2023 NHL Draft Thread

[Bandwagon Surfer]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

How would you like them to distribute new young talent?

My wildly unpopular opinion for this is that we should let the players choose.


Limit the number that can go to each team to prevent everyone from going to the same place. Have young players competing to be good enough to earn one of the limited spots on their favorite teams. Instead of having teams competing to suck enough to have a player forced to play for them.



My reasoning is that it would add a lot more heart back to the game. Currently we treat young players as interchangeable parts, forcing them to treat their team relationship as strictly buisiness. A player who was able to earn a spot on their favourite team will have more than just financial reasons to care about playing there.

[1qqaaz]

I think this that previous lottery wins should lower the chance of new lottery wins.
It's the same teams winning over and over in the long term.

Similar how to the draft would have been carried out had the 2013 season been completely cancelled.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Fine. I think it’s 100% going forward. Either way they ‘d be zero percent without the reward for incompetence. the worst run franchise is sports will win more playoff rounds than teams that try or tried, for literally no other reason than being awful. They are cousin Eddie that won a lottery and now gets to rub it in your face.

So now there is planned incompetence. Be awful, on purpose, for years. As many as it takes to win the right lottery. If you are Arizona or Buffalo you might be on the oilers decades plan. Get lucky like Chicago or Toronto and maybe it’s 5 years.

The system is totally perverse.

They only have a few years of McDavid and one less of Draisaitl. So it took them 8 years of McDavid to get to this "100%" (which was at the end of the day based on goaltending and cap shenanigans, not a 1OA in 2015).

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Toonage

So a Stanley Cup winner could conceivably pick the 1OA that same year?

A Stanley Cup winning franchise that hasn't had a 1OA in 32 years might be pretty deserving.

How many recent cup winners have not had a 1OA in the preceding 32 years, or even the preceding 10 year? LA and Anaheim didn't, but they defy the trend.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Sure.

These are billion dollar orgs. I don't buy the idea that they 'need' picks as league welfare.

If you know your next few picks are 4th, 14th, 24th, and 1st, or whatever, plan accordingly and go win. May the best team win and if you win the cup AND didn't trade the upcoming first.. how fn good are you?

I know its counter to sports history but think about it a sec.
Edmonton is rewarded for being horrible. Chicago now twice.The Rangers. Florida. Tampa. Be bad. As bad as you can. Eventually, losing wins.

Teams like Nashville get completely screwed for building a great franchise and trying to win, even if they fell short. I think of SJ too. There are more.

Sure, but think about yours the other way. A really good team happens to have the #1 pick this year and they get Bedard. Now they are an instant dynasty for the next decade, while your team, already struggling, gets a Yakupov when it's their turn, then is on the outside looking in for the next 31 years with no way to do anything about that. How is that better?

[Ashasx]

I think the system is more fair now than it has ever been.

I simply want the Flames to benefit from it more.

[BoLevi]

The answer is to shorten the time period to UFA status. Dont make the draft more "fair", make it less relevant.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

My wildly unpopular opinion for this is that we should let the players choose.


Limit the number that can go to each team to prevent everyone from going to the same place. Have young players competing to be good enough to earn one of the limited spots on their favorite teams. Instead of having teams competing to suck enough to have a player forced to play for them.



My reasoning is that it would add a lot more heart back to the game. Currently we treat young players as interchangeable parts, forcing them to treat their team relationship as strictly buisiness. A player who was able to earn a spot on their favourite team will have more than just financial reasons to care about playing there.

So the most popular cities perpetually have the best teams. Cool.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Sure, but think about yours the other way. A really good team happens to have the #1 pick this year and they get Bedard. Now they are an instant dynasty for the next decade, while your team, already struggling, gets a Yakupov when it's their turn, then is on the outside looking in for the next 31 years with no way to do anything about that. How is that better?

Teams still have to deal with a salary cap. The cap does more to defeat dynasties and spread out the talent than the draft does.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The answer is to shorten the time period to UFA status. Dont make the draft more "fair", make it less relevant.

Giving the most popular and wealthy cities (NY, TOR, etc) more of an advantage.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So your turn comes around, and you get Yakupov. Then you have no chance again for 31 years.

Yup. And that is real I am not being dismissive.

But you do still get a shot at Makar, Tkachuk, Landeskog.. others.

The randomness does not go away. The management of it is what I'd appreciate.If your team sucks and you are all in on Yakupov, well, make your bet. Or, know he's likely not a game changer and plan that way.

