Protected Draft Territory - Alternate Draft History for the Year 2014

In my previous article (How to Rectify the NHL Draft Lottery) I detailed a proposal on how to rectify what I see as the issues with the current NHL Draft Lottery. My proposal was to give each NHL team what I call a Protected Draft Territory or P.D.T.

In that previous article, I listed the initial misgivings I had with my proposal – that the NHL’s Canadian teams would inherit an unfair advantage because of their proximity to large amateur hockey leagues and that the NHL’s U.S. teams would be unfairly penalized because of their perceived lack of amateur hockey leagues in their vicinity. But as you will see in this article, the application of the P.D.T. to the year 2014 did not result in any discernible level of advantage or disadvantage.

At this point I’ll quickly rehash the three P.D.T. rules that I applied to the 2014 NHL Entry Draft:

1. A player’s birth place, not his last amateur hockey team before becoming eligible for the NHL Entry Draft, determined which P.D.T., if any, the player would be eligible for.

2. Where more than one NHL team shares a natural territory (such as a province or a state), how close a player’s birth place is to an NHL team determined which P.D.T. the player would be eligible for.

3. As each player was removed from the original entry draft because of designation under the P.D.T., the players below the removed player were moved up in the draft order. This seems rather arbitrary. But without any knowledge of what each team would have drafted had the player they originally drafted not been available, it seems like a fair compromise. So, for example, if the first player chosen in the original entry draft had been designated under the P.D.T., the second player chosen in the original entry draft was moved up to the first player chosen in the revised entry draft.

Since 2014 was another good year for talent in the Entry Draft, the application of the three simple rules above may have somewhat altered the recent history of the NHL as we know it. A few good players would have gone to different teams and helped build them into solid contenders and perhaps eventual Cup winning teams.

Table 1 below is actually two tables in one. The first six columns represent how the original NHL Entry Draft played out. The second six columns represent how a revised NHL Entry Draft might have transpired after the application of the P.D.T. rules.

Table 1.

Even though it is the most recent draft, there are more than a few recognizable names from the original 2014 Entry Draft. For example, Aaron Ekblad, Sam Reinhart, Leon Draissaitl, Sam Bennett, William Nylander, Nick Ritchie, Brendan Perlini, Dylan Larkin, David Pastrnak, and Josh Ho-Sang.

Via designation of their P.D.T., the Maple Leafs would have been able to continue to solidify their depth down the middle and select another player who has shown every indication of turning out to be a good NHL player – Sam Bennett.

With three of the top four original picks eligible for designation under the P.D.T., the picks in the revised draft would have been very different. For example, Leon Draissaitl, Nick Ritchie, Brendan Perlini, Dylan Larkin, David Pastrnak, and Josh Ho-Sang would have all been drafted by different teams.

By looking closely at Table 1 above, we can see the players in Table 2 below are the players from the first round of the draft who would have been eligible for designation under the P.D.T. rule and therefore would have started their careers with and played for different teams:

Table 2.

The casual fan, looking at the names from Table 2, would find the list to have fewer recognizable names than less recognizable names but this is to be expected as this draft was the most recent.

From that same list of names above, the one having the most interest for Maple Leafs fans would, of course, be Sam Bennett.

As was the case for the revised Entry Drafts starting from the year 2000, the revised Entry Draft for 2014 provides and will provide many questions for endless speculation, discussion, and debate.

Protected Draft Territory - Alternate Draft History for the Year 2013

In my previous article (How to Rectify the NHL Draft Lottery) I detailed a proposal on how to rectify what I see as the issues with the current NHL Draft Lottery. My proposal was to give each NHL team what I call a Protected Draft Territory or P.D.T.

In that previous article, I listed the initial misgivings I had with my proposal – that the NHL’s Canadian teams would inherit an unfair advantage because of their proximity to large amateur hockey leagues and that the NHL’s U.S. teams would be unfairly penalized because of their perceived lack of amateur hockey leagues in their vicinity. But as you will see in this article, the application of the P.D.T. to the year 2013 did not result in any discernible level of advantage or disadvantage.

At this point I’ll quickly rehash the three P.D.T. rules that I applied to the 2013 NHL Entry Draft:

1. A player’s birth place, not his last amateur hockey team before becoming eligible for the NHL Entry Draft, determined which P.D.T., if any, the player would be eligible for.

2. Where more than one NHL team shares a natural territory (such as a province or a state), how close a player’s birth place is to an NHL team determined which P.D.T. the player would be eligible for.

