jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (06/24/85)
> If the NHL is currently such that a few teams have most of the best > skaters, then one can blame neither the current method of running the > draft, nor the old rules, for the advantages these teams during > coincidental minors. > > The draft is run like other drafts, the worst teams get the first picks > and theoretically POTENTIALLY the best hockey players. I emphasize > potentially because sometimes erratic inconsistent players bloom into > stars -- the Oilers for example. In theory this process should > equalize the league over a period of time. In practice it doesn't. The > reasons boil down to better scouting. > .... > But my point is that new rule, and complaints about the > draft are all just covers for bad management on some teams. > And thus there is no single solution that the league can find > for the lack of parity; the problems apply to individual > clubs and will have to be solved there. I agree with the above, except that there is a good reason why the draft doesn't help the weaker teams, and why good scouting makes such a big difference: the drafting of underage juniors. It takes a near genius to tell whether a 17 or 18 year-old will develop into a solid NHL player, except maybe with first round picks, and as I said in a posting a few months ago, great teams are built in the later rounds, not the first round. Even with good scouting, the weaker teams are often forced to bring their underage draftees into the NHL too soon, which can do permanent damage to their careers, while the stronger teams can afford to wait and let their players develop properly. So unless the drafting of underage players can be reduced, the NHL entry draft will not help the weaker teams much. You may argue that baseball also drafts players at a very early age. But baseball's draft doesn't help the weaker teams any more than hockey's does. If baseball teams get better, it's usually because of good scouting, smart trades, and maybe a couple of free agent signings, not because they had an early pick in the draft. Hockey doesn't have free agent signings, and NHL teams are much more reluctant to make trades than baseball teams, so that leaves little hope for weak NHL teams, no matter how good their management is. The underage draft was introduced a few years ago because refusing to draft 18 and 19 year-olds was illegal age discrimination, so it can't be eliminated completely, but perhaps they can get away with something like allowing underage players to be picked only in the first round. Since most players won't be drafted before they're 20, that would mean a better crop of 20 year-olds eligible for the draft each year, which would mean more of an advantage to the teams with early picks, because 20 year-olds' NHL potential is easier to judge than younger players, and they're much more capable of giving competent, immediate help to a weak team. They can justify it by saying that only first-round underage picks are qualified for NHL employment. -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff