I assume this must mean Prospect draft since we already have a rule prohibiting players being picked in the Entry draft who haven't played a game in the NHL - and the NHL only drafts 18 year olds.
Personally, I don't like this proposal. There aren't many prospects we pick who aren't yet 18, and when we do pick them we essentially do so at the cost of a year or more of service - so there is a built in disincentive to mine future EDs to heavily.
What is this proposal trying to stop or encourage?
Drafting very young players seems to carry its own penalty of not being able to use them until they are in the NHL.
Crosby starting as an 18-year old first year prospect, means he'd have been 25 before Doug would need to upgrade him to FP.
Since good prospects are essentially FPs-in-the-wings, always protected and never traded, getting them drafted young makes the total pool of good players better for everyone.
Count me strongly opposed. There is an inherent penalty as Cam points out in drafting underage prospects who then cannot be injury fill-ins, or even play, for 1-2 years on your roster. Moreover, if the same restriction is placed on the PrD as the ED, then they are being drawn from the same pool of players, which IMHO defeats the purpose of having a PrD (which is to try like NHL teams to scout out up and coming talent and sign them for the future)
I would not been able to draft Crosby had I no taken him as an underage player.
Yes, I took a hit but I am very glad I have this FP.
If the prospect draft is supposed to help the lower-ranked GMs, then this change will make an extra potential FP or two every year available to the lower ranked teams.
I think its a change worth making so I would support it.
I'm okay either way on this one. I actually kind of like the current rule now (never used to) as the past 5 years I have spent much more effort on my prospect lists which involes looking beyond this year's NHL ED.
Very interesting that this is the first year I can remember where the 12th place team (let alone the 8th-12th place teams as of this year) actually still have their 1st pick!! If these GMs draft wisely or trades these picks wisely for other assets, it should greatly help their clubs.
Sorry if I was being confusing but, yes, I think I have had the benefit of the rule but by the same token I think the pool has been diminished with the top prospects for the upcoming season already under contract before they've even been drafted by an NHL team.
Thornton, Crosby, Stamkos, Tavaras, Hall, etc are all current or future FPs who were taken by GMs who weren't even in the bottom half of the league the year they were selected. How did that happen when these players were all first overall picks (or will be) in the NHL draft?
While it is a practice that is far more "positive" than the spiking of prospects we used to have in the ED, it still has a corrosive effect on the PrD as a tool for poorer franchises to build.
Yes, any GM could have drafted them a year (or two, or three) early but it is getting silly when the FunHL is essentially having a Bantam draft.
I understand the appeal of trying to snag the next Crosby when the chance comes (believe me I was thrilled to draft the first one) but it might be nice to see the top talent going to the bottom teams instead of being consolidated in the top teams.
Brian, you are right to note the desire to hold on to first round picks this past year (a consequence, I believe of the elimination of "spiking" prospects in the ED). This is a great development, IMO, but perhaps we should think of restoring these picks to their full value by ending the practice of having the NHL's lottery picks selected a year or more early.
Ok - I see your point and it is a good one. However, argument could be made that ANY GM could pick a player 2 years from now and the GMs finishing 12th, 11th etc. have best chance to do so (and could have had Stamkos, Tavares etc. but chose to trade their picks or take someone else).
I think that teams struggling to finish in the top 6 (or three) have more than just good prospect picks to worry about....but you still do have good point that any further advantage we can give those losers, err, I mean Gms, the better. (kidding on that comment, don't shoot me ;-)
My suggestion to struggling teams with top pick who aren't confident of what to do with it is to trade the pick for a nice package of stuff (because someone, including me, will always overpay especially if in a bidding war).
"I understand the appeal of trying to snag the next Crosby when the chance comes (believe me I was thrilled to draft the first one) but it might be nice to see the top talent going to the bottom teams instead of being consolidated in the top teams."
I believe you are conflating two separate and unrelated issues.
A. Lower finishing teams haven't been selecting the best talent in the prospect drafts (which I believe is itself arguable)
B. Some players are drafted a year or two before their ED year.
These are not related events for very simple reasons;
- lower finishing teams have lately traded away their top picks
- even when they keep their picks lower finishing teams haven't been willing to take the risk of drafting early bird players
For evidence consider that Tavares (a 16 year old) was the top overall pick in his prospect draft year and that Stamkos (a 17 year old) was taken immediately after by Brian.
Both were drafted by teams that traded for that higher prospect pick - so the fact they were drafted 'earlier' than expected isn't the reason they aren't on a low finishing squad, its because a low finishing squad traded away its pick.
Or lets consider the most recent example of Taylor Hall - a 3rd round pick by the Severed Heads. Every team in the league had not one, but two, and in the cases of the lower ranking teams, three)!) cracks at taking him. So explain to me again how it is lower teams are being disadvantaged by this practice?
