I propose that the FuNHL allow limited entry draft pick trading. The limitation is as follows: any such trade requires a swap of draft position in both the first and second rounds.
For example, using this year's draft order as a basis, let us assume that the Ramapithicines (8th pick) have designs on signing Ryan Getzlaf as an FP. Knowing full well that Mr. Getzlaf will not be available at the 8th selection, The Ramapithic GM offers The Shadowmen (1st pick) a swap of draft order, plus a prospect or two. The trade would be:
To the Shadowmen
Ramapithicines ED picks 1 and 2 (8th and 17th overall)
Del Zotto NYR (P2)
To the Ramapithines
Shadowmen ED picks 1 and 2 (1st and 24th overall)
Rationale:
Taking Mr. Getzlaf as an example again, The Ramapithicines gave some consideration to asking The Highlanders GM to draft Mr. Getzlaf as an FP last year, however the logistics of shuffling Ramapithic and Highlander FPs around, and the expense of reimbursing the Highlander GM for both the lost 1st overall pick and the effective loss of a 1st round pick for a 9th round pick proved to be more daunting than the Ramapithicines were willing to face.
In summary, it's more fun to have the FP that you want than to have some cast-off re-tread.
24 comments:
This proposal sounds interesting.
In order for me to support it, I would like to see it altered slightly as follows.
The trading of said ED slots is only possible if one of the GMs involved in the swap is replacing one or both of his FPs.
We must keep it restricted to just FP replacement.
Again being on the bad side of a slumping FP or two, I do see the merits of this proposal.
I was also in the hunt for Mr. Getzlaf last year, but the workings of our current rules did not make that possible.
No surprise to anyone, but this idea doesn't thrill me at all.
That said, there may be a case to be made that we should allow those GMs replacing an FP to have first crack at the draft.
For example, all teams replacing an FP would declare so before the draft (say the three are Bob, Doug and Dan). They are then slotted 1,2,3 in draft order; Bob at 1 is 1, Doug is 2, and Dan who would normally pick 12th becomes 3.
That way the GMs replacing FPs are guaranteed to have a crack at the top players available - but they still have to compete with the other GMs replacing FPs for the best guy available.
The major criticism I can see of this is that teams who are blessed by the Royal Crown Bag of Fate with early picks will get bumped by teams who are replacing FPs.
I have to disagree with this one, in part related to my own rule change proposal which I will post shortly. ED pick trading was the worst thing to ever happen to this pool. Ever. I am against resurrecting it in any form, however restricted.
If you need to replace an FP, you can't count on a high pick, though you can increase your chances based on the lottery (see my rule proposal). So, do it the way everyone else does - draft solid prospects or trade for prospects or RFAs so you have their rights. Case in point - I will draft Mike Green as an FP this year having acquired him from Doug...
I had a series of questions sent out in my e-mail response to this - which I am still curious to hear the responses to - but as for my opinion, not surprisingly I am opposed.
I am even more opposed, surprisingly, to Cam's suggestion that GMs who are replacing FPs somehow get preferential treatment at the draft. (It seeming to go against his own attitude to Proposal #1.)
Finding a true franchise player (or players) is supposed to be hard. How many NHL teams can boast a true franchise player (let alone two)?
I'm with Dan here at this point but am willing to be convinced (see my e-mailed response).
I agree that i dont care for Cam's suggestion either. I know i am in the minority here but i dont mind Corey's Idea. Bob needs more tradeable items IMO :)
Bob needs more tradeable items IMO :)
lol, yes it is all about Bob's trade needs here :-)
The notion that all draft slots are created equal is horse-apples, and polite rhetoric at best.
The easiest proof is the distribution of pick preferences. Why do so many GMs want to pick first? Why is 12th more popular than 8th? Because it's not all equal. And it's not all fair.
Of course, one way to fix all this... what with the advent of sophisticated spreadsheets to help people run their draft... would be to move to a market-based auction system. Each GM gets a budget of $100 million to run their team, and bids for each player in increments of $1 million (or $100,000). You think a player's worth more... bid more.
There's a thought.
R.
I actually like the idea of being able to swap my 1-2 pick for your 1-2 pick because I want to draft a certain player.