3. As each player was removed from the original entry draft because of designation under the P.D.T., the players below the removed player were moved up in the draft order. This seems rather arbitrary. But without any knowledge of what each team would have drafted had the player they originally drafted not been available, it seems like a fair compromise. So, for example, if the first player chosen in the original entry draft had been designated under the P.D.T., the second player chosen in the original entry draft was moved up to the first player chosen in the revised entry draft.

Since 2013 was another good year for talent in the Entry Draft, the application of the three simple rules above may have somewhat altered the recent history of the NHL as we know it. A few good players would have gone to different teams and helped build them into solid contenders and perhaps eventual Cup winning teams.

Table 1 below is actually two tables in one. The first six columns represent how the original NHL Entry Draft played out. The second six columns represent how a revised NHL Entry Draft might have transpired after the application of the P.D.T. rules.

Table 1.

Even though it is a relatively recent draft, there are more than a few recognizable names from the original 2013 Entry Draft. For example, Nathan MacKinnon, Aleksander Barkov, Jonathan Drouin, Seth Jones, Sean Monahan, Rasmus Ristolainen, Bo Horvat, Max Domi, Curtis Lazar, and Mirco Mueller.

Via designation of their P.D.T., the Maple Leafs would have been able to continue to solidify their depth down the middle and select another player who is turning out to be a good NHL player – Sean Monahan.

With two of the top four original picks eligible for designation under the P.D.T., the picks in the revised draft would have been very different. For example, Jonathan Drouin, Seth Jones, Sean Monahan, Rasmus Ristolainen, Bo Horvat, Max Domi, Curtis Lazar, and Mirco Mueller would have all been drafted by different teams.

By looking closely at Table 1 above, we can see the players in Table 2 below are the players from the first round of the draft who would have been eligible for designation under the P.D.T. rule and therefore would have started their careers with and played for different teams:

Table 2.

The casual fan, looking at the names from Table 2, would find the list to have less recognizable names than recognizable names but this is to be expected as this draft was very recent.

From that same list of names above, the one having the most interest for Maple Leafs fans would, of course, be Sean Monahan.

As was the case for the revised Entry Drafts starting from the year 2000, the revised Entry Draft for 2013 provides many questions for endless speculation, discussion, and debate.

Protected Draft Territory - Alternate Draft History for the Year 2012

In my previous article (How to Rectify the NHL Draft Lottery) I detailed a proposal on how to rectify what I see as the issues with the current NHL Draft Lottery. My proposal was to give each NHL team what I call a Protected Draft Territory or P.D.T.

In that previous article, I listed the initial misgivings I had with my proposal – that the NHL’s Canadian teams would be bestowed an unfair advantage because of their proximity to large amateur hockey leagues and that the NHL’s U.S. teams would be unfairly penalized because of their perceived lack of amateur hockey leagues in their vicinity. But as you will see in this article, the application of the P.D.T. to the year 2012 did not result in any discernible level of advantage or disadvantage.

At this point I’ll quickly rehash the three P.D.T. rules that I applied to the 2012 NHL Entry Draft:

1. A player’s birth place, not his last amateur hockey team before becoming eligible for the NHL Entry Draft, determined which P.D.T., if any, the player would be eligible for.

2. Where more than one NHL team shares a natural territory (such as a province or a state), how close a player’s birth place is to an NHL team determined which P.D.T. the player would be eligible for.

3. As each player was removed from the original entry draft because of designation under the P.D.T., the players below the removed player were moved up in the draft order. This seems rather arbitrary. But without any knowledge of what each team would have drafted had the player they originally drafted not been available, it seems like a fair compromise. So, for example, if the first player chosen in the original entry draft had been designated under the P.D.T., the second player chosen in the original entry draft was moved up to the first player chosen in the revised entry draft.

With 2012 shaping up to be another good year for talent in the Entry Draft, the application of the three simple rules above may have altered the history of the NHL as we know it. A few good players would have gone to different teams and helped build them into solid contenders and perhaps eventual Cup winning teams.

Table 1 below is actually two tables in one. The first six columns represent how the original NHL Entry Draft played out. The second six columns represent how a revised NHL Entry Draft might have transpired after the application of the P.D.T. rules.

Table 1.

Even though it is a relatively recent draft, there are more than a few recognizable names from the original 2012 Entry Draft. For example, Nail Yakupov, Ryan Murray, Alex Galchenyuk, Morgan Rielly, Mathew Dumba, Jacob Trouba, Filip Forsberg, Zemgus Girgensons, Cody Ceci, Tom Wilson, Tomas Hertl, Olli Maata, and Tanner Pearson.