If weaker franchises are having a tough time at the prospect draft (a suggestion I have so far seen no evidence for, i.e. the Edge who are the most recent winners of the Herbivore are also historically awesome at the prospect draft - its the regular draft they have issues with) it isn't because other teams are taking early bird prospects, its because these lower finishing teams have traded away their picks, and/or aren't making good selections.
I would have to concur with Cam, the reason why the "lower" teams have not seen the benefit of high PrD picks is because they have traded them away. Any team could have rolled the dice on a Taylor Hall, so no-one can cry foul if he turns in to a superstar and say they never had a shot at him...
With regards to Mike's comments on consistency and PRD trading;
- As it currently stands the 'next Crosbys' are available for a reduced time period as a result of being drafted earlier. This lowers their overall impact and makes them free agents much sooner. By changing the rules we would make prospects like Crosby 4 year plus RFA contracts - guaranteed, when now they are assuredly less than that.
- Rather than increase trading of 1st rnd prospect picks this will likely result in decreased trading of them! Why would a low finishing team trade a pick away when that pick stands a guarantee of being the 'next Crosby'?
- Changing the rules would increase the possibility (probability) of a team 'tanking' to get the top pick. If a GM knows for sure they will be getting the prize of the upcoming NHL ED, finishing last is no longer such a bad thing.
- Last but not least, you would be punishing GMs who are more creative and long term in their strategic thinking.
As for the 'consistency' suggestion lets keep in mind that there is nothing consistent about a prospect draft that allows someone to take a 30 year old goaltender as a 'prospect' and stash them on a farm team with a 4 year+1 RFA contract. We allow these 'overagers' without complaint, so why the concern about 'underagers'?
16 comments:
In entry draft and or prospect draft?
I assume this must mean Prospect draft since we already have a rule prohibiting players being picked in the Entry draft who haven't played a game in the NHL - and the NHL only drafts 18 year olds.
Personally, I don't like this proposal. There aren't many prospects we pick who aren't yet 18, and when we do pick them we essentially do so at the cost of a year or more of service - so there is a built in disincentive to mine future EDs to heavily.
Yes - to clarify i was referring to the prospect draft.
What is this proposal trying to stop or encourage?
Drafting very young players seems to carry its own penalty of not being able to use them until they are in the NHL.
Crosby starting as an 18-year old first year prospect, means he'd have been 25 before Doug would need to upgrade him to FP.
Since good prospects are essentially FPs-in-the-wings, always protected and never traded, getting them drafted young makes the total pool of good players better for everyone.
Count me strongly opposed. There is an inherent penalty as Cam points out in drafting underage prospects who then cannot be injury fill-ins, or even play, for 1-2 years on your roster. Moreover, if the same restriction is placed on the PrD as the ED, then they are being drawn from the same pool of players, which IMHO defeats the purpose of having a PrD (which is to try like NHL teams to scout out up and coming talent and sign them for the future)
I would not been able to draft Crosby had I no taken him as an underage player.
Yes, I took a hit but I am very glad I have this FP.
If the prospect draft is supposed to help the lower-ranked GMs, then this change will make an extra potential FP or two every year available to the lower ranked teams.
I think its a change worth making so I would support it.
Doug - a bit confused about your post, You love the current rule because it helped you get Crosby but you would like to change the rule?
I'm okay either way on this one. I actually kind of like the current rule now (never used to) as the past 5 years I have spent much more effort on my prospect lists which involes looking beyond this year's NHL ED.
Very interesting that this is the first year I can remember where the 12th place team (let alone the 8th-12th place teams as of this year) actually still have their 1st pick!! If these GMs draft wisely or trades these picks wisely for other assets, it should greatly help their clubs.
Sorry if I was being confusing but, yes, I think I have had the benefit of the rule but by the same token I think the pool has been diminished with the top prospects for the upcoming season already under contract before they've even been drafted by an NHL team.
Thornton, Crosby, Stamkos, Tavaras, Hall, etc are all current or future FPs who were taken by GMs who weren't even in the bottom half of the league the year they were selected. How did that happen when these players were all first overall picks (or will be) in the NHL draft?
While it is a practice that is far more "positive" than the spiking of prospects we used to have in the ED, it still has a corrosive effect on the PrD as a tool for poorer franchises to build.
Yes, any GM could have drafted them a year (or two, or three) early but it is getting silly when the FunHL is essentially having a Bantam draft.
I understand the appeal of trying to snag the next Crosby when the chance comes (believe me I was thrilled to draft the first one) but it might be nice to see the top talent going to the bottom teams instead of being consolidated in the top teams.
