League News: NHL Talk - (News n' Scores n' Stuff) | 2023-24 Regular Season Edition

[g00n]

The hard salary cap mitigates this somewhat.

The cap is an extension of efforts to mitigate the free agent power in the marketplace. Getting rid of the draft is a furtherance of that power that backfires on everyone.

The controls in place are designed to prevent imbalance among teams and to a degree among players.
If a bidding war starts for rookie prospects in place of a draft then most of the players will lose out because teams will again be inclined to overbid for shiny new toys, and CBA clauses or other controls will be necessary to keep teams from spending huge percentages of their salaries on rookies.

That means limits would have to be placed on the amount that can be offered to any rookie, unless we want teams cheaping out on rank and file players. Which of course puts us right back in the same place as before, only without the relative equity of a draft that tries to give struggling teams a chance to share in the available talent pool that's typically dominated by bigger spenders.

So populist idealism turned against the draft is superficial stupidity that misses the point entirely and per Chesterton's Fence seeks to change something that isn't fully understood simply for the sake of newness and change, or whatever.

 

[Corby78]

Seems to me that the Premier League is doing pretty well for itself despite not having a draft!

You mean the league that’s the poster for the richest guys gets the best team? And over half the league doesn’t have a prayer to ever win it all?

In your pluming analogy the company he wants to work for is the NHL. The other companies are the KHL, SHL, DEL, ect.. The draft helps keeps balance and kids are getting paid. It’s not a death sentence or a hinderance to a career.

 

[twabby]

It’s not a death sentence

Have you ever been to Edmonton???

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

To dumb it down based on the current plumbing analogy….

you can go be a professional plumber anywhere you want, but if you want to plumb in the National Plumbing League where the most challenging of toilets are installed LIVE on National TV and seen around the world by hundreds of millions, where teams/League are privately owned and things are collectively bargained, you agree to all the rules, requirements and restrictions around playing in the National Plumbing League, including an entry draft.

Otherwise this the USA, go be an electrician or whatever other career you would feel more in control of as a pure free agent.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

The cap is an extension of efforts to mitigate the free agent power in the marketplace. Getting rid of the draft is a furtherance of that power that backfires on everyone.

The controls in place are designed to prevent imbalance among teams and to a degree among players.
If a bidding war starts for rookie prospects in place of a draft then most of the players will lose out because teams will again be inclined to overbid for shiny new toys, and CBA clauses or other controls will be necessary to keep teams from spending huge percentages of their salaries on rookies.

That means limits would have to be placed on the amount that can be offered to any rookie, unless we want teams cheaping out on rank and file players. Which of course puts us right back in the same place as before, only without the relative equity of a draft that tries to give struggling teams a chance to share in the available talent pool that's typically dominated by bigger spenders.

So populist idealism turned against the draft is superficial stupidity that misses the point entirely and per Chesterton's Fence seeks to change something that isn't fully understood simply for the sake of newness and change, or whatever.

Chesterton’s Fence…nice pull.

 

[HTFN]

Seems to me that the Premier League is doing pretty well for itself despite not having a draft!

You realize that the Capitals are more like... Wolverhampton or something than one of the big guns in this metaphor right?

You want a system where half the pro teams competing in the same league are still basically farm teams and being purchased by new ownership is the actual best way to take a stride forward. "Miracle" runs are virtually impossible and when you actually do manage (like Leicester City) you end up having your team picked apart and lose your best players in their prime for transfer money that doesn't often actually make you better... Leicester City was relegated last year.

Nothing about that system works unless you're basically a Rangers/Habs/Blackhawks fan with maybe one or two other rotating "good ones" based on the year. You ever notice how most of the North American Premier League fans you know root for the top of the table because otherwise what's the point?

What's that do for international viewers (and prospects) as the system keeps working in the NHL? First crack at the best guys forever? Just more and more Adam Fox types creating a pretty good core and letting the rest sort of trickle down and land wherever? "Trickle down" sounds familiar, I can't remember what that's about but it makes so much sense and I'm sure it works great!