Via designation of their P.D.T., the Maple Leafs would have been able to continue to solidify their depth and select another player who is turning out to be a serviceable NHL player – Tom Wilson.

With three of the top four original picks eligible for designation under the P.D.T., the picks in the revised draft would have been vastly different. For example, Nail Yakupov, Morgan Rielly, Mathew Dumba, Filip Forsberg, Zemgus Girgensons, Cody Ceci, Tomas Hertl, Olli Maata, and Tanner Pearson would have all been drafted by different teams.

By looking closely at Table 1 above, we can see the players in Table 2 below are the players from the first round of the draft who would have been eligible for designation under the P.D.T. rule and therefore would have started their careers with and played for different teams:

Table 2.

The casual fan, looking at the names from Table 2, would find the list to have less recognizable names than recognizable names but this is to be expected as this draft was very recent.

From that same list of names above, the one having the most interest for Maple Leafs fans would, of course, be Tom Wilson.

To re-iterate that the P.D.T. was not unfairly tilting the NHL landscape in favour of the Maple Leafs, 2012 would have turned out to be another year where the Maple Leafs would have been able to designate a good player via their P.D.T., but would have lost out on a very good player via the revised draft. In this case, Morgan Rielly.

As was the case for the revised Entry Drafts from the year 2000, the revised Entry Draft for 2012 provides many questions for endless speculation, discussion, and debate.

Protected Draft Territory - Alternate Draft History for the Year 2011

In my previous article (How to Rectify the NHL Draft Lottery) I detailed a proposal on how to rectify what I see as the issues with the current NHL Draft Lottery. My proposal was to give each NHL team what I call a Protected Draft Territory or P.D.T.

In that previous article, I listed the initial misgivings I had with my proposal – that the NHL’s Canadian teams would be bestowed an unfair advantage because of their proximity to large amateur hockey leagues and that the NHL’s U.S. teams would be unfairly penalized because of their perceived lack of amateur hockey leagues in their vicinity. But as you will see in this article, the application of the P.D.T. to the year 2011 did not result in any discernible level of advantage or disadvantage.

At this point I’ll quickly rehash the three P.D.T. rules that I applied to the 2011 NHL Entry Draft:

1. A player’s birth place, not his last amateur hockey team before becoming eligible for the NHL Entry Draft, determined which P.D.T., if any, the player would be eligible for.

2. Where more than one NHL team shares a natural territory (such as a province or a state), how close a player’s birth place is to an NHL team determined which P.D.T. the player would be eligible for.

3. As each player was removed from the original entry draft because of designation under the P.D.T., the players below the removed player were moved up in the draft order. This seems rather arbitrary. But without any knowledge of what each team would have drafted had the player they originally drafted not been available, it seems like a fair compromise. So, for example, if the first player chosen in the original entry draft had been designated under the P.D.T., the second player chosen in the original entry draft was moved up to the first player chosen in the revised entry draft.

With 2011 being another banner year for talent in the Entry Draft, the application of the three simple rules above may have altered the history of the NHL as we know it. A few good players would have gone to different teams and helped build them into solid contenders and perhaps eventual Cup winning teams.

Table 1 below is actually two tables in one. The first six columns represent how the original NHL Entry Draft played out. The second six columns represent how a revised NHL Entry Draft might have transpired after the application of the P.D.T. rules.

Table 1.

Even though it is a relatively recent draft, there are more than a few recognizable names from the original 2011 Entry Draft. For example, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Gabriel Landeskog, Jonathan Huberdeau, Adam Larsson, Ryan Strome, Mika Zibanejad, Mark Scheifele, Sean Couturier, Dougie Hamilton, and J.T. Miller.

Year 2011 was a rare year when the Maple Leafs did not trade away their 1^st round draft pick. Via designation of their P.D.T., the Maple Leafs would still have been able to secure a player who is turning out to be a very serviceable NHL player in Ryan Strome.

With three of the top five original picks being designated under the P.D.T., the picks in the revised draft would have been different. For example, Gabriel Landeskog, Adam Larsson, Mika Zibanejad, Mark Scheifele, and Dougie Hamilton would have all been drafted by different teams.

By looking closely at Table 1 above, we can see the players in Table 2 below are the players from the first round of the draft who would have been eligible for designation under the P.D.T. rule and therefore would have started their careers with and played for different teams:

Table 2.

The casual fan, looking at the names from Table 2, would find the list about evenly split between recognizable and less recognizable names.