Brian, you are right to note the desire to hold on to first round picks this past year (a consequence, I believe of the elimination of "spiking" prospects in the ED). This is a great development, IMO, but perhaps we should think of restoring these picks to their full value by ending the practice of having the NHL's lottery picks selected a year or more early.
Ok - I see your point and it is a good one. However, argument could be made that ANY GM could pick a player 2 years from now and the GMs finishing 12th, 11th etc. have best chance to do so (and could have had Stamkos, Tavares etc. but chose to trade their picks or take someone else).
I think that teams struggling to finish in the top 6 (or three) have more than just good prospect picks to worry about....but you still do have good point that any further advantage we can give those losers, err, I mean Gms, the better. (kidding on that comment, don't shoot me ;-)
My suggestion to struggling teams with top pick who aren't confident of what to do with it is to trade the pick for a nice package of stuff (because someone, including me, will always overpay especially if in a bidding war).
"I understand the appeal of trying to snag the next Crosby when the chance comes (believe me I was thrilled to draft the first one) but it might be nice to see the top talent going to the bottom teams instead of being consolidated in the top teams."
I believe you are conflating two separate and unrelated issues.
A. Lower finishing teams haven't been selecting the best talent in the prospect drafts (which I believe is itself arguable)
B. Some players are drafted a year or two before their ED year.
These are not related events for very simple reasons;
- lower finishing teams have lately traded away their top picks
- even when they keep their picks lower finishing teams haven't been willing to take the risk of drafting early bird players
For evidence consider that Tavares (a 16 year old) was the top overall pick in his prospect draft year and that Stamkos (a 17 year old) was taken immediately after by Brian.
Both were drafted by teams that traded for that higher prospect pick - so the fact they were drafted 'earlier' than expected isn't the reason they aren't on a low finishing squad, its because a low finishing squad traded away its pick.
Or lets consider the most recent example of Taylor Hall - a 3rd round pick by the Severed Heads. Every team in the league had not one, but two, and in the cases of the lower ranking teams, three)!) cracks at taking him. So explain to me again how it is lower teams are being disadvantaged by this practice?
If weaker franchises are having a tough time at the prospect draft (a suggestion I have so far seen no evidence for, i.e. the Edge who are the most recent winners of the Herbivore are also historically awesome at the prospect draft - its the regular draft they have issues with) it isn't because other teams are taking early bird prospects, its because these lower finishing teams have traded away their picks, and/or aren't making good selections.
I would have to concur with Cam, the reason why the "lower" teams have not seen the benefit of high PrD picks is because they have traded them away. Any team could have rolled the dice on a Taylor Hall, so no-one can cry foul if he turns in to a superstar and say they never had a shot at him...
I hold the belief that we need some consistency from the ED through the PrD.
Instead of worrying about age, let us focus on eligability.
If the prospect I am looking at is NOT draft eligable for the NHL, that player should NOT be draft eligable for the FuNHL.
I fully understand the reasoning on both sides of the coin here, but we really, really need consistency from start to finish.
Having a draft eligable rule, IMO, would really kick up PrD trading, when a player like Hall is draft eligable the following year.
With regards to Mike's comments on consistency and PRD trading;
- As it currently stands the 'next Crosbys' are available for a reduced time period as a result of being drafted earlier. This lowers their overall impact and makes them free agents much sooner. By changing the rules we would make prospects like Crosby 4 year plus RFA contracts - guaranteed, when now they are assuredly less than that.
- Rather than increase trading of 1st rnd prospect picks this will likely result in decreased trading of them! Why would a low finishing team trade a pick away when that pick stands a guarantee of being the 'next Crosby'?
- Changing the rules would increase the possibility (probability) of a team 'tanking' to get the top pick. If a GM knows for sure they will be getting the prize of the upcoming NHL ED, finishing last is no longer such a bad thing.
- Last but not least, you would be punishing GMs who are more creative and long term in their strategic thinking.
As for the 'consistency' suggestion lets keep in mind that there is nothing consistent about a prospect draft that allows someone to take a 30 year old goaltender as a 'prospect' and stash them on a farm team with a 4 year+1 RFA contract. We allow these 'overagers' without complaint, so why the concern about 'underagers'?
OPPOSED...THERE ARE NO GUARANEES EVEN WITH HEDMAN, HALL OR TAVARES.
RARE EVENT PHENOMS LIKE CROSBY OR OVECHKIN OR MALKIN...ARE RARE.
WILL STAMKOS BE A STAR BY RFA TIME - I DUNNO...WILL TAVARES BE A STAR NEXT YEAR...WHO KNOWS.
PRD DRAFT SPECULATION IS A GM RISK AND REWARD PLAY...WHY TAKE AWAY THAT OPTION? WHO DOES IT SERVE?
Post a Comment