Leafs @ Devils - Dec. 27th, 7:00pm - SNO, TSN 1050

[Kin]

True, but that could come down to actually developing the prospect correctly, which means not having them in your lineup, which means they aren't making an impact for a year or so anyways.  That would mean that the team probably isn't making a significant move in the standings anyway.  It's possible that if Makar or Pettersen had been taken first overall and placed in the league at 18 that they may not have been as successful as they are now.

Again, if the "punishment" here is that instead of the Devils getting to pick #1 again they have to pick #2 or #3, does that mean they've been terribly hard done by the cruel wheel of fate? Why should their ineptitude be rewarded with not only a path to eventual success but an easy, effortless path?

If by keeping Hughes(or Pettersen or Makar or whoever) down a year for their eventual emergence means you don't instantly get better...well, tough? You can still draft high and accumulate assets, you just maybe don't get to also add yet another guy with the best possible chance at becoming a franchise player.

I'm sorry guys but objecting to this really does sound like complaining about the lousy squash courts and mediocre lemonade at your minimum security prison.

 

[rdowdall]

True, but that could come down to actually developing the prospect correctly, which means not having them in your lineup, which means they aren't making an impact for a year or so anyways.  That would mean that the team probably isn't making a significant move in the standings anyway.  It's possible that if Makar or Pettersen had been taken first overall and placed in the league at 18 that they may not have been as successful as they are now.

Again, if the "punishment" here is that instead of the Devils getting to pick #1 again they have to pick #2 or #3, does that mean they've been terribly hard done by the cruel wheel of fate? Why should their ineptitude be rewarded with not only a path to eventual success but an easy, effortless path?

If by keeping Hughes(or Pettersen or Makar or whoever) down a year for their eventual emergence means you don't instantly get better...well, tough? You can still draft high and accumulate assets, you just maybe don't get to also add yet another guy with the best possible chance at becoming a franchise player.

I'm sorry guys but objecting to this really does sound like complaining about the lousy squash courts and mediocre lemonade at your minimum security prison.

I think there are too many variables to just simply claim that a team is getting multiple firsts because they are inept, so I am complaining about the squash courts because I shouldn't even be in jail.  I think in the case of the Devils they won the lottery when they were supposed to get the 7th pick.  That's just luck of the draw in that case.  Should they maybe be exempt from winning the first overall pick in the next draft if you jump that high?  Perhaps, but I also think that the Oilers are an outlier of ineptitude.  The Leafs were bad for 13 years and didn't end up with a first overall until they actually tried to be bad.  They were more inept when they were trying to be good, and then when they actually bottomed out they seemed to be on the right path and making the right decisions.  Lets say they got the first in the Yakapov draft and the RNH draft?  Would they have missed out on Matthews because they were inept in those years and therefore being punished when they were trying not to be inept? 

 

[Hobbes]

I'd be all for some sort of rule that would make it impossible for a team to get multiple #1 overall picks within too short a window of time. I just suspect that there are so many potentially complicating issues that the NHL would be adverse to trying to draft that rule.

- what exact period of time before they're allowed another #1 overall pick?
- how is the "slide to 2nd" handled when there's also a lottery (or abolish the lottery?)
- what if they traded their pick away to another team? can that other team get #1 overall or does that prohibition factor into it?
- what if you trade for a pick that subsequently becomes the #1 overall...would it still slide down to #2 if you've recently had your own #1 overall pick?
- what if your previous #1 overall pick refused to report and decide to spend his career in the KHL (or whatever)?
- what if your previous #1 overall pick was subsequently severely injured (or even killed) in an accident and will never play for you?
- etc...

The NHL's method of addressing it seems to be just to mess around with the odds of it happening via their changes to the draft lottery system.

 

[Hobbes]

It would be nice to spread it around but there are some teams that seem to have done pretty well without a 1st overall pick...the most recent 1st overall pick to win a cup was Kane (2007), and of the other 12 players drafted since then I'd guess Stamkos and McKinnon are probably the two with the best chance of hoisting one in the near future, and maybe Tavares (not with the team that drafted him) and Matthews would be long shots.