31 years feels really long, unless your remember that for most teams it's never. Never ever in their whole history.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Teams still have to deal with a salary cap. The cap does more to defeat dynasties and spread out the talent than the draft does.

The cap limits talent consolidation.

The draft spreads out talent.

You need both, in order to have a level and competitive playing field.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I think the system is more fair now than it has ever been.

I simply want the Flames to benefit from it more.

I like that teams trying to finish 32 aren't guaranteed 1st overall but this was a season where several teams were trying to out-bad each other for first overall and the Hawks succeeded. I would have much rather seen a team like the Flyers or even Jackets win as their seasons were totally sidetracked by injuries but it seems like if there's a generational talent available that multiple teams will purposely tank ensuring decent odds that a tanking team will succeed.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Yup. And that is real I am not being dismissive.

But you do still get a shot at Makar, Tkachuk, Landeskog.. others.

The randomness does not go away. The management of it is what I'd appreciate.If your team sucks and you are all in on Yakupov, well, make your bet. Or, know he's likely not a game changer and plan that way.

31 years feels really long, unless your remember that for most teams it's never. Never ever in their whole history.

There are more ways to build a solid franchise than via the 1OA. If a team never hits the bottom, so be it. But at least this system creates a relatively level playing field for all teams, leaving them to make managerial choices of direction.

Your system relies more on random calendar timing.

[cral12]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

In his post-lottery mock, Pronman has the Flames taking Barlow at 16.

Barlow Trail

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Sure.

These are billion dollar orgs. I don't buy the idea that they 'need' picks as league welfare.

If you know your next few picks are 4th, 14th, 24th, and 1st, or whatever, plan accordingly and go win. May the best team win and if you win the cup AND didn't trade the upcoming first.. how fn good are you?

I know its counter to sports history but think about it a sec.
Edmonton is rewarded for being horrible. Chicago now twice.The Rangers. Florida. Tampa. Be bad. As bad as you can. Eventually, losing wins.

Teams like Nashville get completely screwed for building a great franchise and trying to win, even if they fell short. I think of SJ too. There are more.

I'd be willing to bet 31 other owners/GMs would not be agreeable to this.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So Pittsburgh and Nashville happen to win this year, as an example. How is that better? How do bad teams get better?

The bottom line is that fans are always going to be unhappy when the best players go to other teams, and not their team (which will happen almost all of the time). But in the end, the current system works well because bad teams get better players - parity is good, and this system is as good as any at maintaining it. With your system, a less bad team happens to win and they are instantly a good team again, while the weaker teams remain weak.

Who cares. Sports isn't about equality or charity. A more open draft system at least removes the tanking incentive. That is the major problem with the current system. If a team manages to stack a few elite picks, so be it. At least it isn't through intentionally being garbage.

Tanking, absolutely 100% works, at least in terms of acquiring the highest quality assets. Chicago couldn't have played this any better. They definitely positioned themselves for this opportunity, and it worked. All this talk about them not deserving it is laughable. There is no hockey god overseeing this stuff. They took the approach that yields results, simple as that. They deserve the pick because they planned to be in the running for it. I wish some organizations (wink wink, nudge nudge) weren't so high and mighty and realized what it takes to change the fortunes of the franchise and just did it.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There are more ways to build a solid franchise than via the 1OA. If a team never hits the bottom, so be it. But at least this system creates a relatively level playing field for all teams, leaving them to make managerial choices of direction.

Your system relies more on random calendar timing.

I have not seen a system that solves for random calender timing. Let me know if you have.

The current one is random calendar timing and as much tanking and submitting to it as possible.

I'll take random calendar timing and as much management as possible. My team might still suck, but not because Cousin Eddie won a lottery.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The cap limits talent consolidation.

The draft spreads out talent.

You need both, in order to have a level and competitive playing field.

I would argue that the cap spreads out talent more than the draft.

[Ashes]

I was really hoping it would be Philly to sneak in there and get the 1st overall, keeping him in the East. Having another "generational" player in the West is nausea inducing.

McDavid, Draisaitl, McKinnon, Makar, Bedard - Ouch. Hopefully he helps the Hawks just enough to take them to mediocre-land for a few years at least while they begin building around their shiny new toy. I would like to see them draft 13-16th consistently.

I just wish all the teams that miss the playoffs would get better odds at the lottery or something, instead of incentivizing this tanking culture. Unless you have an ownership group willing to do a full scale "rebuild" and "tear-down".. you're screwed out of top-end talent in these "generational drafts".

Moving on.. hopefully Barlow, Yager, or Danielson at #16 for the Flames.