Flames & Losing For Higher Draft Order.

[jjgallow]

I've long been in favor of raising the draft age. IMO, it should be 20. You can play 16-20 in CHL/NCAA/Internationally get drafted and then its off to pro hockey. YOu don't have to worry about assignements etc and also at that point if you are NCAA you'd have to declare to be drafted or remain in school.

 

Its never going to happen becuase you'd have to overhaul so much of the system and other leagues and I think this would be very dangerous for the CHL but in a perfect world that's how I would do it. i think at 20 you'd known more about who you are drafting and you lower, but not drastically reduce, the chances of a bust. 

 

Totally agree

[stubblejumper1]

I think the problem is that the draft isn't reliably working (for some teams).  If the draft actually worked for Edmonton/Buffalo, then that Would effectively prevent them from drafting first every year.

 

This has been brought up before:  Instead of making up new rules, maybe we should just go back to the original rules (or closer to them).   

 

Consider Bumping the age requirement on the draft up a year to 19 from 18.

 

This would:

 

• Prevent Edmonton from injuring all of the NHLs best prospects who have more skill than strength
• Prevent Edmonton from making stupid drafting decisions (ie, Yakupov) and allow players to develop more before being evaluated.
• Make junior hockey way better
• Eliminate issues with college free agents (or could be made to do so)

 

All they ever needed to do with Gretzky, imho, is put an exception status in.  But at the end of the day, Connor McDavid could be proof that...sure, even the "Next Ones" could be taking an unnecessary risk playing as 18 year olds.  Daigle is another example (concussion), and he Never did look right after.  So...heck...not even sure about the exception status these days.

 

Ken Linsman filed a lawsuit against the NHL for preventing him from earning a living.  He dropped the lawsuit when he joined the WHA.  If the draft age was incresed to 19 or 20 somebody would sue the NHL.  I can't see the draft age ever being increased.

[checkerman]

Just my opinion but I think all teams that don't make the playoffs go into the lottery. No weighting. First ball, first pick. Second ball, second pick. so on, so on. Or reverse. First ball, 14th pick. Second ball, 13 pick.  Would stop the tanking and Edmonton getting multipule first picks.  Feel free to rip this apart.

[DirtyDeeds]

Just my opinion but I think all teams that don't make the playoffs go into the lottery. No weighting. First ball, first pick. Second ball, second pick. so on, so on. Or reverse. First ball, 14th pick. Second ball, 13 pick.  Would stop the tanking and Edmonton getting multipule first picks.  Feel free to rip this apart.

Personally I like a good conspiracy theory.. Why don't they make a show of the selection process while it is going on??????

 

It would be a lot less boring than the present, open up the sealed envelopes that supposedly was a drawn by some accounting firm somewhere in secret.....

[conundrumed]

I must admit that I don't get all the whining about the draft. It is what it is.

Good draft teams still pull good players in the 20-30 range, extra yr or 2 to develop, whatev.

Why is it on the NHL to protect teams from themselves?

You have mgmt and you have scouts, it doesn't seem to be an issue for TB, Ana, SJ, Ari, etc.

The draft is what it is, a crapshoot. Have smart scouts and smart mgmt.

Why the constant, "oh the draft is a mess".

It's not. It's just that some teams are.

Forget the draft. Every team has staff to address it. If they do it poorly, it isn't the draft's fault.

Who cares how many #1's Edmonton gets? It only proves the draft solves nothing and is just made into this whole overblown netherworld.

It does not have a huge impact for any team per draft.

It is proving that every year. It's a chance to get better, but only marginally. How you progress what you got from the draft is a far larger factor.

So why fuss over it? I'm guessing the reasons are self-serving to specific Canadian teams.

[checkerman]

 Agree totally.  Anything to make it more transparent would be welcome.                                                                                                                                                                                        

[DirtyDeeds]

I must admit that I don't get all the whining about the draft. It is what it is.

Good draft teams still pull good players in the 20-30 range, extra yr or 2 to develop, whatev.

Why is it on the NHL to protect teams from themselves?

You have mgmt and you have scouts, it doesn't seem to be an issue for TB, Ana, SJ, Ari, etc.

The draft is what it is, a crapshoot. Have smart scouts and smart mgmt.