 

[twabby]

You realize that the Capitals are more like... Wolverhampton or something than one of the big guns in this metaphor right?

You want a system where half the pro teams competing in the same league are still basically farm teams and being purchased by new ownership is the actual best way to take a stride forward. "Miracle" runs are virtually impossible and when you actually do manage (like Leicester City) you end up having your team picked apart and lose your best players in their prime for transfer money that doesn't often actually make you better... Leicester City was relegated last year.

Nothing about that system works unless you're basically a Rangers/Habs/Blackhawks fan with maybe one or two other rotating "good ones" based on the year. You ever notice how most of the North American Premier League fans you know root for the top of the table because otherwise what's the point?

What's that do for international viewers (and prospects) as the system keeps working in the NHL? First crack at the best guys forever? Just more and more Adam Fox types creating a pretty good core and letting the rest sort of trickle down and land wherever? "Trickle down" sounds familiar, I can't remember what that's about but it makes so much sense and I'm sure it works great!

The purpose of being a sports fan is to be miserable together with other fans, not to cheer on a winner. Think of Buffalo fans, for instance. Or like every fan of those miserable Canadian franchises. Much like Donald Trump and his Diet Coke no matter how bad it is they'll keep drinking that garbage.

There isn't a league in the world that needs competitive balance less than the NHL. Individual players matter so much less in hockey than pretty much every other sport. Games are subject to incredible amounts of randomness and the professionals still don't really have an idea of what makes players good.

I guess I don't really care who the fans cheer for. As long as the league is financially healthy and the players are taken care of (unlike now) I don't care if the Rangers spend a billion dollars a year on payroll and they get fans from across the world. There's no real evidence that getting rid of the draft will hurt the NHL from a financial standpoint, so go ahead and let the Canadiens spend $10 million a year on some role players if they want!

 

[HTFN]

The purpose of being a sports fan is to be miserable together with other fans, not to cheer on a winner. Think of Buffalo fans, for instance. Or like every fan of those miserable Canadian franchises. Much like Donald Trump and his Diet Coke no matter how bad it is they'll keep drinking that garbage.

There isn't a league in the world that needs competitive balance less than the NHL. Individual players matter so much less in hockey than pretty much every other sport. Games are subject to incredible amounts of randomness and the professionals still don't really have an idea of what makes players good.

I guess I don't really care who the fans cheer for. As long as the league is financially healthy and the players are taken care of (unlike now) I don't care if the Rangers spend a billion dollars a year on payroll and they get fans from across the world. There's no real evidence that getting rid of the draft will hurt the NHL from a financial standpoint, so go ahead and let the Canadiens spend $10 million a year on some role players if they want!

you pick the funniest times to turn into a complete bootlicker instead of your usual "power to the people" dynamic

whole second paragraph is stupid, you're citing an environment that currently promotes said competitive balance instead of any of the various pre-cap dynasty teams, and I'd bet these "professionals" who can't figure it out are your stat people and not any of the professionals who very obviously created those teams with intent.

You act like what's going to happen is teams like Montreal and New York will just buy some role players and call it good, but they can do that over and over until they don't sign bad players... and have inroads on prospects because who wouldn't want to play there? You used the Premier League as an example and now you're ignoring all of what that means for player acquisition and tried to make it about the fans, which isn't what we're talking about at all.

You think they'll keep making "cap era" mistakes instead of just leveraging their ability to spend until they become the LA Dodgers. Your whole argument is flawed at best, dishonest at worst, and with you it's really hard to tell which is which.

 

[twabby]

you pick the funniest times to turn into a complete bootlicker instead of your usual "power to the people" dynamic

The whole purpose of the draft is to suppress wages, with "competitive balance" being a very handy side effect. In what way does my argument against the draft make me a bootlicker?

Odd takes in this whole argument.

 

[g00n]

Holy shit, dude. Put down the pipe. Or meade or whatever.

 

[HTFN]

The whole purpose of the draft is to suppress wages, with "competitive balance" being a very handy side effect. In what way does my argument against the draft make me a bootlicker?

