Toronto Maple Leafs 2016 Draft Lottery - The Aftermath

At the conclusion of the 2015/2016 NHL regular season - a season which saw the Toronto Maple Leafs finish 30th overall - there seemed to be a dejected resignation amongst most of Leafs Nation. Even though, by finishing 30th, the Leafs had secured the best odds in the 2016 NHL Draft Lottery of picking 1st overall, somehow the hockey gods would frown on the Leafs once again and the Leafs would lose all three draft lotteries and drop to the 4th overall pick.

During the evening of Saturday April 30, 2016 the relief was palatable within Leafs Nation when the Leafs secured, at a minimum, a top-3 overall draft pick. As the card for the team which would be drafting 3rd overall was revealed, Leafs Nation was in a state of disbelief when it showed the logo of the Columbus Blue Jackets. With the turn of that card, the Leafs would secure no worse than the 2nd overall pick. Could it be coming true? Would the Leafs finally garner the favour of the hockey gods and manage to hold onto the 1st overall pick?  When Bill Daly finally revealed the logo of the team who would draft 1st overall and it was the blue maple leaf, Leafs Nation went absolutely wild - our luck had turned and we were going to be allowed to have something nice for our team, the right to draft Auston Matthews.

In the few days which have passed since that fateful Saturday night, there has been a low rumbling in Leafs Nation that the Leafs should look to trade that 1st overall pick or might not use it to draft Auston Matthews.

In life, we've all been told to never say never, but let me just say:

1. NEVER are the Leafs trading the 2016 1st overall pick
2. NEVER are the Leafs drafting anyone but Auston Matthews with the 2016 1st overall pick

OK, now that we have that piece of business taken care of, let's look at how the Leafs opening night roster for the 2016/2017 season could potentially be affected by the Leafs acquiring the 2016 1st overall pick, drafting Auston Matthews, and signing free-agent defenceman Nikita Zaitsev from the K.H.L.

Here’s a potential opening night roster for the Leafs for the 2016/2017 season:

Table 1

A quick explanation of what the headings in Table 1 mean.

Sh=Shoots (Left or Right), Left=Left Wing/Defence, Yrs=Years left on contract, Sts=Status, Centre=Centre/Goal, Right=Right Wing/Defence. The number in brackets after a player’s name is that player’s age.

Looking at Table 1 above leads to the observation of a couple of different developments.

Changes since the end of the 2015/2016 season

Here’s the Leafs’ roster which ended the 2015/2016 season:

Table 2

Notice there are 9 players whose status (Sts) is UFA or Unrestricted Free Agent. From this list of Unrestricted Free Agents:

1. Mark Arcobello
2. Brad Boyes
3. T.J. Brennan
4. Rich Clune
5. Michael Grabner
6. P.A. Parenteau
7. Ben Smith
8. Alex Stalock
9. Raffi Torres

It is assumed that only Mark Arcobello, T.J. Brennan, Rich Clune, and Ben Smith might return from the above list but only if they agree to be assigned to the Marlies to provide a veteran presence.

The Leafs might want to bring back P.A. Parenteau, but finding a roster spot for him to start the 2016/2017 season could prove challenging, especially if the Leafs decide to start the season with a younger lineup.

Notice there are 12 players whose status (Sts) is RFA or Restricted Free Agent. From this list of Restricted Free Agents:

1. Connor Carrick
2. Sam Carrick
3. Frank Corrado
4. Scott Harrington
5. Peter Holland
6. Nazem Kadri
7. Josh Leivo
8. Martin Marincin
9. Stuart Percy
10. Morgan Rielly
11. Colin Smith
12. Garret Sparks

It is assumed that the Leafs would like to qualify and re-sign everyone on this list and that work has already started with the signing of Nazem Kadri and Morgan Rielly to 6 year contracts.