Why the constant, "oh the draft is a mess".

It's not. It's just that some teams are.

Forget the draft. Every team has staff to address it. If they do it poorly, it isn't the draft's fault.

Who cares how many #1's Edmonton gets? It only proves the draft solves nothing and is just made into this whole overblown netherworld.

It does not have a huge impact for any team per draft.

It is proving that every year. It's a chance to get better, but only marginally. How you progress what you got from the draft is a far larger factor.

So why fuss over it? I'm guessing the reasons are self-serving to specific Canadian teams.

I agree with most of the above except a few points that try to trivialize the drafting process:

 

 

Why is it on the NHL to protect teams from themselves?

When the NHL sells or moves a franchise to a city(new owner) it is in their best interest for that franchise to be successful.

 

Unfortunately there are bad owners and bad GM's that just make these franchises really weak.

 

Look to Phoenix for a good example. It was in such bad shape the NHL had to take over. The league has to keep a standard for its franchises so that if the need arises it can move another franchise or sell a franchise to a new owner. No standards and there won't be investors as they won't see the return.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You have mgmt and you have scouts, it doesn't seem to be an issue for TB, Ana, SJ, Ari, etc.

 

You have good and bad management and scouts.While there is a balancing in this drafting process it does not balance very much the top tier teams to the bottom feeders.

 

You said this yourself later: Forget the draft. Every team has staff to address it. If they do it poorly, it isn't the draft's fault. 

 

The draft process rewards(think generational players) those who are inept at running their team, or inept at improving their team, or intentionally fail. I think these are the problems for those who critique the drafting process.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Who cares how many #1's Edmonton gets? It only proves the draft solves nothing and is just made into this whole overblown netherworld.

It does not have a huge impact for any team per draft.

 

See above last paragraph. It can have a huge impact on a franchise when generational players are involved. Crosby is a good example of how he helped turn around an on the edge of bankruptcy franchise.

 

I guess this is where you and I disagree. I think that watching last year where 4+ teams actively tanked for better draft position for a shot at a generational(maybe 2) player is a sign of a poor draft design.

 

I think the NHL also understands this and has attempted to limit this from happening but is just a bandaid fix imo. Teams will still tank for the next generational player.

[tmac70]

What about most points after the Trade deadline among the bottom group of teams in the league. 14 teams don't make it. Roughly how many are still fighting for a spot. Those are cusp teams that don't necessarily need a top pick.

That leaves about the bottom 5 teams. if you give the #1 record of those teams after the deadline, they win the pick?

Just adding to the suggestion...

Really change is required because of the Oiler's lets be honest. For how bad a club is run you have to admire how lucky they are, did anyone have the Oiler's in on Mc David..The kid even look ill when it was announced. I don't mind the idea however, simply disallowing a club to draft top 5 more than once every 5 years does. If this was in place 5 years ago EDM last pick would have been Hall, they would not have been allowed, RNH, Yakopov, MCDavid. This draft (2016) they would be allowed a top 5 pick once again. In 5 years they have 4 #1 and a 7th, and are still in the basement of the league. So poor drafting or poor management and player development. Some times the league has to implement rules to encourage organizational change. When an 18 at ever draft is always your best player, there is organization problems. 

[robrob1974]

I don't mind a club drafting Top5 every year as much as I do mind winning the lotto every year. I say just allow them to win the lotto once every 3 years. Although, they didn't win and they ended up with draisaitl who might end up the best of their bunch.

[kehatch]

Why is this a discussion today? New changes are coming next draft and I don't see any team tanking for picks.

I am sure some will question that come trade deadline. But a team out of the playoffs trading pending UFAs for assets will continue regardless of the draft. Making room for your kids and cashing in on players you can't sign is smart regardless or draft placement. I also don't have an issue with it because as a fan I would rather watch the kids post TDL if my team is clearly out.

[s4xon]

This thread is still open?  Ugh.

[AlbertaBoy12]

This thread is still open?  Ugh.

its the thread that never ends apparantly. haha

[travel_dude]

This thread is still open?  Ugh.

 

Perhaps this thread should be moved to the NHL Talk area.  It has become a discussion of how other teams tank, why the draft doesn't (or does) work, and whether tanking is worth it.  I feel (like and Oiler) dirty even talking about it.