From that same list of names above, the one having the most interest for Maple Leafs fans would, of course, be Ryan Strome. The obvious question:

1.      Would the Maple Leafs have converted Ryan Strome to a winger as he would have been behind Jason Spezza, Steven Stamkos, and John Tavares at the centre position?

2. Or would the Maple Leafs have began trading off centres to fill other holes as they would have been developing a bit of a backlog at that position?

As intriguing as these questions are, the answers will never be known.

As was the case for the revised Entry Drafts from the year 2000, the revised Entry Draft for 2011 provides many questions for endless speculation, discussion, and debate.

Protected Draft Territory - Alternate Draft History for the Year 2010

In my previous article (How to Rectify the NHL Draft Lottery) I detailed a proposal on how to rectify what I see as the issues with the current NHL Draft Lottery. My proposal was to give each NHL team what I call a Protected Draft Territory or P.D.T.

In that previous article, I listed the initial misgivings I had with my proposal – that the NHL’s Canadian teams would be bestowed an unfair advantage because of their proximity to large amateur hockey leagues and that the NHL’s U.S. teams would be unfairly penalized because of their perceived lack of amateur hockey leagues in their vicinity. But as you will see in this article, the application of the P.D.T. to the year 2010 did not result in any discernible level of advantage or disadvantage.

At this point I’ll quickly rehash the three P.D.T. rules that I applied to the 2010 NHL Entry Draft:

1. A player’s birth place, not his last amateur hockey team before becoming eligible for the NHL Entry Draft, determined which P.D.T., if any, the player would be eligible for.

2. Where more than one NHL team shares a natural territory (such as a province or a state), how close a player’s birth place is to an NHL team determined which P.D.T. the player would be eligible for.

3. As each player was removed from the original entry draft because of designation under the P.D.T., the players below the removed player were moved up in the draft order. This seems rather arbitrary. But without any knowledge of what each team would have drafted had the player they originally drafted not been available, it seems like a fair compromise. So, for example, if the first player chosen in the original entry draft had been designated under the P.D.T., the second player chosen in the original entry draft was moved up to the first player chosen in the revised entry draft.

With 2010 being another banner year for talent in the Entry Draft, the application of the three simple rules above may have altered the history of the NHL as we know it. A few good players would have gone to different teams and helped build them into solid contenders and perhaps eventual Cup winning teams.

Table 1 below is actually two tables in one. The first six columns represent how the original NHL Entry Draft played out. The second six columns represent how a revised NHL Entry Draft might have transpired after the application of the P.D.T. rules.

Table 1.

Even though it is a relatively recent draft, there are more than a few recognizable names from the original 2010 Entry Draft. For example, Taylor Hall, Tyler Seguin, Erik Gudbranson, Ryan Johansen, Nino Niederreiter, Brett Connolly, Jeff Skinner, Alexander Burmistrov, Cam Fowler, Jaden Schwartz, Vladmir Tarasenko, and Nick Bjugstad.

Even though they had, once again, traded away their first round pick in the 2010 Entry Draft, the Maple Leafs would still have been able to secure, via designation of their P.D.T., someone who is turning out to be a potential superstar – Tyler Seguin.

With all four of the original picks being designated under the P.D.T., the picks in the revised draft would have been vastly different. For example, Nino Niederreiter, Brett Connolly, Jeff Skinner, Alexander Burmistrov, Cam Fowler, Jaden Schwartz, Vladmir Tarasenko, and Nick Bjugstad would have all been drafted by different teams.

By looking closely at Table 1 above, we can see the players in Table 2 below are the players from the first round of the draft who would have been eligible for designation under the P.D.T. rule and therefore would have started their careers with and played for different teams:

Table 2.

The casual fan, looking at the names from Table 2, would find the list about evenly split between recognizable and less recognizable names.

From that same list of names above, the one having interest for Maple Leafs fans would, of course, be Tyler Seguin. The obvious questions:

1.      Would the Maple Leafs have lost patience with Tyler Seguin as quickly as the Bruins did?

2.      If the answer for the above question was a yes, who would the Maple Leafs have traded him to and what would they have been able to get in return?

As intriguing as these questions are, the answers will never be known.

As was the case for the revised Entry Drafts from the year 2000, the revised Entry Draft for 2010 provides many questions for endless speculation, discussion, and debate.

Protected Draft Territory - Alternate Draft History for the Year 2009

In my previous article (How to Rectify the NHL Draft Lottery) I advanced a proposal on how to rectify what I see as the issues with the current NHL Draft Lottery. My proposal was to give each NHL team what I call a Protected Draft Territory or P.D.T.