As Garret Sparks is the only waiver eligible player from the above list of 12 for the upcoming 2016/2017 season, the following players are either going to be traded in the off-season, make the Leafs’ opening night roster, or be placed on waivers for assignment to the Marlies:

1. Connor Carrick
2. Sam Carrick
3. Frank Corrado
4. Scott Harrington
5. Peter Holland
6. Josh Leivo
7. Martin Marincin
8. Stuart Percy
9. Colin Smith

Based on their play in 2015/2016, Connor Carrick, Frank Corrado, Josh Leivo, and Martin Marincin likely make the Leafs’ opening night roster. 

If they are not traded during the off-season, Sam Carrick, Scott Harrington, Peter Holland, Stuart Percy, and Colin Smith will need to have exceptional training camps and make the Leafs opening night roster or risk being placed on waivers.  From this list, Sam Carrick and Colin Smith might clear waivers but most likely Stuart Percy does not, as he is only 22 years old.

The Leafs would likely try to find a spot for Scott Harrington and maybe Peter Holland but unless Matt Hunwick, in the case of Scott Harrington, or one of Colin Greening, Tyler Bozak, Milan Michalek, or Brooks Laich, in the case of Peter Holland, are traded in the off-season the chance either Scott Harrington or Peter Holland are on the Leafs’ opening night roster are rather slim. 

Finally, the Leafs have stated their intention to buy-out the contract of Jared Cowan.

Changes since the NHL 2016 Draft Lottery

A closer look at Table 1 above shows a number of interesting assumptions:

1.      Auston Matthews opens the season with the Leafs

2.      Nikita Zaitsev slots into the top 4 D

3.      Mitch Marner opens the season with the Leafs and now counts towards the 50 SPC limit

4.      Dermott, Nielsen, and Timashov are loaned back to their respective junior teams and do not count toward the 50 SPC limit

5.      Steven Stamkos is not included in this potential 2016/2017 season opening roster

Assuming the roster moves detailed above under the heading “Changes since the end of the 2015/2016 season” transpire as described and Dermott, Nielsen, and Timashov are loaned back to their respective junior teams, even with the addition of Matthews, Marner, and Zaitsev to their NHL lineup, the Leafs will potentially have used only 44 of their 50 SPC slots.  This would leave up to 6 SPC slots available for the Leafs to address some of their needs via trades or free-agent signings.

It is apparent there are a couple of areas where the Leafs depth in prospects is rather shallow.

1.      Goaltending

2.      Right-shot defencemen

Depending on how the 2016 Entry Draft plays out, the Leafs could be very busy participants in the 2016 off-season trade and free-agent markets.

In trying to address their two areas of weakness (Goaltending and Right-shot D-men), there are a few questions which could be asked:

  

1.      Should the Leafs try to land a No. 1 goalie this off-season or wait until next year’s off-season when teams will be scrambling ahead of the expansion draft?

2.      Should the Leafs try to land a potential top-pairing right-shot D-man to play with Morgan Rielly?

3.      Should the Leafs wade into the Unrestricted Free Agent (UFA) market and try to sign Steven Stamkos?

In my opinion, this coming off-season should see the Leafs exploring these markets:

1.      Available No. 1 goalies

2.      Available right-shooting potential top-pairing D-man

Assuming the Leafs choose to pursue a potential No. 1 goalie, they could target any of these names – Ilya Samsonov, Mackenzie Blackwood, Tristan Jarry or if they are looking for a more immediate fix, Frederik Andersen.

If the Leafs decide that Nikita Zaitsev might slot better as a 2^nd pairing defender, they could pursue a right-shooting potential top-pairing D-man to pair with Morgan Rielly. Names being mentioned as potentially available include Tyson Barrie, Sami Vatanen, and Jacob Trouba.

Whichever route they decide to pursue this coming off-season, the Leafs will be well positioned to wheel-and-deal their way to a much different team than the team which ended the 2015/2016 regular season.

