Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Southpop45

NHL DRAFT: Should there be a restriction on how many times a team can draft in the top 5 within 5 a year span

   155 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you encourage a new rule of allowing a team to have only "3 top 5 picks in a 5 year span"

    • Yes
      72
    • No
      83

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

56 posts in this topic

For years the NHL has looked for new ways to punish teams who tank or continually tank in order to get better draft picks.

What i am suggesting here is for the NHL to take on a new rule that restricts how many times a single team can draft within the top 5.

Correct me if I am wrong but i believe there is already a rule that states a single team can only draft 1st overall three times within a 5 year span.

I think most people would agree that is a fair rule. So why not take it a step further and say that a team can only draft in the top 5 three times in a 5 year span?

I for one am tired of seeing teams like the panthers, oilers, and islanders continue to get awarded by the NHL for continually being bottom feeders.

What do you guys think is the "3 top 5 picks in a 5 year span" idea going to far?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not going to happen.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not going to happen.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

But yeah that's not going to happen. Most likely, you'll see an alteration of the lottery again. Suggestions have been made such as rewarding the team who finishes 17th overall in the regular season (just missing the playoffs) with the highest chance of winning the lottery.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not going to happen.

The substance in this post is overwhelming.

I'd support a rule to try "convince" crappy teams to stop trying to suck and get high draft picks. But it's getting pretty hilarious seeing Edmonton draft top 10 every year. Comedy gold.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggestions have been made such as rewarding the team who finishes 17th overall in the regular season (just missing the playoffs) with the highest chance of winning the lottery.

This seems like the most logical solution to me. Keep teams striving to be competitive.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The substance in this post is overwhelming.

I'd support a rule to try "convince" crappy teams to stop trying to suck and get high draft picks. But it's getting pretty hilarious seeing Edmonton draft top 10 every year. Comedy gold.

More hilarious is how Edmonton then manages to screw up that talent's development.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like the most logical solution to me. Keep teams striving to be competitive.

Yeah that definitely sounds "logical". :rolleyes:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say maybe a team isn't eligible to receive the 1st pick two years in a row, but top 5 is fine.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've yet to see these bottom feeders reap the so-called "rewards" that you talk about. When one of these teams start a dynasty, we can bump this thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top 5, no. It's better if there's a lottery with a better chance of other teams winning the draft. Realistically 5 top 5 picks on your team would eventually put you u over the cap. No one has that goal besides Edmonton

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unweighted drawfor the 14 teams not in the playoffs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've yet to see these bottom feeders reap the so-called "rewards" that you talk about. When one of these teams start a dynasty, we can bump this thread.

You could argue Chicago/Pittsburgh... but they had a proper system in place that they only were at the bottom for 2 or 3 years

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are people wanting to punish teams that don't improve? You might as well throw the whole draft system out the window in that case.

The NFL, one of the most competitive, and money making leagues in North America has the draft the way the NHL used to be.

Where you finish, is where you get your pick. Finish last you pick first overall. Win the Super Bowl you pick last.

No stupid lottery picks, no gimmicks. The only reason Edmonton is not competitive is their scouts suck. They have drafted all the same type of player. Ironically all those who push for "draft the best player available", should look at Edmonton. They have drafted BPA, and they still sit at the bottom of the standings. A proper GM would have traded Yak for a defenseman, or traded the first overall pick to move down in the draft an pick up a franchise D-man.

High draft picks don't always mean you're getting a stud. Patrick Stefan ring a bell? Getting high draft picks won't help you if your GM and scouts don't have a clue of what they are doing.

Long and short. What kind of league do we want? A level playing field? Or a league where the best teams stay on top and small market or teams that struggle NEVER get a chance to improve.

The NHL had the the Draft right before Bettmann and his stupid NBA style draft system came into the league.

Edmontons thinking was that th3y had a franchise LW(Hall). Then they just gotten a franchise center (RNH), but instead of realizing they had a good young center(Gagne) and a up n coming rw(Eberle), they figure they snag franchise sniper rw(yakupov). They SHOULD have picked PMD (Murray)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are bottom feeders and still cant turnaround the franchise. I'd say that is enough punishment/embarrassment already lol.

Do you really think the franchise would survives that? Imagine removing the NYI pick the year they drafted Tavares.

You know Bettman will do anything to save his markets, that rule would only make the poor team poorer. Not good for revenues for the league.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've yet to see these bottom feeders reap the so-called "rewards" that you talk about. When one of these teams start a dynasty, we can bump this thread.

in a 5 year span from 2002-2006, pittsburgh picked 5th, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 2nd.

that's seemed to have contributed to their success.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in a 5 year span from 2002-2006, pittsburgh picked 5th, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 2nd.

that's seemed to have contributed to their success.

I'd say the fact they won the Crosby lottery influenced that success more than anything.

I doubt drafting Ryan Whitney, MA Fleury, Evgeni Malkin, Jordan Staal, and Jack Johnson would have made them the powerhouse they are today.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So long as poorly managed teams are rewarded for being poorly managed, teams will tank. The best way to have a draft is to award the top picks according to how much they improve from one year to the next. This will force teams to remain competitive throughout the season because even the bottom dwelling teams have the opportunity to move up draft positions. This system also gives the team that finishes dead last, the best chance of getting the top pick, because they would have the most opportunity to improve. Games would be more relevant all season. Of course an elite team would be very unlikely to get a top pick. Using this system would probably give Colorado Avs the top pick this year, the Canucks would probably draft last. Much as that sucks for a Canucks fans, you can't argue that they deserve any better.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.