The Rookie Draft

[snugerud]

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.

I would agree with you there however players hitting 80 would most likely have already been passed over in a draft.  At 40 games many of the players never make it to a draft. 

Just do a quick player search via Rookies on fantrax and I can pick at least a dozen players that have just started getting mins this year but will surpass their draft eligibility. 

[Tubbs]

Rob, you say it's not "entirely fair" and call it a wrinkle. So then why to try to fix or revamp...iron out the wrinkle? And Isn't the point of the league to create an experience (as a GM) that mimics the NHL?

Look, I am not expecting any changes based upon the fact that this is the way it has been done, and I am fine with that. I simply don't buy into the arguments in support.

My lap remains open. 

[Rob]

Rob, you say it's not "entirely fair" and call it a wrinkle. So then why to try to fix or revamp...iron out the wrinkle? And Isn't the point of the league to create an experience (as a GM) that mimics the NHL?

Look, I am not expecting any changes based upon the fact that this is the way it has been done, and I am fine with that. I simply don't buy into the arguments in support.

My lap remains open. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not even arguing your points, you make perfect sense.  My only contention is that I LIKE that wrinkle.  And I like the effect it has on other aspects of the league.  The part I would argue is that the supplemental is better because of that wrinkle. 

But I'm not so stubborn that I would refuse change just because this is the way we've always done it.  We've changed a lot of rules over the years to make this a better league and if a majority of the league feels a change should be made, then I'm on board too.

Of course, this kind of change would have to happen after the next draft - so we're talking about changing effective for the 2018 draft if we do anything.  We have plenty of time to hash it out here and listen to everyone's thoughts.  Once people have time to consider and give input, and once the conversation dries up, I'll take all the opinions we've collected and go from there. 

[Anthony]

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. 

I think this would have some negative side effects with minors players on our rosters. It would take twice as long for their prospect contract clock to start, and some players could take 4 years before they hit 80 games. Plus a lot of good players could easily just miss 80 games and get an extra year on a prospect contract. McDavid is an example because he's still not at 80 games but is easily a top 10 player in the league right now and should be paid like one sooner rather than later.

[Capn Cally]

I like Snug's idea as an "option" if we were to implement change.
I think any ideas are good ones at this point and there isn't really a right or a wrong suggestion, since they're just that - suggestions.

Sure, players might hit that 80 game mark, but as I recall, doesn't FA close well before an NHL team's 80th game?

I can't remember who, but a goalie was at around 38 games last year before the FA deadline, so couldn't be bid on. But then because there was still season left, went over the 40 game mark and also couldn't be drafted in the Supp Draft and was available to everyone in FA in the summer. Maybe it was Domingue?

For what it's worth, it definitely makes drafting a lot more difficult as a lot more research has to be put in to find potential players who will make an impact.
Past players who might be doing well in their 20-year old year in Junior, or a college kid who is hitting his stride at 23-years old or an AHL guy that did well in the minors for the past year or two.
But even then, they're not sure things to make it, it's all still a crapshoot. Heck, I'm a Canucks fan and I never thought Troy Stetcher would be as good as he is, let alone make the team this year - Philip Larsen (RIP to his brain) was supposed to be the offensive gem for the Canucks this year. He's done squat.

But as Snug mentioned - there is going to be a bidding war in 12-15 games or so for players like Brandon Carlo and Nic Dowd in all likelihood. They'll most likely be overpaid which doesn't help weaker teams with cap space in the long run either though..

[Rob]

I can't remember who, but a goalie was at around 38 games last year before the FA deadline, so couldn't be bid on. But then because there was still season left, went over the 40 game mark and also couldn't be drafted in the Supp Draft and was available to everyone in FA in the summer. Maybe it was Domingue?

Yup, Domingue

[Capn Cally]

I think this would have some negative side effects with minors players on our rosters. It would take twice as long for their prospect contract clock to start, and some players could take 4 years before they hit 80 games. Plus a lot of good players could easily just miss 80 games and get an extra year on a prospect contract. McDavid is an example because he's still not at 80 games but is easily a top 10 player in the league right now and should be paid like one sooner rather than later.

This is a good point...

He'll also get 30% the regular extension price on a 5-year contract, so McD isn't going anywhere.

I think there will be pros and cons to anything that comes up though. Either that or there will have to be accessory rules to have to be added, such as the prospect contract still starts when they've hit 40 games played.
So when you draft the player, he gets the rookie contract right away instead of the (n/a) one (but in that case, after 80 NHL games he'll 99% be sticking in the NHL full-time and he'll be plugged into the roster right away)

[Rob]

As far as alternatives go, I prefer protecting 1st round picks to the 80 game threshold, so far.

[Capn Cally]

As far as alternatives go, I prefer protecting 1st round picks to the 80 game threshold, so far.

I know it's my idea, but I do like it.

Not only does it allow for the weaker teams to draft a good prospect via draft, it also ensures every team gets a 1st round NHL draft pick and we don't have to worry about our teams trading away draft picks.

It should also stimulate more trading activity, since 1st and 2nd round draft picks will become much more valuable.
Especially closer to the trade deadline where teams will know if they are buying or rebuilding.

[Anthony]

I know it's my idea, but I do like it.

Not only does it allow for the weaker teams to draft a good prospect via draft, it also ensures every team gets a 1st round NHL draft pick and we don't have to worry about our teams trading away draft picks.

It should also stimulate more trading activity, since 1st and 2nd round draft picks will become much more valuable.
Especially closer to the trade deadline where teams will know if they are buying or rebuilding.

If we do protect first round draft choices, we would have to do it in a few years or offer some sort of compensation to teams like me who have handed out my first rounders like candy for the next.