It is much more balanced than our old entry draft trade system in that each GM still picks in every round. A GM is only paying to move up in the first round not get an extra first round pick. In a sense it is trading for a better FP without an FP exchanging hands.
I think it should be restricted to FP replacement.
Y restrict it to fp replacement? Noone obtains more than 1 pick in a rd so its not a huge boom and bust scenario... why not allow corey to trade with Bob (assuming they could even make a deal). I doubt this would be used very often as i imagine whoever has a top 3 pick will ask the moon to swap with 8th overall..
We need to restrict it to FPs so we do not go rampant on the ED slot trades.
If we do not, it will negate the purpose of the lottery. We all know we would pick 1st if we had the chance.
Mind you, who would not drop a 90 pnt FP to replace him with a 100 pnt+ FP?
So that begs the question...When does a FP no longer warrent the FP tag?
We each have our own values placed on the same player(s). Is it right that I drop a 90 pnt FP just for the sake of drafting a 100+ pnt FP through a process such as this proposal?
I for one find it underhanded to do something like that, but others may not.
Where do we draw the line?
If I have two 90+pnt FPs in my stall, and I get the first pick at a 100+pnt guy, there is no way in hell I would pass that up.
I guess that fate lies in the Crown Royal bag, and we choose accordingly.
Maybe we say a GM can trade up like that in the first two rounds, but he can only make one such trade in the current year, and only at the ED when we have a good idea of which players are playing, and where.
I have to disagree with you here Mike - There's no way I would blow 10 rounds to upgrade my FP from a 90 pt player to a 100 pt player. If I had a line on a 130 point player, sure, but the ten round "hit" you take drafting a new FP SHOULD be a significant disincentive to GMs from swapping out FPs yearly.
As for picks being equal, again I disagree. I am in my #1 choice of slot at pick 12 this year. Why? Because I am drafting Green as a new FP from my RFAs, so my first "free" pick is round 2, and at pick 13 it is as high a 2nd round pick as there is to be had.
Besides, if we do our jobs right, strong FPs in the future should be prospects (and then RFAs) first anyway. The UFA's of FP calibre like Getzlaf should be the exception, not the norm.
For those FuNHL historians out there, a question: Of the pool's current 24 FPs, how many were prospects at one time (not counting those old enough to be good before we started having prospects that is - sorry Iggy) ?
Besides, if we tweak things, a GM wins either way If they have a great year, they have a high ED pick. If they have an awful year, they have a high PrD pick. Either one is an avenue to a good FP - not even counting trading for future FP's in the form of prospects or RFAs...
PS - TOTALLY opposed to a wholesale change in format to the whole salary cap/auction style
FPs who were previously prospects as best I recall with drafting team in brackets when I recall who they were:
Hossa-R Chi (Collin)
Nash-L Clb (Collin)
Luongo-G Vcr (Collin?, Bob?
Mike G, Doug?)
Thornton-C SJ (Doug - underage?)
Crosby-Pit (Doug - underage)
Heatley-R SJ (Doug?)
Staal-Car (Brian)
Malkin-C Pit (Brian)
Spezza-C Ott (myself - underage)
Parise-C NJ (myself)
St Louis-R Cgy (Bill)
Phaneuf-D Tor (Darrell)
Perry-R Ana (Corey?)
Doug with 3, Collin with 2 or 3, Brian and I with 2, Bill, Darrell and Corey with 1 each.
The remaining 11 FPs;
Iginla-R Cgy UFA (Bill)
Turco-G Dal (UFA Corey)
Chara-D NYI UFA (Corey?)
Tanguay-L Cgy (Bill?)
Brodeur-G NJ (Dan - original FP draft)
Ovechkin-L Wsh (Collin - poached RFA)
Kovalchuk-L NJ? UFA (Mike B.)
Zetterberg-L Det UFA (Darrell)
Lidstrom-D Det (Darrell - original FP draft?)
Pronger-D Pha UFA (Dan)
Lundqvist-NYR (Chris?)
Interesting, no?
The things that stand out for me are;
- The prospect FP group is (with three exceptions) younger and trending upwards, while the Non-Prospect FPs tend to be older and trending downwards.
