That was so long ago and a version of the NHL that doesn't exist anymore. There were 6 teams.
They didn't just "not have a draft" they had regional control. Guys from MA played for the Bruins. Guys from PQ played for Montreal. That's no longer the case and there are global players joining the league at record numbers compared to 1963.
So people who were close to home got to stay close to home and dominate?
Is there evidence that "most kids want to stay close to home"? With a salary cap big markets ability to "outbid" smaller markets is "capped".
See Johnny Gaudreau to the megalopolis of Columbus OH
Is there evidence that people participating in the draft actually don't like the draft?
You mean Gaudreau who signed with a team who could fit his salary demands in the cap? Is he a prospect? How many will just want to sign with Columbus, knowing salaries are equal? How many want to sign in Arizona? How many want to sign with Carolina?
YES. You're ok with literal children being drafted and then sent away from their homes just to protect an outdated concept of parity for a league that's not even fully professional?
Why?
Why is parity outdated? Because you said so?
And yes, I'm okay with literal children, who work with their parents, exercise autonomy to enter a system in which they can move out and pursue their career and dreams. Why? Because they want to pursue their dream of playing in the NHL.
I can't speak to the European leagues but the KHL is hardly a comparison for any north american institution and to the best of my knowledge the number of NCAA schools platers can attend far outnumbers the 32 teams in the NHL.
It's only considered "as fairly as can be expected" because that's how it's always been done.
Last year, there were 225 players picked in the draft. That ignores all the players who weren't picked. How would you handle if 30 players want to go to Toronto, even though the draft usually allows only 7? Do you force Toronto to take all 30? After all, you're the one up in arms about making children move far away from home. I don't know why suddenly you'd be okay with 18 year-olds making that choice.
What happens when Toronto doesn't want to take them? They move down the list to their next location, then next, until some team wants to take them. Some kids eventually have to settle for Phoenix and Columbus, even though they're last on their list.
So making it like Free Agency allows the talented kids to pick where they go, (because why would a player not sign Bedard), and screw over the less talented kids who the teams are less likely to want. Which, to me, is pretty elitist. It would also allow collusion among younger players, like if McDavid, DeBrincat, and Strome all wanted to sign with one team right out the gate.
I personally believe (admittedly with no evidence other than what I believe to be the history of human behaviour) that players making the decisions that are best for themselves would ultimately lead to a stronger league with stronger teams.
It will create stronger teams, but fewer teams. And you're still screwing over everyone but the elite.
you wouldn't have kids taken in the 3rd - 7th round who have to constantly tailor their game to fit an ever changing landscape of expectations from organizations that cycle through management teams in periods of time shorted than the average playing career.
This is amazingly the most daft statement from you. You think teams still wouldn't expect players to change, grow, and tailor their game? You think if Kaliyev's first choice was LA, and they signed him, they would be handling him differently or they wouldn't be trying to change is game?
Teams would recruit players, compensate players and be forced to be accountable for the decisions they make and the careers they influence.
This is called firing the general manager for mismanaging the team. And are players not being compensated now? Do teams not meet frequently with players before the draft? Players can also just refuse to sign. They get traded to teams they like. Just ask Adam Fox (see, I can cite singular examples too!)
You're painting a scenario of how your system is better, while acting as if it's not something now.
Just as it is today... teams in "less desirable" markets will have to work harder to attract talent. The only difference is that a small handful of top tier players will have a larger voice in where they play to start their careers.
And here it is - all that matters is what the TOP tier players get. Why do only their feelings matter?
People talk about getting rid of the draft as if the only players that matter in the NHL are the guys taken in the top 10 of each draft and it's just not true.
But the top players in each draft are the only ones who benefit MOST from your suggestion. And you admit it right above.
Teams win because of depth and cohesion and a ton of other factors beyond assembled "star power" yet we have a system for distributing a tiny sliver of talent that completely influences the way seasons are played and careers are shaped.
795 out of the 943 players who played this year are drafted. A "tiny sliver of talent"?
Isn't this essentially the argument for the Empire in Star Wars?
This is rich - the one who wants a system that primarily benefits the elite is comparing my attitude with the evil Empire. Sure. I'm aligning with the Empire.
That may stop the occasional team that decides at the trade deadline to jettison all it's talent and throw in the towel but it won't stop teams like Anaheim and Chicago this year who were never trying to begin with.
The draft rewards teams that don't do well with guaranteed talent.
If you want to get rid of teams trying to lost then you have to stop rewarding teams for losing.
You may have missed the part where teams don't get guaranteed top end talent anymore with my proposition. You mentioned Anaheim and Chicago, and in the current draft, the absolute worst they can drop is 2 spots... you want to change that? I'm all for it. Screw them. I said this back in 2019 when the Kings fell three spots - it sucks, but the Kings can't depend on the lottery to bail them out. They have to scout and draft better and improve their infrastructure so then whomever they do take, they can better prepare him for an NHL career.
They'll get a top-16 pick at worst, which sure, is still good, but they won't have the elite prospects whom you want to cater to, to save them. They can't continue to mismanage the team and ever expect the luck to go their way.
In your scenario, budget teams like Arizona and Anaheim will just always be bad because they'll be undesirable locations to sign, and have a lower budget, and the poor players who are desperate to sign anywhere to get their foot in the door will still be subjected to mismanagement and penny pinching. So... how's your solution better?