Protected Draft Territory - Summary for the Years 2000 to 2014 - Part 3

With the completion of the fifteenth and last article (Protected Draft Territory – Alternate Draft History for the Year 2014) in the series describing the results of implementing a Protected Draft Territory (P.D.T.) for each NHL team and the alternate history for the NHL Entry Drafts that would have resulted, it is now possible to summarize the results and look at whether my suggested solution to rectify the problems with the NHL Entry Draft is a viable one.

In Parts 1 and 2 of this series, we saw how the first 20 teams could have fared under the P.D.T. Some teams would have done very well (Toronto), some teams would have done OK, and some teams would not have done so well. In this article, we’ll turn our attention to the bottom 10 teams (starting with Pittsburgh) and their results. Looking at Table 1 below things seem to go from bad to worst.

Table 1.

Picking up with the 21^st team in the above table, Pittsburgh would have been able to designate a total of two players under their P.D.T. Two players out of a possible fifteen in what most would consider an area of the U.S. conducive to hockey. Here are those two players:

Table 2.

Even though the number (two) is quite low, the quality is pretty high – a solid NHL’er with a long career and a goalie who just might be the next phenom between the pipes.

Looking at the results for the 22^nd team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that the St. Louis Blues would still be waiting to determine how they would be doing under the P.D.T.:

Table 3.

But, the trend seems to be favouring St. Louis as well since they would have been able to designate two players in the past five years under their P.D.T. umbrella.

Looking at the results for the 23^rd team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that Carolina’s results would be considered pretty bad:

Table 4.

Being able to designate one player under their P.D.T. in fifteen years? The only positive thing that can be said from those results is that at least the one player was designated within the past two years.

Looking at the results for the 24^th team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that the jury would still be out on Los Angeles’ P.D.T. picks:

Table 5.

On the positive side, at least the one player designated under the P.D.T. was done so within the past two years.

Looking at the results for the 25th team from Table 1. above, it is readily apparent that San Jose would have fared extremely poorly under the P.D.T.:

Table 6.

Even though their one player designated under their P.D.T. has, and continues to have, a very solid NHL career, only one player out of fifteen possible players shows that even with success in the regular season and playoffs, grass roots hockey in the San Jose area seems to need a helping hand.

Looking at the results for the 26^th thru 30^th teams from Table 1. above, it is apparent that the non-traditional hockey markets of Sunrise Florida (Panthers), Nashville (Predators), and Tampa Bay (Lightning) would all need a helping hand to try and encourage grass roots hockey to develop in their local areas. 

What is more surprising, two markets that should be conducive to hockey (Philadelphia and Washington) would have had the same results under the P.D.T. as the non-traditional markets:

Table 7.

Looking at the results presented in this article from the bottom 10 NHL teams, it is not surprising to see markets that are not traditionally conducive to hockey (Carolina, Los Angeles, San Jose, Florida, Nashville, and Tampa Bay) would have fared extremely poorly under the P.D.T. But at least for a couple of those non-traditional markets, the results are at least trending in the right direction – up.

What was the most surprising aspect to this series of articles was that markets that would traditionally be seen as conducive to hockey (Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Philadelphia, and Washington) had extremely poor to abysmal results under the P.D.T.

The obvious question  – what could be done to improve the results of the teams who would have fared poorly under the P.D.T.? In this case, poorly would be defined to be any team not having players designated under their P.D.T. for the majority (eight) of the fifteen years. Which by definition would be 20 of the 30 NHL teams.

If this question had been asked back in 1999, the expectation would have been that whatever measures were adopted to help the teams expected to have poor results under the P.D.T., these measures could have been implemented, modified, and then gradually phased out over the course of anywhere from five to twenty years.

To help ease the introduction of the P.D.T., for the first five years, the first rule implemented could have been to allow teams without a player designated under their P.D.T. to designate a player from another team’s P.D.T..

After the P.D.T. had been phased in for five years, the first modification of the rules covering the next ten years (years 6 to 15) could have seen teams no longer able to designate a player from another team’s P.D.T. Instead, the teams without a player under their P.D.T. would be given a secondary pick, in the same order they finished in the NHL Entry Draft, at the end of the first round of the draft.

