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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment