Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvanfan
I think this is getting a bit nuts. The NFL is just fine with it's system the way it is.
|
Changing the format every five or six years makes the NHL look bush league. It gives the impression the league isn't sure what purpose the draft serves. You can't go re-jigging the thing every time there are a couple exceptional talents on the horizon. Agree on the purpose of the draft, pick a format, and stick with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan
Team like St. Louis and Boston didn't very many high picks if any.
They had Johnson at #1 in 2006, and Pietrangelo at #4 in 2008.
Boston had Kessel at #5 in 2006, Hamill at #8 in 2007, and Seguin (via trade) at #2 in 2010.
Both are top teams today and could actually meet in this years Stanley Cup Final.
|
Both teams also had several drafts with multiple 1sts and multiple 2nd rounders. It's not just the high firsts, but lots of 1sts and 2nds that really ramp up the odds of drafting difference-makers. Problem is, to get those 1sts and 2nds you typically need to give up quality NHLers (which are in short supply on bad teams), and some fans will call that 'tanking'. Remember, St. Louis moved out Tkachuk, Guerin, Weight, and Brewer for picks.
Also, the key piece in rebuilding the Bruins was signing Chara, and that's a home-run, once-in-20-years UFA signing. Kudos for pulling it off, but signing a Chara-quality UFA isn't part of any realistic plan.
St. Louis
2006: 2 x 1st (including 1st overall); 2 x 2nd
2007: 3 x 1st; 2 x 2nd
2008: 1 x 1st (4th overall); 2 x 2nd
2010: 2 x 1st