[420since1974]

The poll results would suggest that you're correct by suggesting moving or ending the thread.

[DirtyDeeds]

The poll results would suggest that you're correct by suggesting moving or ending the thread.

Well the thread was retired once and the subject of tanking was prevalent through a number of the other threads back at that time. I requested it be opened up on the grounds this topic is indeed an active topic for the forums.

 

I can change the title to cover the whole NHL if you guys insist that it be moved, but I predict if the Flames fail to make the playoffs then the topic will again gain attention as the Auston Matthews (next generational Player) sweepstakes heats up.

[conundrumed]

I agree with most of the above except a few points that try to trivialize the drafting process:

 

 

Why is it on the NHL to protect teams from themselves?

When the NHL sells or moves a franchise to a city(new owner) it is in their best interest for that franchise to be successful.

 

Unfortunately there are bad owners and bad GM's that just make these franchises really weak.

 

Look to Phoenix for a good example. It was in such bad shape the NHL had to take over. The league has to keep a standard for its franchises so that if the need arises it can move another franchise or sell a franchise to a new owner. No standards and there won't be investors as they won't see the return.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You have mgmt and you have scouts, it doesn't seem to be an issue for TB, Ana, SJ, Ari, etc.

 

You have good and bad management and scouts.While there is a balancing in this drafting process it does not balance very much the top tier teams to the bottom feeders.

 

You said this yourself later: Forget the draft. Every team has staff to address it. If they do it poorly, it isn't the draft's fault. 

 

The draft process rewards(think generational players) those who are inept at running their team, or inept at improving their team, or intentionally fail. I think these are the problems for those who critique the drafting process.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Who cares how many #1's Edmonton gets? It only proves the draft solves nothing and is just made into this whole overblown netherworld.

It does not have a huge impact for any team per draft.

 

See above last paragraph. It can have a huge impact on a franchise when generational players are involved. Crosby is a good example of how he helped turn around an on the edge of bankruptcy franchise.

 

I guess this is where you and I disagree. I think that watching last year where 4+ teams actively tanked for better draft position for a shot at a generational(maybe 2) player is a sign of a poor draft design.

 

I think the NHL also understands this and has attempted to limit this from happening but is just a bandaid fix imo. Teams will still tank for the next generational player.

Spare me, the arguments don't wash. Is MacKinnon a Crosby? I'd argue yes. How much better does that make the Avs?

Keep trying to fix minimal impact...why? Just in case you can place a Crosby?

It's a pretty horrendous addendum to a 23 man roster that 1 draft will matter.

Extremely rare, even then, one team gets an Ovechkin every 7 years??

My argument is that you can make the draft perfect in every little way.

The impact goes from overrated to marginal pdq.

[jjgallow]

Well the thread was retired once and the subject of tanking was prevalent through a number of the other threads back at that time. I requested it be opened up on the grounds this topic is indeed an active topic for the forums.

 

I can change the title to cover the whole NHL if you guys insist that it be moved, but I predict if the Flames fail to make the playoffs then the topic will again gain attention as the Auston Matthews (next generational Player) sweepstakes heats up.

 

I agree with Deeds.  This thread may become less important in the future but currently it is growing in relevance.

 

The title of the thread may be a bit biased though....which is why everyone votes one way.

 

Everyone hates the idea of "tanking", yet everyone loves the idea of "rebuilding".

 

We spend weeks arguing this without acknowledging the thin fine line which separates these concepts from one another.

 

They are, in effect, extremely similar.

 

I've often thought of starting a thread like:  

 

"Drawing the line  -  Rebuilding versus tanking"

[travel_dude]

I agree with Deeds.  This thread may become less important in the future but currently it is growing in relevance.

 

The title of the thread may be a bit biased though....which is why everyone votes one way.

 

Everyone hates the idea of "tanking", yet everyone loves the idea of "rebuilding".

 

We spend weeks arguing this without acknowledging the thin fine line which separates these concepts from one another.

 

They are, in effect, extremely similar.