After the P.D.T. had been in place for fifteen years, the second modification of the rules covering the next ten year period (years 16 to 25), could have seen teams without a player under their P.D.T. given a secondary pick, in the same order they finished in the NHL Entry Draft, at the end of the second round of the draft.

After the P.D.T. had been in place for twenty-five years, the third modification of the rules could have been to simply remove any help for the teams without a player designated under their P.D.T. as it could be argued that twenty-five years is more than enough time for teams to help found (if need be), nurture, and grow grass-roots hockey in the area around their location.

Remember, the ultimate goal of the P.D.T. is to encourage teams to grow grass-roots support for hockey in their local areas. In this way the long-term health of the game we all love could be solidified so that future generations of fans would be able to enjoy the game as we current fans do.

Please check back on this site for future articles on how the revised NHL Entry Drafts under a P.D.T. system would have distributed different players to different teams.

Protected Draft Territory - Summary for the Years 2000 to 2014 – Part2

With the completion of the fifteenth and last article (Protected Draft Territory – Alternate Draft History for the Year 2014) in the series describing the results of implementing a Protected Draft Territory (P.D.T.) for each NHL team and the alternate history for the NHL Entry Drafts that would have resulted, it is now possible to summarize the results and look at whether my suggested solution to rectify the problems with the NHL Entry Draft is a viable one.

In Part 1 of this article, we saw how the first 10 teams fared under the P.D.T. Some teams would have done very well (Toronto), some teams would have done OK, and some teams would not have done so well. In this article, we’ll turn our attention to the middle 10 teams (starting with the NY Islanders) and their results. Looking at Table 1 below things look grim.

Table 1.

Picking up with the eleventh team in the above table, the NY Islanders would have been able to designate a player under their P.D.T. for six of the fifteen years. Here is that list of players:

Table 2.

A closer look at the above table shows that of the four players who have played NHL games, all four had or are having very solid NHL careers. So although the Islanders wouldn’t have had a large quantity of players designated under their P.D.T., their results would have been fairly good. In fact, their results might end up being even better as the jury is still out on what kind of NHL careers the other two players listed for the years 2013 and 2014 might have.

Looking at the results for the 12^th team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that the NY Rangers would have fared extremely poorly under the P.D.T.:

Table 3.

Even though it can be said that the jury is still out for Steven Santini in the 2013 spot and perhaps might still be out for Tim Erixon from 2009,  there is only one other player who is having a good if not sold NHL career – Zach Bogosian.

Looking at the results for the 13^th team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that even though Chicago would have had almost as many players designated under their P.D.T. as the NY Islanders, their results would have been somewhat worse:

Table 4.

As the jury could still be considered to be out for the two players from the years 2012 and 2013, that leaves three other players. Of those three, two are still active in the NHL. Again, even though their quantity might be lower than other teams, Chicago’s quality is very respectable.

Looking at the results for the 14^th team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that the jury would still be out on Anaheim’s P.D.T. picks:

Table 5.

Of the four players above, two saw action in the NHL during the 2014/2015 season – Emerson Etem and Jonathon Blum. The other two players would still be considered works-in-progress.

Looking at the results for the 15th team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that Dallas had much fewer designations under their P.D.T. but would have fared very well in the quality department:

Table 6.

Of the four players, two have turned into good NHL players – Seth Jones and Tyler Myers but the other two players still might develop into solid if not good NHL players.

Looking at the results for the 16^th team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that New Jersey would have not fared very well with quantity but would have made up for it with quality under their P.D.T:

Table 7.

Two players – James Van Riemsdyk and Bobby Ryan who are solid NHL players. As well one player taken in 2014 who could still turn into something of significance.

Looking at the results for the 17^th team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that Colorado would not have fared very well under the P.D.T.:

Table 8.

Of the three players above, one had a decent if not spectacular NHL career, one was a bust, and the jury is still out on another. Not the kind of results to be expected from a team located in an area that most would consider “friendly” to hockey.

Looking at the results for the 18^th team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that even though Winnipeg would not have had the benefit of making designations under the P.D.T. until 2012 (since they only rejoined the league in 2011), they are more than making up for it now:

Table 9.

Even though there are three players listed above, one is turning out to be a solid NHL player while the jury would still definitely be out on the remaining two.

Looking at the results for the 19^th team from Table 1. above, it seems that Arizona (Phoenix) has fared very badly under the P.D.T.:

Table 10.

But while the number of players they would have been able to designate under their P.D.T. would have been small, it seems grass-roots hockey is taking hold in the desert and one quality player, with perhaps another on the way,  in the past four years is not a bad return. Of course, we can peak ahead and see that Arizona would absolutely be salivating at the player they would be able to designate under their P.D.T. in 2016 – Auston Matthews – the current consensus 1^st overall pick in the 2016 NHL Entry Draft.

Looking at the results for the 20^th team from Table 1. above, similar to  Arizona, it seems that Columbus’ results are abysmal. But like Arizona. It seems that Columbus’ trend is heading in the right direction with two players being eligible for designation under their P.D.T. in the past four years:

Table 11.

Of the two players above, one is a solid NHL player while the other is still too early in his development path to know what his NHL career might be.

Looking at the results presented in this article from the middle 10 NHL teams, it is not surprising to see the quantity of players that would have been designated under the P.D.T. declining. But as noted for a few of the teams, what they were lacking in quantity was more than made up for in quality. And most encouraging, the results for a few of the teams is trending in the right direction – up.

In the third and last article in this series, we’ll look at what results the bottom 10 teams would have been able to secure under the P.D.T. and come up with some suggestions on how those results could be improved.

Protected Draft Territory - Summary for the Years 2000 to 2014 - Part 1

With the completion of the fifteenth and last article (Protected Draft Territory – Alternate Draft History for the Year 2014) in the series describing the results of implementing a Protected Draft Territory (P.D.T.) for each NHL team and the alternate history for the NHL Entry Drafts that would have resulted, it is now possible to summarize the results and look at whether my suggested solution to rectify the problems with the NHL Entry Draft is a viable one.

If a poll had been taken, right after publication of the original article (How to Rectify the NHL Draft Lottery) which launched this series, on which of the NHL teams would have benefited the most from the implementation of a P.D.T. rule, the overwhelming majority of respondents would have said ALL the NHL’s Canadian teams - probably in this order. Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Edmonton,  Calgary, and Winnipeg.

As it turned out, those respondents would have been mostly correct, except there are some interesting results from a few of the NHL’s U.S. teams. Of the data collected over the fifteen years from 2000 to 2014, here are how many players, from the 1^st and early 2^nd rounds of the original entry drafts, each of the NHL’s teams would have been able to designate under their P.D.T.:

Table 1.

There are some interesting results in Table 1 above but we’ll start out by looking at the most predictable of results.

We can see from the above table that Toronto would have been able to designate a player under their P.D.T. for each of the fifteen years. Here is that list of players:

Table 2.

A closer look at the above table shows that twelve of the fifteen players are currently playing in the NHL. Of those twelve players, eight are centres. Toronto would have had such a plethora of centres that they likely would have run into the same cap problems other teams (Chicago, Boston, etc.) have and been forced to shed many of these quality centres to other teams for prospects and/or picks.

Looking at the results for the 2^nd team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that Minnesota would have fared almost as well as Toronto under the P.D.T.:

Table 3.

A closer look at Minnesota’s results shows the majority of players they likely would have designated under their P.D.T. would have been defensemen – six of the thirteen. Minnesota would have been able to build from defense out. Their current defense core, assuming they didn’t run into cap problems, would be comprised of Ryan Suter, Ryan McDonagh, Nick Leddy, Jake Gardiner, Erik Johnson, and Keith Ballard – a very solid six.