- The exceptions are;
Ovechkin was never a prospect due to some unusual circumstances in that he was a final round prospect cock-blocking RFA selection by Doug, then poached successfully in the first in our lock-out year draft as an FP by Collin, and its clear he would have been a prospect outside those circumstances.
Lundqvist-G, a late bloomer he was never a prospect.
Kovalchuk-L NJ? If I recall he was cock-blocked as an RFA his prime prospect draft year, and was UFA drafted at least once before being snapped up as the Barbarian's first Franchise Player pick.
- Brodeur and Lidstrom are STILL going from our original FP draft.
- 3 of the 13 prospect FPs (Thornton, Spezza, and Crosby) were players taken a year before their NHL draft year.
- Last but not least, and to finally speak to the issue at hand, the premise for proposal #2 is that we need to address the problem of FP caliber players not being available to be drafted as FPs by teams seeking to replace at the our Entry Draft.
To which I ask, is this really a problem? From the above we can see that FP replacements are now taking place primarily from the ranks of prospects, and no longer is the norm to replace through the ED without having the asset already in hand.
The problem is not that Getzlaf isn't available to become an FP, but that 12 Gms weren't prescient enough to select Getzlaf as a prospect and as a result he is now fair game at the ED.
At 02:00 PM 21/07/2010, Doug McLachlan wrote:
Hi again Corey,
A couple of issues with this one (ok, maybe more than a couple) but I would welcome your thoughts and I would not rule out anything categorically.
Is this simply an FP issue for you? Not that it isn't a good reason to do it, but you seem to agree that wanton entry draft pick trading (as we used to do) is a bad thing.
CM: Yes Doug, for me the matter is about FPs. I would not mess around with the ED at all if I didn't believe that making FPs properly accessible wasn't more important.
DM: The situation of trading to move up to allow for a better FP, as you describe, is clear to me but what about situations where the GM has an FP replacement and wants to trade down? What are the implications of that?
CM: For the sake of consistency and simplicity, I don't think that we can insist that an FP drop be mandatory in a trade of this sort. That said, I don't forsee it being an especially popular type of trade to make if replacing an FP isn't part of the intent.
DM: Why is this limited to the 1st and 2nd rounds when a late 1st to early 3rd might actually involve a gap of fewer picks?
CM: Theoretically, with the wrap-around style of drafting that we do, each team should be equal after each pair of rounds. My intent is not create a new commodity for the sake of trading, but simply to make FP replacement more a matter of getting the player that you want instead of getting whatever scraps are left.
DM: Would GMs (or at least one of them) be required to replace an FP or could these picks be traded as part of another deal?
CM: I don't think that we can force an FP replacement. Too many factors can change between such a trade and draft day for it to be fair.
DM: Could I acquire more than one 1st round pick if I wanted to replace 2 FPs? Or none (depending on the above)?
CM: I am of the opinion that parity requires each team to have one pick during each round. I will not advocate for stocking up of ED picks for any purpose.
DM: Would you allow Entry Draft picks to be traded at any time (thus potentially having a big swing on the current season, and without necessarily knowing the draft order) or only between the slot selection and the draft itself, effectively limiting the issue to FP replacement?
CM: There are way too many variables to consider if ED trading of this sort would be allowed outside of the slot selection-draft day window. And since I'm only interested in making teams more able to acquire their preferred FP, I'm content with restricting ED trading to the summer.
I hope I've addressed all your points.
FROM COREY via EMAIL...
Hi Guys. Me again.
I propose that the FuNHL allow limited entry draft picks. The
limitation is as follows: any such trade may only include a swap of
draft position in both the first and second rounds.
For example, using this year's draft order as a basis, let us assume
that the Ramapithicines (8th pick) have designs on signing Ryan
Getzlaf as an FP. Knowing full well that Mr. Getzlaf will not be
available at the 8th selection, The Ramapithic GM offers The
Shadowmen (1st pick) a swap of draft order, plus a prospect or two.
The trade would be:
To the Shadowmen
Ramapithicines ED picks 1 and 2 (8th and 17th overall)
Del Zotto NYR (P2)
To the Ramapithines
Shadowmen ED picks 1 and 2 (1st and 24th overall)
Rationale:
As much as I dislike the trading of Entry Draft picks and all the
harm that it did to the pool when there were no controls on the
market, restricting the trading entirely has prevented some players
who should be Franchise Players from attaining that status. More
importantly, those GMs who lack the fortune to pick early in the
draft order are ever denied the FP that they want to have.