In that previous article, I listed the initial misgivings I had with my proposal – that it would bestow an unfair advantage on the NHL’s Canadian teams because of their proximity to large amateur hockey leagues and unfairly penalize the NHL’s U.S. teams because of their perceived lack of amateur hockey leagues in their vicinity. But as you will see in this article, the application of the P.D.T. to the year 2009 did not result in any discernible level of advantage or disadvantage.

At this point I’ll quickly rehash the three P.D.T. rules that I applied to the 2009 NHL Entry Draft:

1. A player’s birth place, not his last amateur hockey team before becoming eligible for the NHL Entry Draft, determined which P.D.T., if any, the player would be eligible for.
2. Where more than one NHL team shares a natural territory (such as a province or a state), how close a player’s birth place is to an NHL team determined which P.D.T. the player would be eligible for.
3. As each player was removed from the original entry draft because of designation under the P.D.T., the players below the removed player were moved up in the draft order. This seems rather arbitrary. But without any knowledge of what each team would have drafted had the player they originally drafted not been available, it seems like a fair compromise. So, for example, if the first player chosen in the original entry draft had been designated under the P.D.T., the second player chosen in the original entry draft was moved up to the first player chosen in the revised entry draft.

Though it wasn’t seen as such at the time, the 2009 Entry Draft turned out to be fairly deep. With the application of the three simple rules above, the history of the NHL as we know it would have been altered. A few key players on Cup winning teams might not have been there to help those teams secure their Cups or perhaps might have helped their new teams secure a Cup instead.

Table 1 below is actually two tables in one. The first six columns represent how the original NHL Entry Draft played out. The second six columns represent how a revised NHL Entry Draft might have transpired after the application of the P.D.T. rules.

Table 1.

The vast majority of the names from the table above would fall into the recognizable category. For example, John Tavares, Victor Hedman, Matt Duchene, Evander Kane, Brayden Schenn, Oliver Ekman-Larsson, Nazem Kadri, Zack Kassian, Dmitri Kulikov, Peter Holland, Nick Leddy, Chris Kreider, and Marcus Johansson among others.

Via their P.D.T., the Maple Leafs would have been able to continue to solidify their depth and strengthen themselves down the middle by designating John Tavares.

With 2009 being another year where three of the top four original picks would have been designated under the P.D.T., the picks in the revised draft would have been vastly different. For example, Victor Hedman, Brayden Schenn, Oliver Ekman-Larsson, Nazem Kadri, Zack Kassian, Dmitri Kulikov, Peter Holland, and Marcus Johansson would have all been drafted by different teams.

By looking closely at Table 1 above, we can see the players in Table 2 below are the players from the first round of the draft who would have been eligible for designation under the P.D.T. rule and therefore would have started their careers with and played for different teams:

Table 2.

Once again, the casual fan, looking at the names from Table 2, would find the list about evenly split between recognizable and less recognizable names.

From that same list of names above, the one having interest for Maple Leafs fans would, of course, be John Tavares. The obvious question:

1.      How long would John Tavares be happy as a number three centre behind Jason Spezza and Steven Stamkos?

As intriguing as that question is, the answer will never be known.

As was the case for the revised Entry Drafts starting in 2000, the revised Entry Draft for 2009 provides many questions for endless speculation, discussion, and debate.

Protected Draft Territory - Alternate Draft History for the Year 2008

In my previous article (How to Rectify the NHL Draft Lottery) I put forth a proposal on how to rectify what I see as the issues with the current NHL Draft Lottery. My proposal was to give each NHL team what I call a Protected Draft Territory or P.D.T.

In that previous article, I mentioned the uneasiness I had with my proposal – that it would bestow an unfair advantage on the NHL’s Canadian teams because of their proximity to large amateur hockey leagues and unfairly penalize the NHL’s U.S. teams because of their perceived lack of amateur hockey leagues in their vicinity. But as you will see in this article, the application of the P.D.T. to the Entry Draft for the year 2008 did not result in any discernible level of advantage or disadvantage.

At this point I’ll quickly rehash the three P.D.T. rules that I applied to the 2008 NHL Entry Draft:

1. A player’s birth place, not his last amateur hockey team before becoming eligible for the NHL Entry Draft, determined which P.D.T., if any, the player would be eligible for.
2. Where more than one NHL team shares a natural territory (such as a province or a state), how close a player’s birth place is to an NHL team determined which P.D.T. the player would be eligible for.
3. As each player was removed from the original entry draft because of designation under the P.D.T., the players below the removed player were moved up in the draft order. This seems rather arbitrary. But without any knowledge of what each team would have drafted had the player they originally drafted not been available, it seems like a fair compromise. So, for example, if the first player chosen in the original entry draft had been designated under the P.D.T., the second player chosen in the original entry draft was moved up to the first player chosen in the revised entry draft.

