Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe
The point of the draft is to try and help out the bad teams by giving them more talent, and thus it will help for parity. Ideally, you don't want the bottom teams from getting those picks.
|
The problem is the lag time between drafting and when the players they drafted develop to the point they can carry a team. It allows tankers to stockpile elite players and go from tanker to force to be reckoned with. Meanwhile non-tankers don't get the same opportunities and tend to wallow in the middle. Especially since the cap came in, you really need recently drafted impact players on ELCs or low second contracts to be a contender.
Colorado is a good example of this (although I don't think they purposely tanked). After they drafted MacKinnon, everyone knew that with proper management, that team was going to be competing in the playoffs in a few years barring bad luck. I don't think anyone was thinking that they should need more top 5 or top 10 picks to make that happen, but they went on to draft Rantanen and Makar (not to mention already having Landeskog in the system). It demonstrates how the draft system can over correct. San Jose and Chicago are going to be similar. I would not be surprised to see them go from bottom feeder to contender very quickly while other teams are left struggling just for actually trying.
Pittsburgh was another example (who I think absolutely did tank on purpose). They drafted in the top 5 four times in five years, including once after drafting Crosby while also having Malkin and MAF. It was just overkill at that point because everyone knew they already had what they needed to get competitive again.
I think every non-playoff team deserves a chance to get a shot in the arm rather than just letting perennial bottom feeders feast on it. I don't imagine it is great for gate sales either in a lot of those markets to promote tanking.