Odd takes in this whole argument.

because this whole argument empowers like 5-10% of the organizations and f***s the rest over, makes a lot of the organizations and respective players involved glorified space fillers who will never play for a truly competitive team in their life instead of "helping" them to be able to make their own decisions or actually achieve their dreams. You citing the Premier League as a model virtually assures players that unless you're Olympic-level you'll very likely never do anything but play games and scrap for points in the middle of the table, and so far you've talked more about financial health than anything that resembles quality both from the player perspective and a fan perspective...

But that's okay because sports is about "shared misery" instead of escape, rules, fairness, sportsmanship, and equality.... How is that not a bootlicker argument? Oh thank you sports lords, I don't want to approach new seasons with tentative optimism and a reason to enjoy myself for a while, I'd much rather get another dose of hopelessness and see more systems of inequality in my entertainment.

Also, the draft doesn't suppress wages at all, it's a distribution method. The collectively bargained RFA contract structure does, and the two aren't the same or mutually linked in any way that couldn't be altered without completely abandoning one system or the other.

 

[VaCaps Fan]

Sports is a different beast…

 

[twabby]

Also, the draft doesn't suppress wages at all, it's a distribution method

What means does a laborer have to put pressure on their employer for increased wages if they have no other potential employer they could work for? Even if the rookie salary scale were eliminated McDavid would never get what he was worth in Edmonton because what incentive does Edmonton have to pay him market value?

 

[HTFN]

The draft has been around since the 60's, allowed for professionals from other leagues by the time the WHA was dissolving, and has gone through a lot of other iterations and rule changes.

What you're mad about is the current RFA structure, and I might even agree with that because it's very long team control.

The draft isn't the problem. If teams had one year of team control and drafted a guy they couldn't keep because he's too good for them to afford or he doesn't want to be there they'd trade him for assets to contending winners same as any other rental. Get some players under longer contracts, move up a little, work forward... this isn't complicated.

Hell, it might even be entertaining, even though it doesn't suit bad teams at all and still manufactures the same Premier League "have's and have not's" type of system where the rich get richer and draftees take a year off before signing where they want for what they want. Nobody pays when there's no real leverage.

There's a reason this exists, and it's also the reason you say the NHL doesn't need to work on competitive balance because it's random anyway and "nobody" can figure out why it works. Shit wasn't like that a few decades ago, you just don't have tracking stats to prove it.

 

[g00n]

What means does a laborer have to put pressure on their employer for increased wages if they have no other potential employer they could work for? Even if the rookie salary scale were eliminated McDavid would never get what he was worth in Edmonton because what incentive does Edmonton have to pay him market value?

He was paid $15M in his rookie year. You think he should've been paid more elsewhere? Are you a free market capitalist now?

 

[twabby]

He was paid $15M in his rookie year. You think he should've been paid more elsewhere? Are you a free market capitalist now?

He made $3.8 million his rookie year. So yes, he should have been paid more and he should have decided whether it was in Edmonton or not. His cold dead eyes when he saw the Oilers win the draft lottery in 2015 leads me to believe he would have rather played elsewhere!

 

[twabby]

The draft isn't the problem. If teams had one year of team control and drafted a guy they couldn't keep because he's too good for them to afford or he doesn't want to be there they'd trade him for assets to contending winners same as any other rental.

Sure this is a good step in the right direction. But owners will never go for this because it won't suppress wages nearly as much as the current system does. It will also lead to the same "problem" you mention of competitive imbalance. McDavid goes to Edmonton his rookie year, does his year of indentured servitude, and then signs with the Maple Leafs the following year.

 

[HTFN]

Sure this is a good step in the right direction. But owners will never go for this because it won't suppress wages nearly as much as the current system does. It will also lead to the same "problem" you mention of competitive imbalance. McDavid goes to Edmonton his rookie year, does his year of indentured servitude, and then signs with the Maple Leafs the following year.

The "problem" is one that you're actively rooting for, not the opposite, so I don't really know what you're saying here or why you'd suddenly bring up "competitive imbalance" when that's your whole position right now.

and again, you're confusing the draft with the current RFA structure, almost as if you don't get it at all....