The year 2008, though not as deep as 2003, was another stellar entry draft. In fact, there was discussion that Steven Stamkos would be a franchise player for whichever team was lucky enough to draft him. The application of the three simple rules above most definitely would have altered the history of the NHL as we know it. A few key players on Cup winning teams might not have been there to help those teams secure their Cups or perhaps might have helped their new teams secure a Cup instead.

Table 1 below is actually two tables in one. The first six columns represent how the original NHL Entry Draft played out. The second six columns represent how a revised NHL Entry Draft might have transpired after the application of the P.D.T. rules.

Table 1.

Regardless of the fact that it wasn’t as deep a draft as 2003, there are more than a few recognizable names from the original 2008 Entry Draft. For example, Steven Stamkos, Drew Doughty, Zach Bogosian, Alex Pietrangelo, Luke Schenn, Colin Wilson, Joshua Bailey, Cody Hodgson, Tyler Myers, Erik Karlsson, Jake Gardiner, Luca Sbisa, Michael Del Zotto, Jordan Eberle, and Tyler Ennis.

Without a doubt, the Maple Leafs would have been able to secure, via designation of their P.D.T., another franchise player in Steven Stamkos.

With only two of the top ten picks being designated under the P.D.T., the picks in the revised draft would have been slightly different. For example, Drew Doughty, Alex Pietrangelo, Luke Schenn, Colin Wilson, Joshua Bailey, Cody Hodgson, Erik Karlsson, Luca Sbisa, Michael Del Zotto, and Jordan Eberle would have all been drafted by different teams.

By looking closely at Table 1 above, we can see the players in Table 2 below are the players from the first round of the draft who would have been eligible for designation under the P.D.T. rule and therefore would have started their careers with and played for different teams:

Table 2

The casual fan, looking at the names from Table 2, would find the list about evenly split between recognizable and less recognizable names.

From that same list of names above, the one having the most interest for Maple Leafs fans would, of course, be Steven Stamkos. The obvious question:

1.      Does the acquisition of Steven Stamkos allow the Maple Leafs to start unloading some of their centre depth to provide more prospects and picks for continued contention for a Cup?

As intriguing as that question is, the answer will never be known.

As was the case for the revised Entry Drafts from 2000 onwards, the revised Entry Draft for 2008 provides many questions for endless speculation, discussion, and debate.

Protected Draft Territory - Alternate Draft History for the Year 2007

In my previous article (How to Rectify the NHL Draft Lottery) I put forth a proposal on how to rectify what I see as the issues with the current NHL Draft Lottery. My proposal was to give each NHL team what I call a Protected Draft Territory or P.D.T.

In that previous article, I listed the initial misgivings I had with my proposal – that it would bestow an unfair advantage on the NHL’s Canadian teams because of their proximity to large amateur hockey leagues and unfairly penalize the NHL’s U.S. teams because of their perceived lack of amateur hockey leagues in their vicinity. But as you will see in this article, the application of the P.D.T. to the year 2007 did not result in any discernible level of advantage or disadvantage.

At this point I’ll quickly rehash the three P.D.T. rules that I applied to the 2007 NHL Entry Draft:

1. A player’s birth place, not his last amateur hockey team before becoming eligible for the NHL Entry Draft, determined which P.D.T., if any, the player would be eligible for.
2. Where more than one NHL team shares a natural territory (such as a province or a state), how close a player’s birth place is to an NHL team determined which P.D.T. the player would be eligible for.
3. As each player was removed from the original entry draft because of designation under the P.D.T., the players below the removed player were moved up in the draft order. This seems rather arbitrary. But without any knowledge of what each team would have drafted had the player they originally drafted not been available, it seems like a fair compromise. So, for example, if the first player chosen in the original entry draft had been designated under the P.D.T., the second player chosen in the original entry draft was moved up to the first player chosen in the revised entry draft.

As in each of the previous years, the application of the three simple rules above may have altered the history of the NHL as we know it. A few key players on Cup winning teams might not have been there to help those teams win their Cups or perhaps might have helped their new teams win a Cup instead.

Table 1 below is actually two tables in one. The first six columns represent how the original NHL Entry Draft played out. The second six columns represent how a revised NHL Entry Draft might have transpired after the application of the P.D.T. rules.

Table 1.

