|
|
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Mar 21, 2016 22:13:14 GMT -5
Assuming we would allow this, and that the post-draft prospect distribution would necessarily happen pretty much immediately after the draft itself, so we would allow teams to go beyond 20 during the draft, then force them to not only get compliant to 20, but bellow 20 if they want to claim prospects after the draft... I'm not sure that that is easier then simply extending the ability to be over the 20 prospect limit to the post draft distribution... It's pretty damn easy. "Hey, get compliant or you can't claim another prospect just like the rest of the season." "Ok." Bam, done. Gms should not need 100 rules to hold their hands on how to manage a team. This is (imo) one that isn't needed. makes a good point |
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Kraken on Mar 21, 2016 22:45:47 GMT -5
Assuming we would allow this, and that the post-draft prospect distribution would necessarily happen pretty much immediately after the draft itself, so we would allow teams to go beyond 20 during the draft, then force them to not only get compliant to 20, but bellow 20 if they want to claim prospects after the draft... I'm not sure that that is easier then simply extending the ability to be over the 20 prospect limit to the post draft distribution... It's pretty damn easy. "Hey, get compliant or you can't claim another prospect just like the rest of the season." "Ok." Bam, done. Gms should not need 100 rules to hold their hands on how to manage a team. This is (imo) one that isn't needed. I agree. Or even better than having a list draft...if your pickups make you non-compliant, your claim is invalid. |
|
|
|
Post by San Jose Sharks on Mar 21, 2016 23:21:13 GMT -5
I second LA's view
|
|
|
|
Post by Andre Deblois on Mar 21, 2016 23:26:32 GMT -5
It's pretty damn easy. "Hey, get compliant or you can't claim another prospect just like the rest of the season." "Ok." Bam, done. Gms should not need 100 rules to hold their hands on how to manage a team. This is (imo) one that isn't needed. I agree. Or even better than having a list draft...if your pickups make you non-compliant, your claim is invalid. The issue of compliancy should be debated/discussed seperate from whether or not to have a list draft for post 3rd round prospects... if I understand your comment, you'd rather not have a list draft, and stay with the status quo of waiver priority for post draft prospects as long as they have the space to claim them? |
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Flyers on Mar 22, 2016 17:16:46 GMT -5
Scott asked me to chime in the discussion here since my input has so far been limited to the staff board.
The current VHL prospect ownership from the 2015 NHL draft is as follows:
1st round: 30 of 30 prospects owned
2nd round: 30 of 30 prospects owned
3rd round: 29 of 30 prospects owned
4th round: 28 of 30 prospects owned
5th round: 15 of 30 prospects owned
6th round: 12 of 30 prospects owned
7th round: 12 of 30 prospects owned
That's 156 prospects from the 2015 NHL Entry Draft that are currently on VHL teams. 156 prospects out of the 211 selected.
Our current set up in the VHL is 3 rounds. A total of 90 prospects.
As strong a proposal Andre presents here, I feel inclined to provide some evidence why I think we should adopt two more rounds in the VHL draft. Andre's proposal is quite similar in the process as adding two rounds already would be, so I don't know why we don't just add two more rounds. The knowledge and commitment level from all the GMs in the league is as high as it's ever been. I'm confident in today's VHL we could make use of 4th and 5th round draft picks. It's the most simple, efficient way of fairly dispersing the remaining prospects that are of any value in the draft as it naturally continues thr priority order from the VHL standings.
Adding more draft picks also opens more trading pathways. There are some lesser end players out there who aren't quite worth a 3rd round pick, but I'm sure could be sold for 4th or 5th round picks. If a GM wants specific prospects so badly, I think it's only fair they put the work into acquiring more picks in the draft in order to use that on the prospect they desire. If teams want to pass on their picks, they simply can and that's that.
With 5 rounds, that's a total of 150 prospects. We currently have 156 of them assigned to teams in the VHL... it is safe to say that there won't be any problems with teams making use of their picks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning on Mar 22, 2016 19:29:49 GMT -5
I would fully support expanding the draft
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Mar 22, 2016 22:39:07 GMT -5
I also agree with expanding the draft. It's the simplest solution. No rule changes, just more picks. Great
|
|
|
|
Post by Dallas Stars on Mar 22, 2016 22:56:57 GMT -5
If you were to make it 5 rounds, wouldn't raising the prospect limit to say 23-25 make sense as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning on Mar 22, 2016 23:07:37 GMT -5
If you were to make it 5 rounds, wouldn't raising the prospect limit to say 23-25 make sense as well? Opponents of this idea would call it "hoarding enabling", but I think an increase to 22 isn't unreasonable I mean a 66% increase in draft picks accompanied by a 10% increase in storage space is rational |
|
|
|
Post by Andre Deblois on Mar 22, 2016 23:34:35 GMT -5
I am not a fan of adding extra space for additional prospects. People have ways to create space for the additional prospect or two they could draft in an expanded draft by creating or dropping current prospects, or to just pass on picks.
Adding more space for prospects likely expands the gap between have and have-not teams, as the consistently well-run teams will take advantage and use those spots, removing 30-40 previously unprotected prospects from the available pool that a new GM trying to fix a run down team could potentially claim.
|
|
