Around the NHL 2023-24 - Offseason
- Thread starter NJDevs26
- Start date
- Status
This is my biggest concern with that idea also. Yes, it's rare for late round picks to make the league, but those late round picks are still small value pieces that can be thrown in to get a trade done. This removes that ability.
Furthermore, removing several rounds will make the remaining picks more valuable, and teams will be less willing to part with them. It throws sand in the gears of the trade market.
Maybe that's a positive from the NHLPA's perspective too, because players will be less likely to get moved against their will. I don't think that's good for the quality of the on-ice game though.
My other thought is that this change would favor teams which are better at scouting undrafted free agents. Maybe we used to be good at that, but I'm not sure that we are anymore.
Better Call Sal
Salnalysis
I don't get the logic in shortening the draft when there's talk of further expansion potentially. I guess it's more centered on players having more control of going where they wish? But 7 rounds seems perfectly reasonable to me. Hell, it used to be way longer. I feel like it's been shortened enough.
A shorter draft would just lead to more overagers getting drafted and fewer players overall getting an opportunity, right? If picks are more "precious" now, you will feel even more weight to get them right so you just draft whatever 19 year old you have another year's worth of data points on that was missed in the draft the year before (and there's more of them now).
To use Bratt as an example, his play was good in his D+1 year, but would it really have earned him an NHL job the next year if a team hadn't already owned his rights? Every team has a few examples like this. He might have been looking at 2+ more years before making it the NHL and significantly increasing his career earnings. He likely gets drafted that next year instead.
To use Bratt as an example, his play was good in his D+1 year, but would it really have earned him an NHL job the next year if a team hadn't already owned his rights? Every team has a few examples like this. He might have been looking at 2+ more years before making it the NHL and significantly increasing his career earnings. He likely gets drafted that next year instead.
Its player agents wanting a shorter draft. Players not getting contracts means agents don't get paid, and the agents do not like that.
Its bad for the players and bad for the teams.
Darkauron
Registered User
Yeah not to mention later draft pick players get a lot more training, coaching, help ect ect by their drafted team to make them the best player possible. Without that, it will be really hard for a undrafted player to make the NHL I feel like.
Devils731
Registered User
- Jun 23, 2008
- 12,981
- 18,510
I would think a shorter draft would encourage players to go the NCAA route as well.
You’re more likely not to get an NHL affiliation your first few years so you may as well get a degree while you’re at it. Then jump right from NCAA to the AHL and try to make my case there.
You’re more likely not to get an NHL affiliation your first few years so you may as well get a degree while you’re at it. Then jump right from NCAA to the AHL and try to make my case there.
glenwo2
JESPER BRATWURST
At the very least, the quality of players would increase (in theory, though).
At the same time, however, it may end up leaving players who could be another Bratt out in the cold and never getting an opportunity.
Forge
Blissfully Mediocre
Sounds like Ceci may be on the outs for this one
- May 1, 2011
- 133,498
- 63,115
He sucks, but I think Nurse may actually be the weak link of the two.
Shorter draft would definitely throw pick values off and sky rocket them.
As for cap friendly, why buy the site ? Someone is just going to make the same exact website and probably call it capfriend lol
As for cap friendly, why buy the site ? Someone is just going to make the same exact website and probably call it capfriend lol
glenwo2
JESPER BRATWURST
Devils731
Registered User
- Jun 23, 2008
- 12,981
- 18,510
I don’t think it actually changes the value of picks very much, maybe in whatever the final round is there would be a small bump up compared to current value. The final round bump up in case teams have had trouble signing UDFA’s and want bodies in the system.
The value of a player I draft in round 3 is the same as it is now, I’m getting the same exact player.
I don’t think NHL teams care that much about who they draft rounds 5-7, trying to get players as undrafted free agents would just replace that crapshoot.
I understand why agents/NHLPA would want a shorter draft but we'll see if it's really a hill they're willing to die on with the next CBA negotiations.
I would be interesting though, I think we'd suddenly see a bunch of D+1 players get drafted in the mid-rounds after being passed over initially. We already see that to some degree with a seven round draft. Guys like Wayne Simmonds, David Perron, Blake Coleman, and Sean Durzi went undrafted their first time and then were relatively high picks the second time.
I would be interesting though, I think we'd suddenly see a bunch of D+1 players get drafted in the mid-rounds after being passed over initially. We already see that to some degree with a seven round draft. Guys like Wayne Simmonds, David Perron, Blake Coleman, and Sean Durzi went undrafted their first time and then were relatively high picks the second time.
Devils731
Registered User
- Jun 23, 2008
- 12,981
- 18,510
Basically business as usual but they removed one layer of management.
Eventually Dundon is going to have an AI chatbot as GM and it will only cost him about $10 in a monthly subscription fee. I'm sure it will be great.
I don't think it would affect much in terms of pick values. It means there will be a very large pool of UDFAs. It means that teams will sign more ELCs with 18 year old players who are undrafted, as the Devils did with Colby Sissons and the Rangers did with Troy Donnay.
I could see cutting a round off the draft but 3 seems like too many.
Cheddabombs
Status Quo
- Mar 13, 2012
- 25,596
- 34,580
They're talking about all of you... not me tho
It’s only a good deal if they leave the trade board out of it.
Otherwise some of the more questionable proposals will set the rebuild back by years.
I know this is satire, but just an FYI for everyone, Puckpedia.com is the best one I've seen to replace CapFriendly
I prefer Dontworryaboutmycap.com. Although that might be a little long for a link lol
TrufleShufle
Registered User
- Aug 31, 2012
- 8,443
- 14,088
Feel like there is a great opportunity with NoCap.com.
They buy the site for the code and the data. It means they didn't have any of this internally. Very expensive but a lot quicker than hiring a developer to build one from nothing.
Most teams already have all of this setup internally so the Capitals needed to play catch up.
The article made it seem like most of the league uses the website as opposed to having in house stuff
Some teams may use it to quickly check on other teams' situations, but it's not data they couldn't access otherwise. I guarantee you no one is managing their own cap using capfriendly.
Any team that was actually using this as a database will have spent a few hours frantically screencapping everything before it comes down anyway. This would just mean they have to do their own accounting moving forward to keep up with every team's situation.
- Status