The Entry Draft for 2007 turned out to be another draft where the level of talent was quite high. Even after a record twelve players from the 1^st round would have been designated under the P.D.T., there are more than a few recognizable names from the original 2007 Entry Draft. For example, Patrick Kane, James Van Riemsdyk, Kyle Turris, Sam Gagner, Jakub Voracek, Logan Couture, Brandon Sutter, Ryan McDonagh, Lars Eller, Kevin Shattenkirk, and Max Pacioretty.

Even though they had, once again, traded away their first round pick in the 2007 Entry Draft, the Maple Leafs would still have been able to secure, via designation of their P.D.T., another good player – Sam Gagner.

With all four of the original picks being designated under the P.D.T., the picks in the revised draft would have been extremely different. For example, Jakub Voracek, Logan Couture, Lars Eller, Kevin Shattenkirk, and Max Pacioretty would have all been drafted by different teams.

By looking closely at Table 1 above, we can see the players in Table 2 below are the players from the first round of the draft who would have been eligible for designation under the P.D.T. rule and therefore would have started their careers with and played for different teams:

Table 2.

The casual fan, looking at the names from Table 2, would find the list about evenly split between recognizable and less recognizable names.

From that same list of names above, the one having interest for Maple Leafs fans would, of course, be Sam Gagner. The obvious question:

1. Does Sam Gagner provide the depth down the middle to help the Maple Leafs win a Cup?

As intriguing as that question is, the answer will never be known.

As was the case for the revised Entry Drafts from 2000 the revised Entry Draft for 2007 provides many questions for endless speculation, discussion, and debate.

Protected Draft Territory - Alternate Draft History for the Year 2006

In my previous article (How to Rectify the NHL Draft Lottery) I put forth a proposal on how to rectify what I see as the issues with the current NHL Draft Lottery. My proposal was to give each NHL team what I call a Protected Draft Territory or a P.D.T.

In that previous article, I listed the initial misgivings I had with my proposal – that it would grant an unfair advantage to the NHL’s Canadian teams because of their proximity to large amateur hockey leagues and unfairly penalize the NHL’s U.S. teams because of their perceived lack of amateur hockey leagues in their vicinity. But as you will see in this article, the application of the P.D.T. to the year 2006 did not result in any discernible level of advantage or disadvantage.

At this point I’ll quickly rehash the three P.D.T. rules that I applied to the 2006 NHL Entry Draft:

1. A player’s birth place, not his last amateur hockey team before becoming eligible for the NHL Entry Draft, determined which P.D.T., if any, the player would be eligible for.
2. Where more than one NHL team shares a natural territory (such as a province or a state), how close a player’s birth place is to an NHL team determined which P.D.T. the player would be eligible for.
3. As each player was removed from the original entry draft because of designation under the P.D.T., the players below the removed player were moved up in the draft order. This seems rather arbitrary. But without any knowledge of what each team would have drafted had the player they originally drafted not been available, it seems like a fair compromise. So, for example, if the first player chosen in the original entry draft had been designated under the P.D.T., the second player chosen in the original entry draft was moved up to the first player chosen in the revised entry draft.

As in each of the previous years, the application of the three simple rules above may have altered the history of the NHL as we know it. A few key players on Cup winning teams might not have been there to help those teams secure their Cups or perhaps might have helped their new teams secure a Cup instead.

Table 1 below is actually two tables in one. The first six columns represent how the original NHL Entry Draft played out. The second six columns represent how a revised NHL Entry Draft might have transpired after the application of the P.D.T. rules.

Table 1.

Once again, there are more than a few recognizable names from the original 2006 Entry Draft. For example, Erik Johnson, Jordan Staal, Jonathan Toews, Nicklas Backstrom, Phil Kessel, Kyle Okposo, Michael Frolik, Bryan Little, Claude Giroux, and Nick Foligno.

With the application of the P.D.T. rule to the 2006 Entry Draft, the Maple Leafs would have fared better than they did in 2005. Chris Stewart turning out to be a very capable NHL player. As the Leafs were drafting in the thirteenth position in the draft and there were only three players who would have been designated under the P.D.T. ahead of them, the Leafs would still have been able to draft a good quality player. In this case, Trevor Lewis.

With only two of the top ten original picks being designated under the P.D.T., the picks in the revised draft would have been slightly different. But what a difference! For example, Jordan Staal, Jonathan Toews, Nicklas Backstrom, Phil Kessel, Kyle Okposo, Michael Frolik, Claude Giroux, and Nick Foligno all would have been drafted by different teams.