7 of the last 11 Cup winners had their own #1 pick on the roster. 3 of 4 that didn?t had their own #2 overall pick on the roster (I?m counting S?guin for the Bruins - he was on the roster, even if he didn?t contribute in a significant way).

I was talking #1 overall pick of the draft year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first_overall_NHL_draft_picks

 

[bustaheims]

It?s really not as difficult as it?s being made out to be. You have simple, clean rule like ?teams cannot draft 1st overall? in back to back seasons.? From there, the rest really falls into place - it?s about the team that owns the pick going into the lottery, not the team that originally owned it; and, if the team that drafted 1st the previous season wins the lottery, they drop down to 2 or 3 or 4 - or whatever - and the teams the fall below move up one.

What happens with the player after the draft is irrelevant. The NHL already has mechanisms in place for when 1st round picks don?t sign before the team drafting them loses their rights.

 

[bustaheims]

It would be nice to spread it around but there are some teams that seem to have done pretty well without a 1st overall pick...the most recent 1st overall pick to win a cup was Kane (2007), and of the other 12 players drafted since then I'd guess Stamkos and McKinnon are probably the two with the best chance of hoisting one in the near future, and maybe Tavares (not with the team that drafted him) and Matthews would be long shots.

7 of the last 11 Cup winners had their own #1 pick on the roster. 3 of 4 that didn?t had their own #2 overall pick on the roster (I?m counting S?guin for the Bruins - he was on the roster, even if he didn?t contribute in a significant way).

I was talking #1 overall pick of the draft year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first_overall_NHL_draft_picks

Oh, I understood that. It just misses the point, quite frankly. It?s not about how recently teams drafting 1st overall have had success, it?s about the frequency. Teams that have a 1st overall pick on their roster win the Cup more frequently than teams that don?t.

 

[Kin]

I think in the case of the Devils they won the lottery when they were supposed to get the 7th pick.

Right but that would be the case in one of their hypothetical 3 first round picks. To be around the bottom of the league for that long really does require a degree of incompetence in a hard cap league. Well, incompetence or trying to game the system by purposefully failing because the league currently rewards that.

The Leafs were bad for 13 years and didn't end up with a first overall until they actually tried to be bad.  They were more inept when they were trying to be good, and then when they actually bottomed out they seemed to be on the right path and making the right decisions.

Right so at this point you should really be asking yourself if you're genuinely defending a system that rewards failure and gaming the system to reap those rewards and punishes trying to make your team as good as possible through methods besides tanking. 

I was as frustrated as anyone with what the Leafs did when trying to be good but I didn't delude myself into thinking this was a good or fair system that in any way represented what sports should be about. I wanted the team I rooted for to intentionally be bad for years because that was the best way for them to be good eventually. 

  Lets say they got the first in the Yakapov draft and the RNH draft?  Would they have missed out on Matthews because they were inept in those years and therefore being punished when they were trying not to be inept?

Well, I'd like to think that a good and well managed team wouldn't have made those the RNH draft and the Yakupov drafts but rather would have used the picks better but again we come back to...so? If that's the case then the ultimate cost is they're building around Laine instead of Matthews? Or the Oilers have Eichel instead of McDavid?

I lived through the banking crisis of 2008. There's a really, really good reason to have a system where poor decisions by terrible management have real consequences.

 

[Kin]

I'd be all for some sort of rule that would make it impossible for a team to get multiple #1 overall picks within too short a window of time. I just suspect that there are so many potentially complicating issues that the NHL would be adverse to trying to draft that rule.

Not to worry. I'm here to solve them.

- what exact period of time before they're allowed another #1 overall pick?

I've said only 2 #1 picks in 5 years. That seems good to me.

- how is the "slide to 2nd" handled when there's also a lottery (or abolish the lottery?)

Run the lottery and if a team with 2 first overall picks in the last 5 years wins, the #1 and #2 picks swap. Easy peezy, lemon squeezy.

- what if they traded their pick away to another team? can that other team get #1 overall or does that prohibition factor into it?

Yes.

- what if you trade for a pick that subsequently becomes the #1 overall...would it still slide down to #2 if you've recently had your own #1 overall pick?