The reason that I am including both the 1st and 2nd round picks in
the trade details is due to the wrap-around nature of the draft.
Theoretically, a team's first two picks will be approximately equal
in value to any other team's first two picks, so trades for the
purpose of creating new FPs should be more likely in this instance
than in instances restricting the trade to swaps of first round picks.
Taking Mr. Getzlaf as an example again, The Ramapithicines gave some
consideration to asking The Highlanders GM to draft Mr. Getzlaf as an
FP last year, however the logistics of shuffling Ramapithic and
Highlander FPs around, and the expense of reimbursing the Highlander
GM for both the lost 1st overall pick and the effective loss of a 1st
round pick for a 9th round pick proved to be more daunting than the
Ramapithicines were willing to face.
In summary, it's more fun to have the FP that you want than to have
some cast-off re-tread.
I think of it NHL terms;
- Drafting an FP at the ED is exactly like Glen Sather trying to land a franchise player through free agency. There is a high cost (1st for 9th), and no guarantee of getting the guy you want because of possible other bids for the player.
- Drafting an FP from ones own prospect roster is akin to how Pittsburgh made both Malkin and Crosby team cornerstones.
- Trading for a prospect to make them an FP is exactly how the Flames rebuilt around Iginla.
- Trading for the rights to an RFA is how the Flames landed franchise defenseman Jay Bouwmeester.
- Trading for a new FP is not unlike how Lindros and Forsberg ended up on their respective teams. Or how Hawerchuk and Housley switched teams.
Given how the majority of current FPs were prospects/RFAs, the idea that we need to create special rules to assist the Glen Sathers of our pool when they have a variety of other possible options at their disposal grates on me.
-
Given the number of FPs who have gained that position by way of original FP draft, RFA drafting and prospect promotion, I see the need for adjusting access to high ED picks through trade to be rather unnecessary.
Sure we'd all love the likes of Getzlaf as an FP, but UFA FP drafts are not common, and in general not lasting either. If you have a bad year, use your high PrD pick to draft a Crosby or a Malkin. If you have a good year, and if we adjust the weighting in the lottery, use your standing to garner a high ED pick. Sure, a high ED pick is less assured, but if you don't like to roll the dice, draft prospects and RFAs with a mind toward finding that next FP.
There are many avenues for teams to improve their FPs without having to bring back even limited ED pick trading - they just take more time and planning, which is as it should be. Throwing a pile of prospects and PrD picks into a giant trade just to move up your ED pick is replacing draft/trade skill with sheer volume, and threatens to distort the balance of the pool (as it did in the past).
Rather than allow it with all sorts of restrictions to keep it from getting out of control, why allow it at all?
As an exercise for interest sake, how many prospects and RFAs currently have the makings of future FPs right now?
To start with, there are many approaches to GMing in the league. Some GMs focus on prospects, some on the draft, others trade to succeed. But everyone uses a combination of these 3 components. Denigrating any of them is hyperbole.
I'm not asking for preferential treatment for anyone, I simply want the one of the options that already exists in our league to be cleaned up a bit.
The FP that I desire is out there, and available to me with our current set of trade rules, however currently it is a messy process. All I have to do (apologies to Bob for including him in the example) is the following:
1.) Convince the Shadowmen to trade me a Franchise Player while promising that I will trade him back after the draft.
2.) Construct a deal to acquire the Shadowmen's FP that is fair enough for the league office to pass it.
3.) Wait for the Shadowmen to draft for me the FP of my choice at the waiver draft.
4.) Construct a deal to trade back to the Shadowmen their previous FP in exchange for the newly acquired FP, factoring in the 9-round differential for the FP replacement and the cost for the transaction. The issue of position for the 2 FPs will also require attention at this point.
While I believe that this would be entirely legal in the eyes of the Covenant, it is overly complicated. The proposal before the league simplifies the issue.
