|
|
Post by Oxford United on Aug 5, 2023 21:03:49 GMT -7
To reduce roster inflation, reduce the number of rounds in the Rookie/Free Agent draft from 5 to 4. - Adjust the rules for determination of eligible rookies to correspond to this reduction (i.e. 48+1 Rookies).
- Adjust the rules for Free Agents to require half an NHL season -- 41 games played -- to be eligible to return to the draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Aug 5, 2023 21:29:01 GMT -7
What year would this start in? Don't think we could drop the fifth round this year but have any fifths changed hands for the next draft?
|
|
|
|
Post by Oxford United on Aug 6, 2023 10:19:37 GMT -7
What year would this start in? Don't think we could drop the fifth round this year but have any fifths changed hands for the next draft? As the rule proposals are for the upcoming season, I suggest this rule would take effect at the 2024 AGM. Brandon holds Belfast’s 5th in 2024, and I suggest that Brandon be awarded a special 49th pick in the draft as compensation for the elimination of the 5th round. |
|
|
|
Post by Belfast on Aug 6, 2023 13:53:56 GMT -7
I believe he also has Belfast's 5th round next year as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by nash on Aug 6, 2023 18:43:53 GMT -7
You may review future draft picks in the current CHL file on the stickied post. See the Draft Picks tab.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oxford United on Aug 6, 2023 22:08:36 GMT -7
I believe he also has Belfast's 5th round next year as well. Corrected. The pick was Belfast’s but I’d typed Houston by mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by nash on Aug 6, 2023 22:58:43 GMT -7
I am comfortable with this change. We do have rosters that are too rich in my opinion.
The NHL has begun relying on ELCs more and pushing out journeymen players at a younger age than previously. So in this way it seems like Rookies are more likely to play earlier than they may have previously as roster spots open up when vets are pricing themselves out. Some vets are taking <$1,000,000 just to stay in the NHL.
We can change this back in a few years if required.
|
|
|
|
Post by amack17 on Aug 9, 2023 5:58:03 GMT -7
I think that a change of this magnitude should be given a more in depth look. I would like to see a couple of random rookie pools with a random 20% of the players removed, if that is something that we can do, how much does this change the value of picks people have already traded for in future drafts? Decreasing the value of those assets by 20% may make several other trades significantly worse than they were at the time.
I am not saying that this is not something we should look at eventually, I just do not think it is right to change the drafts for any years in which picks have already been dealt.
|
|
|
|
Post by nash on Aug 9, 2023 6:21:53 GMT -7
I think that a change of this magnitude should be given a more in depth look. I would like to see a couple of random rookie pools with a random 20% of the players removed, if that is something that we can do, how much does this change the value of picks people have already traded for in future drafts? Decreasing the value of those assets by 20% may make several other trades significantly worse than they were at the time. I am not saying that this is not something we should look at eventually, I just do not think it is right to change the drafts for any years in which picks have already been dealt. As always it depends on which guys get into the pool. So I can see Arron's concern in this, so if this went through it wouldn't occur in 2024, but would begin in 2025. |
|
|
|
Post by Oxford United on Aug 9, 2023 7:13:42 GMT -7
If 2023’s draft were 4 rounds the teams left out would have been Montreal and Chicago. The following players would not be available.
Anthony Richard
Arber Xhekaj
Johnathan Kovacevic
Juraj Slafkovsky
Justin Barron
Kaiden Guhle
Rafael Harvey-Pinard
Arvid Soderblom
Cole Guttman
Filip Roos
Isaak Phillips
|
|
|
|
Post by Belfast on Aug 9, 2023 11:10:17 GMT -7
That seems like a lot of talent to be losing no?
There are at least 6, possibly 8 guys there that are 1st or 2nd round picks. That seems like more than 20% of the talent leaving. This years draft does seem to be deeper than others, but still.
Also recall that we've been operating the drafts with 2 less teams for several years, but we do have Houston and Viking now. I would think that the addition of 2 more teams would dilute the backup we might have of upper tier talent per team.
Id be tempted to hold off on this for a couple of years to see how another 2 or 3 drafts develop, and what talent level is available per team at that point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oxford United on Aug 9, 2023 15:08:07 GMT -7
That seems like a lot of talent to be losing no? There are at least 6, possibly 8 guys there that are 1st or 2nd round picks. That seems like more than 20% of the talent leaving. This years draft does seem to be deeper than others, but still. Also recall that we've been operating the drafts with 2 less teams for several years, but we do have Houston and Viking now. I would think that the addition of 2 more teams would dilute the backup we might have of upper tier talent per team. Id be tempted to hold off on this for a couple of years to see how another 2 or 3 drafts develop, and what talent level is available per team at that point. Spot on! 20% would be exactly the amount of talent leaving. We have, for several years, added teams randomly until we have five rounds of rookies, plus one. - Now: 12 teams = 12 * 5 = 60 + 1 = 61 players minimum
- Then: 10 teams = 10 * 5 = 50 + 1 = 51 players minimum
The more players in the draft, the higher the quality of the first round.
|
|
|
|
Post by nash on Aug 11, 2023 8:07:25 GMT -7
So I believe the league overall is too rich. Clearly there are building teams and established teams but too many 3rd liners aren't even getting dressed.
What I like about Steve's proposal is that we can see reduction in the number of top line players in the draft, but also that it will disproportionately affect teams that are strong. If 20% of the talent is dropped those later picks become less valuable overall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oxford United on Aug 11, 2023 10:36:57 GMT -7
So I believe the league overall is too rich. Clearly there are building teams and established teams but too many 3rd liners aren't even getting dressed. Agreed. And while we do need a cushion in terms of games played, I distinctly remember playing the league-provided skaters my first few seasons in the CHL (in the 80s). It would be easy to create cards for “replacement-level” forwards and defensemen to cover games as call-ups from the minor leagues. Right now we hold rookies “while they develop” without acknowledging that those same rookies we’re not playing because they’re not good enough for our teams are playing for NHL teams. I like the idea of holding a young player I believe in on my roster and I also believe there should be a little pain in doing so. In the 18 forwards, 10 defensemen, 3 goalies range. If I did t think it would cause a revolution I’d suggest a maximum roster size of 30 + 1 LTIR slot. Any holes to be filled as a result would be using league skaters. But anyway, maybe start pinching the supply that makes us think our rosters have to be large. |
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Aug 14, 2023 13:57:28 GMT -7
Don't have strong feelings on this proposal either way but feel that since the '25 draft picks have been "released" for trading purposes that if this rule is accepted that it goes into effect for the '26 season.
Yeah, it's a ways off but this is a pretty big change so this will give people a chance to plan/change before it comes into effect and doesn't require shenanigans around draft order/special compensatory picks (pick #58 becoming #49 because the rest of the 5th round evaporated).
|
|