 

I've often thought of starting a thread like:  

 

"Drawing the line  -  Rebuilding versus tanking"

 

You could argue that tanking is "cheating within the rules".  Teams have to rebuild when the construction of the team does not allow it to improve enough.  That means trading away the players that don't match your team identity or those that you are moving on from for futures.  

[jjgallow]

You could argue that tanking is "cheating within the rules".  Teams have to rebuild when the construction of the team does not allow it to improve enough.  That means trading away the players that don't match your team identity or those that you are moving on from for futures.  

 

You could also argue that "tanking" is the real act of purposely worsening a team's identity.  While rebuilding, is the improvement of a team's identity that has broken.    Both, through dismantling.

[The_People1]

"Drawing the line  -  Rebuilding versus tanking"

 

When the Flames do it, it's called "rebuilding".

 

When everybody else does it, it's called "tanking".

 

That's where the line is drawn. 

[travel_dude]

When the Flames do it, it's called "rebuilding".

 

When everybody else does it, it's called "tanking".

 

That's where the line is drawn. 

 

Trading Iggy at the end of his prime (arguably 1 or 2 years too late).  Nothing ever changed with him here; the team needs were addressed to help Iggy,  the country club was open to all members.

 

Trading JBow was an odd move, but the feeling was that he was too soft and didn't provide enough offense to justify his contract.

 

Refusing to trade Kipper and allow him to retire on his own terms.  

 

Those three events were our version of tanking?  I just don't see it.  

[The_People1]

Trading Iggy at the end of his prime (arguably 1 or 2 years too late).  Nothing ever changed with him here; the team needs were addressed to help Iggy,  the country club was open to all members.

 

Trading JBow was an odd move, but the feeling was that he was too soft and didn't provide enough offense to justify his contract.

 

Refusing to trade Kipper and allow him to retire on his own terms.  

 

Those three events were our version of tanking?  I just don't see it.  

 

If you want to go there then no team tanked last year or any year ever.  Every trade or non-trade in history can be justified.  Every team will make moves that improve themselves in the future rather than the present.

[conundrumed]

It's rebuild or tear down to bare bones, call it tanking if you like, but mgmt has to choose a direction. You can rebuild through a draft, but if that's your only card you're doomed.

It's fun to go to a draft and get Matthews, but you also didn't get Chychrun, Puljajarvi, Laine, Jones, Bean, Keller etc etc etc.

It's a stretch to call any draft weak, as it's the best 18yo hockey players on earth, and they are only coming in better and better.

Does Sean Day go in the mid 2nd round and become a steal?

Who knows...

Drama at the draft is a mind-numbing invention of sports networks, it's painful. I see players around town and at the rink and they do everything to stay classy. Then they go to the classless meatgrinder that is the draft.

Waaay to much emphasis on the draft, Datsyukian at 171 doesn't exist anymore.

Give me Max Jones at 10 and Pastujov at 40 and I'm thinking my LW prospect pool is solid.

Give me Chychrun at 2 and I'm looking to try to unload Gio more than likely. Action = reaction.

Failing for Lemieux is bygone days, the 18yos are just too tight nowadays, no one is going to be Lemieux better than everyone else, so the impact will be marginal.

A team being crappy doesn't mean they're packing it in, it means they're crappy, like our LW after Johnny.

[travel_dude]

If you want to go there then no team tanked last year or any year ever.  Every trade or non-trade in history can be justified.  Every team will make moves that improve themselves in the future rather than the present.

 

I fail to see where EDM has done much to improve for the future.  This year is the closest to an honest attempt to improve.  Sign a "good" d-man.  Get a solid coach.  Bring in 2 new goalies to weed out the worst.  Bring in some vets that add some toughness.

 

Last year it was sell off whomever you can for a pick.  Every year it is the same thing.  Immediate results or sell off to remain in the bottom 5.   

[The_People1]

I fail to see where EDM has done much to improve for the future.  This year is the closest to an honest attempt to improve.  Sign a "good" d-man.  Get a solid coach.  Bring in 2 new goalies to weed out the worst.  Bring in some vets that add some toughness.

 

Last year it was sell off whomever you can for a pick.  Every year it is the same thing.  Immediate results or sell off to remain in the bottom 5.   

 

When we trade Jbo and it doesn't fit your narrative, you cast it off as "odd".

 

[MOD EDITED]