Isn't that the same question as above? Trading for a pick that eventually becomes the #1 pick is smart. That should be rewarded. This is about punishing failure. 

- what if your previous #1 overall pick refused to report and decide to spend his career in the KHL (or whatever)?

You mean the thing that's never happened in the history of the NHL?

I don't know. Teams should maybe talk to the guys who they draft beforehand to make sure they don't do that? Say what you will about Lindros, he made it pretty clear to Quebec what he'd do if they drafted him.

- what if your previous #1 overall pick was subsequently severely injured (or even killed) in an accident and will never play for you?

I suppose there could be a death waiver? Or maybe even the tragic death of a young athlete shouldn't be contextualized by what it ultimately means for the Phoenix Coyotes' title chances? 

 

[rdowdall]

Well, I'd like to think that a good and well managed team wouldn't have made those the RNH draft and the Yakupov drafts but rather would have used the picks better but again we come back to...so? If that's the case then the ultimate cost is they're building around Laine instead of Matthews? Or the Oilers have Eichel instead of McDavid?

I lived through the banking crisis of 2008. There's a really, really good reason to have a system where poor decisions by terrible management have real consequences.

There are consequences though.  The consequences are lost revenue from not making the playoffs.  The GM will potentially lose his job.  Players won't want to play for the team and request trades or not sign there in the off season.  As we have seen with the Oilers, even giving them the first round pick year after year did not fix their management.  So punishing them isn't going to fix the problem.  In fact, it may even reward that ineptitude further.  Say they lose the 1st, and there is an universal #1, and a universal #2.  What happens if that #2 ends up better than the #1?  You just rewarded that ineptitude even further by taking the decision out of their hands, and handing them the better player because another team made a mistake. 

By implementing this in to the draft system you could also be punishing a team that is trying to do the right thing, but because of other circumstances they now lose one of the tools at their disposal.     

I'm not against punishing ineptitude, I just think this isn't a great solution.  It doesn't stop teams from being inept.  It doesn't even stop them for being rewarded for being inept because they could still end up with the better pick long term just by the virtue of removing choice from the equation.

I think a better solution would be to give players more choice earlier on in their career, so you lessen the impact of the draft altogether.  Allow a player to move teams with his current contract, or something along those lines.  The players that want to win will go to a situation where they can win, and that is usually where there is a strong base that has been built up by good management. 

They originally rigged the draft because they didn't want teams tanking on purpose.  They do that anyway, so that wasn't the right solution.  I think by manipulating the draft you aren't solving ineptitude because even strong teams can make poor choices and the draft is a crap shoot.  I think you need to put tools in place that allow strong management teams turn their team around as quickly as possible.  The cap has removed a couple of those tools in free agency and trades, so really the only thing left is the draft.  There is too much emphasis on the draft when it comes to team building.       

 

[Kin]

As we have seen with the Oilers, even giving them the first round pick year after year did not fix their management.  So punishing them isn't going to fix the problem.

That teams that are poorly run aren't good isn't a problem that needs fixing. It's a natural result in what should be a competitive industry.

Which brings us back to the Oilers. Having those picks didn't fix their management so by making the draft less attractive a way to fix your team would then create more of a push to actually, you know, replace management. If the Oilers had maybe decided a little earlier on not to let Kevin Lowe simply hire his drinking buddies to run the team, maybe they'd be in a better position(of course they wouldn't because actually improving their team would have  meant no McDavid but now we're back to the root of the problem).

  In fact, it may even reward that ineptitude further.  Say they lose the 1st, and there is an universal #1, and a universal #2.  What happens if that #2 ends up better than the #1?  You just rewarded that ineptitude even further by taking the decision out of their hands, and handing them the better player because another team made a mistake.

I'm sorry, I'm trying to figure out how this makes any sense at all and I'm really not seeing it. 

It doesn't even stop them for being rewarded for being inept because they could still end up with the better pick long term just by the virtue of removing choice from the equation.

That doesn't "reward" them for ineptitude. It means that their ineptitude doesn't preclude the possibility of good luck. This in no way creates an incentive to have the #2 pick instead of the #1. 

I think a better solution would be to give players more choice earlier on in their career, so you lessen the impact of the draft altogether.