Actually Corey what you describe is NOT legal under the current rules. You can not have a conditional trade, ie one where Bob trades you a player contingent on you trading him back. Bob cannot require that, and you cannot promise that. Of course there are many gentlemanly agreements of such a nature, but there is no official option to make that a condition of the trade that anyone is bound to, nor is there any recourse of the GM changes their mind about such an arrangement.
I'm not putting down any means for GMing in the pool. In fact, I support all options. Trade for an FP. Trade for a prospect or RFA to make them an FP. Draft an FP if you get a good ED pick after a good season. Draft a good prospect if you get a good PrD pick after a bad season. Groom an RFA and draft them as an FP.
But seeing as we all have a shot at good players many times over, through prospect drafts, RFA drafting, trades etc, why do we need to change the rules to allow GMs to move up in the ED to draft a UFA that no-one felt was worthwhile enough to draft sooner as a prospect or RFA? It's not like you didn't have a shot at a player at some point...
Sure we'd all love to be in the position of drafting the Malkin's and Crosby's of the world as prospects and be set as far as FPs go, but if that's the case, stock up on prospect picks... The case of UFAs worthy of FP status that no-one has a shot at ever having is minimal in the extreme, and I worry about the impact of ED pick trading to provide the option to make up for lost opportunities in the past.
Is there a situation I am overlooking in which a player was never available to be picked up before they became a UFA and thus required a high ED pick to become an FP? I don't want to be closed-minded to the possibility, so please let me know if there is a scenario I am missing...
Dan, thanks for clarifying the conditional trade aspect. You've convinced me even more so of the importance of the proposal if only so that this sort of deal be entirely above-board.
In regards to your other comments, I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. You seem to be saying that the rules do not need changing because if a UFA was valuable enough to be a Franchise Player someone would have either already promoted him, or would currently own his rights. Power forwards, goalies and defenders are all notoriously late-bloomers, and could easily fit the bill for a non-prospect or RFA that becomes FP-worthy.
I'm saying that there exist FP-quality UFAs that are coveted. There are also teams that need or want to improve their quality of FP. The only barrier to a match made in heaven is the draft lottery. I assure you, every GM is already trying to chose such excellent prospects and RFAs as not to need the first overall ED pick, but we're not as prescient as we'd like. So, given the combination of a GM's imperfection and needs, sometimes an FP will have to come from the UFA ranks.
The current FP-acquisition structure favours the lucky, be it luck in the draft lottery, or luck in picking up and holding prospects years in advance of the teams need. Not every GM has the luxury of such fortune. To bridge the gap, some access to quality UFAs is required.
OK so as I understand the proposal:
It is restricted to an exchange between only two GMS, who agree to swap BOTH their 1st and 2nd round ED picks for the current year in exchange for some other consideration in the form of other traded assets like prospects, RFAs, FPs, and/or PrD picks being exchanged
For practical reasons it cannot REQUIRE an FP change though presumably that would be the primary motivation.
Trading of other ED picks, or single picks, would not be permitted
Recognize that this would open the door for trades made to "spike" a potential FP - eg you trade to get last year's 2nd overall pick in hopes of drafting Getzlaf as your FP. I trade to get the 1st pick and draft Getzlaf as a UFA to prevent you from getting him as an FP. If no FP drop is required as part of such a trade (and I don't believe we can require it as it amounts to a "conditional" trade) that possibility exists.
All that being said, it doesn't sound as though there is too much potential for abuse or lopsided trades, at least no more than we already have (for example a GM stocking up on PrD picks and prospects and sending a huge collection of both to land an FP, which is already legal - see Patrick Kane)
To answer Dan's question about existing RFAs and prospects who might be FP worthy;
RFAs:
Backstrom-C Wsh
Miller-G Buf
Green-Wsh
Toews-C Chi
on the cusp:
Rask-G Bos
Fleury-G Pit
Prospects:
Stamkos-C TBay
Tavares-C NYI
Doughty-D LA
Duchene-C Col
Kane-R Chi
Hall-L Edm
On the cusp;
Myers-D Buf
Price-G Mtl
Nugent-Hopkins-C WHL
Fleury-G Pit
Dan, I think you understand the proposal very well, and certainly articulate it better than I have. Thanks for that.
I like this more and more
Post a Comment