Looking at the results for the 3^rd team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that even though Edmonton would have had as many players designated under their P.D.T. as Minnesota, their results would have been somewhat worse:

Table 4.

Of the thirteen players above, only five are currently active in the NHL – Jay Bouwmeester, Dion Phaneuf, Kyle Chipchura, Bryan Little, and Tyler Ennis. Perhaps Edmonton would have fared better in the revised Entry Drafts?

Looking at the results for the 4^th team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that even though Calgary would have had almost as many players designated under their P.D.T. as Minnesota, their results would not have been as good:

Table 5.

Of the twelve players above, six saw action in the NHL during the 2014/2015 season – Ty Rattie, Taylor Hall, Zach Boychuk, Thomas Hickey, Devin Setoguchi, and Jeff Schultz. For three of the players, William Nylander, Josh Morrissey, and Mitch Moroz it is still too early to tell what the duration of their NHL careers will be.

Looking at the results for the 5th team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that even though Montreal would have had as many players designated under their P.D.T. as Calgary (12), their results would have been somewhat worse:

Table 6.

Of the twelve players above, only four saw action in the NHL during the 2014/2015 season – Jonathan Drouin, Jonathan Huberdeau, Derick Brassard, and Marc Andre Fleury. For one other player – Michael Matheson – it is still probably too early to tell what the duration of his NHL careers might be.

Looking at the results for the 6^th team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that Vancouver, with the same number of players designated under their P.D.T., would have fared substantially better than Montreal.

Table 7.

Of the twelve players above, only one did not see action in the NHL during the 2014/2015 season – Kyle Beach! That is a pretty remarkable stat.

Looking at the results for the 7^th team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that Detroit, with almost the same number of players designated under their P.D.T. as Vancouver, would not have fared quite as well.

 Table 8.

Of the eleven players above,eight saw action in the NHL during the 2014/2015 season – Aaron Ekblad, Jacob Trouba, Rocco Grimaldi, Ian Cole, Chris Summers, Ryan Kesler, Jim Slater, Tim Gleason, and Andy Hibert. For one other player – Michael McCarron – the jury is still out on how long his NHL career might be.

Looking at the results for the 8^th team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that Ottawa, with the same number of players designated under their P.D.T. as Detroit, would have fared almost as well.

Table 9.

Of the eleven players above,seven saw action in the NHL during the 2014/2015 season – Slater KoekKoek, Erik Gudbranson, Matt Duchene, Eric O’Dell, Benoit Pouliot, Derek Roy, and Justin Williams. For two of the other players – Eric Cornel and Remi Elie –it is still to early to tell how long their NHL careers might be.

Looking at the results for the 9^th team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that Boston, with a fewer number of players designated under their P.D.T. than Ottawa, would have fared almost as well.

Table 10.

Of the eight players above,seven saw action in the NHL during the 2014/2015 season – Connor Murphy, Kevin Hayes, Chris Kreider, John Carlson, Cory Schneider, Brian Boyle, and Ron Hainsey. A pretty remarkable stat!

Looking at the results for the 10^th team from Table 1. above, it is apparent that Buffalo, with the same number of players designated under their P.D.T. as Boston, have fared slightly worse.

Table 11.

Of the eight players above, five saw action in the NHL during the 2014/2015 season – Adam Clendening, Tom McCollum, Patrick Kane, Nick Foligno, and Dustin Brown. A further two players – Alex Tuch and Dylan Blujus – are still too early into their respective careers to know how long their NHL careers might be.

Looking at the results from the top 10 teams under the P.D.T. presented in this article, it is not surprising to see six of the current seven Canadian teams represented. Perhaps it is no surprise to see two or three of what would be considered solid U.S. hockey markets represented in the top 10 – Minnesota, Boston, and maybe Detroit.  The real surprise, and a beacon for better results for the remaining twenty teams, is Buffalo.

In the second article in this series, we’ll look at what results those remaining twenty teams would have been able to secure under the P.D.T.

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.