I mean, I think that should also happen. To be completely frank, if I were running things there wouldn't be a draft. 

They originally rigged the draft because they didn't want teams tanking on purpose.  They do that anyway, so that wasn't the right solution.

No, it just means they didn't go far enough.

I think you need to put tools in place that allow strong management teams turn their team around as quickly as possible.

Those exist. There are many, many teams right now who are good teams who were once bad teams. None of those teams needed 3 1st overall picks in 5 years in order to achieve that. Saying that a team can't go from bad to good in a relatively short period of time if you eliminated picking 1st three times in five years has absolutely no basis in the history of the league.

 

[Hobbes]

Those exist. There are many, many teams right now who are good teams who were once bad teams. None of those teams needed 3 1st overall picks in 5 years in order to achieve that. Saying that a team can't go from bad to good in a relatively short period of time if you eliminated picking 1st three times in five years has absolutely no basis in the history of the league.

Doesn't that run counter to your thesis then? If you can have a good team without a #1 overall pick, why bother worrying about it at all? If a team is horrible enough to keep getting that pick, so be it...it's obviously not helping them.

The whole purpose of having a draft (and cap for that matter) is to try to nudge the league towards parity which is supposedly in the league's best interest (as a whole). It's debatable as to whether that's a desirable goal but in general it seems to be working since it's a bit of a crap shoot on any given night as to who is going to win. Supposedly that makes for a healthier league.

 

[Kin]

Doesn't that run counter to your thesis then? If you can have a good team without a #1 overall pick, why bother worrying about it at all? If a team is horrible enough to keep getting that pick, so be it...it's obviously not helping them.

I mean, that's not what I said. I said to be good teams didn't need 3 first overall picks in 5 years. The Leafs turned things around quickly with just the one, as did teams like Washington and Tampa and Chicago and so on and so forth(even Pittsburgh only technically won the one draft lottery).

Now, of course, some teams have turned things around without any 1st picks but my point was never about good teams, it was about providing less incentive for failure and eliminate there being an upside to being terribly run.

 

[ZBBM]

the most recent 1st overall pick to win a cup was Kane (2007)

That's amazing.

That has more to do with the Oilers' boobery and the Cup of late being won by teams with slightly older generational #1 overall picks like Washington and Pittsburgh.

I'm bookmarking that word and will palm it off as my own coinage very soon.

 

[Kin]

I'm bookmarking that word and will palm it off as my own coinage very soon.

I'm afraid it's got roughly 190 years on you in that regard:

https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/54026465

 

[Hobbes]

TSN reporting that Hutch is getting the start tonight

 

[disco]

https://twitter.com/kevin_mcgran/status/1210602656206663680

Nylander up with Tavares. I think that's the right call with Matthews and Marner together.

Drool... but you know if Nylander lights it up to a 90 pt pace with Tavares we are going to hear about how Tavares really elevates his linemates.

Kapanen our of the top 6 will help everyone

Also making Hyman-Matthews-Marner and Mikheyev-Tavares-Nylander evens out the two-way strength a little more, Tavares taking on Nylander instead of Matthews. We'll see how that line does. If it's a success those are two killer lines Keefe can keep riding out there in all situations.

 

[Bullfrog]

I like these lines. Really looking forward to seeing the Mikheyev-Tavares-Nylander line.

 

[ZBBM]

I'm bookmarking that word and will palm it off as my own coinage very soon.

I'm afraid it's got roughly 190 years on you in that regard:

https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/54026465

You can take your etymology and ____________ it.  [insert archaism here]

 

[Hobbes]

I like the look of Engvall-Kerfoot-Kapanen too...I think Kappy is a lot more comfortable on the right side and his speed complements Kerfoot's a bit better (or visa versa). I think it will suit Engvall a bit better too...having him on Tavares' line was a pretty big ask since usually John's up against the opposition's top forward line or top D pair or both. Letting him get a bit easier competition on the 3rd line ought to help.

 

[AvroArrow]

Nylander up with Tavares. I think that's the right call with Matthews and Marner together.

I've been hoping this would get tried out at some point.  Will be interesting to see how it plays out.