the First Round of the play-offs by the Eighth seed;
they should pick 30th
And lest we forget...Edmonton, as an expansion team, got the privilege of drafting 21st (last) in the '79 entry draft and then in the '93 got bumped down in draft position behind that year's expansion teams. I'm still bitter.
...they drafted Arnott 7th that year.
#3 is pretty silly. What if Ryan Smyth breaks his leg on deadline day and is out for the year instead of being traded. The Oilers are just as terrible but get screwed over in the draft to pour some salt in the wouund.
I can understand the reasoning behind #1 but I think if you're that poor a team, you deserve your draft choices. I think you'd be a bit hard-pressed to prove they were purposefully tanking.
Besides, it's luck that determines if you get the right pick in the right year and create the murderer's row that they currently have.
Imagine if the Penguins pick at the same position except 10 years earlier. Here's who they end up with instead.
1992 - #5 Darius Kasparaitis
1993 - #1 Alexandre Daigle
1994 - #2 Oleg Tverdosky
1995 - #1 Bryan Berard
1996 - #2 Andrei Zyuzin
No 2 consecutive top 5 picks makes sense along the lines of a top pick not showing their impact the next year. Save guys like Sidney Crosby, it takes a few years for a top pick to become a true impact NHL player. And often a top pick won't play in the NHL right away. I can see the argument that a poor team shouldn't get too many top prospects too quickly since we won't know their impact yet.
I swear I posted in these comments about an hour ago...
Anyway, yeah it's a dumb move. The President's Trophy is a way better approximation of the best team than the Stanley Cup will ever be. Why make both ends of the draft a lottery?
I'm not sure it's all that important anyway. Something like 90% of the elite players are used up in the first 15 picks. I doubt there's all that much difference between picks 16-20 and 26-30 anyway.
okay RQ, if that's the case what about you make the President's Trophy winner pick 29th, and the Cup winner 30th (if they're different teams)?
I never saw it mentioned anywhere else but I wish that Bettman would do something where he'd allow other teams to trade with Lowe on draft day.
I mean every doggone year good ole Kevin tries to trade up and help us, he really does, and sir no one will deal with him!!!
!!!!
Post a Comment