 

[twabby]

The "problem" is one that you're actively rooting for, not the opposite, so I don't really know what you're saying here or why you'd suddenly bring up "competitive imbalance" when that's your whole position right now.

I'm saying I don't understand why you'd be in favor of 1 year of team control given your opposition to abolishing the draft when the same "problems" will be present under both scenarios.

Perhaps I misunderstood if you're actually in favor of reducing team control to 1 year or if that was just a thought experiment on your part.

 

[HTFN]

I'm saying I don't understand why you'd be in favor of 1 year of team control given your opposition to abolishing the draft when the same "problems" will be present under both scenarios.

I'm not in favor of it at all. I'm pointing out that the act of having a draft isn't the problem you're having, and you keep confusing the two even though the draft has been around a lot longer than what you have issue with and didn't stop a variety of teams from having dynasties in the pre-cap era. You don't like RFA rules.

I pointed out that there's a system that could engage in a draft and still give you everything you claim to want in terms of player entity but it's bad for the league overall and only favors those at the very top in both team and player categories... which makes it a shit system. No draft is also a shit system... so you kind of just proved my point by thinking you got me in a trap?

What if there was no draft but all the RFA rules and team control remained the same and while you're free to sign anywhere, once you sign you're under all the same contract rules? Is that good for you? I'm betting that's a no.

 

[g00n]

He made $3.8 million his rookie year. So yes, he should have been paid more and he should have decided whether it was in Edmonton or not. His cold dead eyes when he saw the Oilers win the draft lottery in 2015 leads me to believe he would have rather played elsewhere!

$15M>>>>$3.8M

Plus, it's hard to call someone who makes even $3.8M a "laborer" in the typical class struggle sense, which is what you're romanticizing with this ridiculous anti-draft stretch.

 

[twabby]

What if there was no draft but all the RFA rules and team control remained the same and while you're free to sign anywhere, once you sign you're under all the same contract rules? Is that good for you? I'm betting that's a no.

I'm also in favor of getting rid of the RFA rules.

View attachment 803889

$15M>>>>$3.8M

Plus, it's hard to call someone who makes even $3.8M a "laborer" in the typical class struggle sense, which is what you're romanticizing with this ridiculous anti-draft stretch.

He was a rookie in 15-16. You're looking at his second contract.

Also yes, labor is labor regardless of salary. Movie stars who were striking are labor, for instance.

 

[g00n]

I'm also in favor of getting rid of the RFA rules.



He was a rookie in 15-16. You're looking at his second contract.

Also yes, labor is labor regardless of salary. Movie stars who were striking are labor, for instance.

Ok that still proves my point. $3.8M a year is a hell of a lot of money and someone like CMD always ends up with a HUGE 2nd deal. That's how the system tilts back toward the player.

Who is NOT labor? Do you think employers don't work for their money?

 

[HTFN]

I'm also in favor of getting rid of the RFA rules.



He was a rookie in 15-16. You're looking at his second contract.

Also yes, labor is labor regardless of salary. Movie stars who were striking are labor, for instance.

and there we go. You're in favor of a dogshit system that ultimately benefits very few and screws over the majority of players and fans and will justify it if the product is financially viable...

bootlicker shit. It's the same "empowering" vibe as every time a bill designed to restrict the rights of people is called the "Freedom of Peoples Act" or... "Right To Work" if we want to get real. Sounds nice, but f***s over most of everybody.

 

[twabby]

and there we go. You're in favor of a dogshit system that ultimately benefits very few and screws over the majority of players and fans and will justify it if the product is financially viable...

bootlicker shit. It's the same "empowering" vibe as every time a bill designed to restrict the rights of people is called the "Freedom of Peoples Act" or... "Right To Work" if we want to get real. Sounds nice, but f***s over most of everybody.

There's nothing that will prevent mid-tier players from getting paid as well as the higher-end players. The Barclay Goodrows and Tom Wilsons of the world will still get their money even if the Connors McDavid and Bedard get theirs earlier as well.

I think you're reaching a bit here.