By looking closely at Table 1 above, we can see the players in Table 2 below are the players from the first round of the draft who would have been eligible for designation under the P.D.T. rule and therefore would have started their careers with and played for different teams:

Table 2.

The casual fan, looking at the names from Table 2, would find the list about evenly split between some-what recognizable and less recognizable names.

From that same list of names above, the one having the most interest for Maple Leafs fans would, of course, be Chris Stewart. Unfortunately, even though Chris Stewart has turned out to be a very serviceable NHL player, it seems he would have been a depth addition to the Maple Leafs and not perceptively changed their history.

As was the case for the revised Entry Drafts starting in 2000, the revised Entry Draft for 2006 provides more than a few questions for speculation, discussion, and debate.

Protected Draft Territory - Alternate Draft History for the Year 2005

In my previous article (How to Rectify the NHL Draft Lottery) I advanced a proposal on how to rectify what I see as the issues with the current NHL Draft Lottery. My proposal was to give each NHL team what I call a Protected Draft Territory or P.D.T.

In that previous article, I listed the apprehensiveness I had with my proposal – that it would bestow an unfair advantage on the NHL’s Canadian teams because of their proximity to large amateur hockey leagues while at the same time unfairly penalize the NHL’s U.S. teams because of their perceived lack of amateur hockey leagues in their vicinity. But as you will see in this article, the application of the P.D.T. to the 2005 Entry Draft did not result in any discernible level of advantage or disadvantage.

At this point I’ll re-iterate the three P.D.T. rules that I applied to the 2005 NHL Entry Draft:

1. A player’s birth place, not his last amateur hockey team before becoming eligible for the NHL Entry Draft, determined which P.D.T., if any, the player would be eligible for.
2. Where more than one NHL team shares a natural territory (such as a province or a state), how close a player’s birth place is to an NHL team determined which P.D.T. the player would be eligible for.
3. As each player was removed from the original entry draft because of designation under the P.D.T., the players below the removed player were moved up in the draft order. This seems rather arbitrary. But without any knowledge of what each team would have drafted had the player they originally drafted not been available, it seems like a fair compromise. So, for example, if the first player chosen in the original entry draft had been designated under the P.D.T., the second player chosen in the original entry draft was moved up to the first player chosen in the revised entry draft.

The year 2005 saw a nice rebound in the talent level of the available players for the NHL Entry Draft. This rebound was, of course, led by Sidney Crosby. Yet again, the application of the three simple rules above may have altered the history of the NHL as we know it. A few key players on Cup winning teams might not have been there to help those teams win their Cups or perhaps might have helped their new teams win a Cup instead.

Table 1 below is actually two tables in one. The first six columns represent how the original NHL Entry Draft played out. The second six columns represent how a revised NHL Entry Draft might have transpired after the application of the P.D.T. rules.

Table 1.

Heading the list of recognizable names from the original 2005 Entry Draft would, of course, be Sidney Crosby. Other well-known names are, Bobby Ryan, Jack Johnson, Carey Price, Devin Setoguchi, Anze Kopitar, Marc Staal, Martin Hanzal, Tuukka Rask, T.J. Oshie, Andrew Cogliano, Matt Niskanen, and Steve Downie.

With the application of the P.D.T. rule to the 2005 Entry Draft, the Maple Leafs would not have fared as well as they had in previous years. With eight players being designated under the P.D.T. before the Maple Leafs drafted in the 21^st position, the Leafs would have lost the ability to draft Tuukka Rask.  The players the Leafs might have designated under the P.D.T. rule and drafted in the 21^st position of the revised draft did not go on to have long or illustrious careers.

With six of the top eight original picks being designated under the P.D.T., the picks in the revised draft would have been vastly different. For example, Jack Johnson, Anze Kopitar, Marc Staal, Martin Hanzal, Tuukka Rask, T.J. Oshie, Andrew Cogliano, Matt Niskanen, Steve Downie, and James Neal would have all been drafted by different teams.

By looking closely at Table 1 above, we can see the players in Table 2 below are the players from the first round of the draft who would have been eligible for designation under the P.D.T. rule and therefore would have started their careers with and played for different teams:

Table 2.

The casual fan, looking at the names from Table 2, would find less recognizable names more plentiful than the recognizable names.

From that same list of names above, the one having interest for Maple Leafs fans would, of course, be Kenndal McArdle. Unfortunately as Kenndal did not go on to have a long or illustrious career in the NHL there are no obvious questions to be asked.

As was the case for the revised Entry Drafts starting in 2000, the revised Entry Draft for 2005 provides many questions for endless speculation, discussion, and debate.