The Rookie Draft

[Tubbs]

I love this league but I wonder why we don't switch back to a straight up rookie draft - and ditch the rookie retention rights of each team.

Yes, as a cellar dweller this change would benefit me, but the draft is such an exciting time in any league, and gives cellar dwellers the hope that they can rejuvenate their team quickly- like a real life NHL GM.  That excitement is lacking here given the current set up.

Just throwing this,out there and would like to hear others' thoughts.  :toast:

[Rob]

I'm personally a fan of retaining team picks. And it's done nothing but hurt me overall since the real life Bruins are TERRIBLE at drafting. I think it's a nice wrinkle, if not always completely fair. I also believe that it makes our Supplemental even more fun, having to dig deep for those players who went unnoticed in previous drafts, or those that have outplayed their draft position in the minors or overseas. Having a small Minors roster makes this draft very compelling, to me. 

[Capn Cally]

I've said it previously as well, similar to what Tubbs is saying.

I get that this is the way it's been done for a while in DNHL though.

But what if say, my Panthers, or Tyler's Ducks, or Shooter's Blues were the Leafs or Oilers, and we got handed a free star player like Mathews or McDavid that makes our already good teams that much better?

Luckily for Vancouver and Arizona, those real life NHL teams will get good picks this year, but for Pittsburgh and Montreal, they aren't so lucky.
It also sucks for teams that don't even get a free 1st rounder if the NHL team trades theirs away.

But yes Rob, it sucks for you since Boston wasted those three 1st rounders a couple years ago, haha.

Maybe a wrinkle could be to leave all of the actual NHL 1st Round draft picks in the supplemental draft pool...
The top maybe 10 or 12 would go in that order, but for some people there might be a player with 38 NHL games that they would like instead of the 14th overall 18-year old prospect in that year's draft.
Also this way, the teams finishing lower in the standings get a shot at a really good prospect, instead of a 25th-30th overall prospect.
Still give the option for GM's to take their real NHL team's 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounders if they choose to though.
It would make the value of 1st Round draft picks a lot higher for trading chips as well, since the worst they would be equivalent to would be 20th overall NHL draftees if it was the league champion's 1st rounder.
Even 2nd round picks become more valuable since there would be at least 10 NHL 1st rounders left to be drafted in the 2nd round.

Just a thought - not totally taking away what's been in place, but adding a twist.
I think it makes it more fair for bottom end teams, especially if their franchises are good year over year.

[Rob]

"Protected" first rounders is a very interesting idea. I like it. But if i had to vote I'd vote to keep it like it is. There's no doubt that it's not entirely fair. Good teams have received far better draft talent in the past than they deserve. And vice versa obviously. But it's not making the difference between good teams and bad in this league. It's a wrinkle, a speed bump so to speak that you have to navigate.  It also heavily rewards those GM's who do their research and know the game from college and on up by thinning the supplemental herd. I really like that element, even though I'm not the best in that category. That draft is probably my favorite part of this whole thing. That and losing in the finals.

So my take is clear, i think.  This has always been a democracy, so lay it on me.  If a change is consensus a change will occur.

And don't get me started on the Bruins drafting.  They f**king drafted Trent f**king Frederic in the 1st f**king round this year.

[Anthony]

"Protected" first rounders is a very interesting idea. I like it. But if i had to vote I'd vote to keep it like it is. There's no doubt that it's not entirely fair. Good teams have received far better draft talent in the past than they deserve. And vice versa obviously. But it's not making the difference between good teams and bad in this league. It's a wrinkle, a speed bump so to speak that you have to navigate.  It also heavily rewards those GM's who do their research and know the game from college and on up by thinning the supplemental herd. I really like that element, even though I'm not the best in that category. That draft is probably my favorite part of this whole thing. That and losing in the finals.

So my take is clear, i think.  This has always been a democracy, so lay it on me.  If a change is consensus a change will occur.

And don't get me started on the Bruins drafting.  They f**king drafted Trent f**king Frederic in the 1st f**king round this year.

At least you still have first rounds picks haha. We love to trade them away. I like the protected idea. I think I would still vote to keep it the same until that idea is more fully developed. As for for people like me who have the team I actually root for, it's fun to always have some hawks in the system or on my team. I do think we need more minors roster spots with 3 keepers and 3 draft spots a year, but that's a debate for a different thread.

[Capn Cally]

Who in the hell is Trent Frederic....

[Rob]

Who in the hell is Trent Frederic....

Exactly

[snugerud]

I dont think it would change much.  I kind of like it since it minimizes the benefits to tanking.  I had a different thought which would be to increase the minors games played to 80 versus the current of 40. 

This would keep more surprise standout rookies available for drafting.  Usually if there is a surprise standout player they made the team out of camp or in the first half of the season and are very likely to hit their 40 games before they ever make it to our draft.  So instead of the players being available for draft they end up being bid on halfway through season which kind of waters down the whole reason for having the rule.  If I remember correctly the no bidding on minors was so that teams couldnt cherry pick minors players and it was devaluing our draft picks. 

A great example that I can think of was John Klingburg. Surprise player that I dont think many if any had on their radar. Would have be nice to see him make it to the draft , instead a bottom team still had to bid on him to the tune of 6mill per year. 

[Rob]

I dont think it would change much.  I kind of like it since it minimizes the benefits to tanking.  I had a different thought which would be to increase the minors games played to 80 versus the current of 40. 

This would keep more surprise standout rookies available for drafting.  Usually if there is a surprise standout player they made the team out of camp or in the first half of the season and are very likely to hit their 40 games before they ever make it to our draft.  So instead of the players being available for draft they end up being bid on halfway through season which kind of waters down the whole reason for having the rule.  If I remember correctly the no bidding on minors was so that teams couldnt cherry pick minors players and it was devaluing our draft picks. 

A great example that I can think of was John Klingburg. Surprise player that I dont think many if any had on their radar. Would have be nice to see him make it to the draft , instead a bottom team still had to bid on him to the tune of 6mill per year.

I'm not sure that will keep any more players in the draft.  I would guess that just as many players hit 40 in-season as will hit 80.  Of course we'll have a more clear indication if the player is the real deal, which will increase their draft stock, but it will also increase their FA value if they hit the threshold mid-season. 

[Rob]

I kind of like it since it minimizes the benefits to tanking.

It certainly does.  You can't rely on a nice player falling in your lap.  There are still benefits to tanking, but you have to know your sh!t to do it right, instead of having it handed to you.