Protected Draft Territory - Alternate Draft History for the Year 2000

In an attempt to rectify what I see as the issues with the current NHL Draft Lottery, I cam up with a proposal for each NHL team to be given what I call a Protected Draft Territory or P.D.T. For a better understanding of my proposal, see my previous article (How to Rectify the NHL Draft Lottery).

In the preliminary stages of hashing out my proposal, I initially thought that the P.D.T. would unfairly benefit the Canadian NHL teams – in particular Toronto and Ottawa – because of their proximity to large networks of amateur hockey leagues. It seemed this proximity would allow the Canadian teams to skim off the cream and leave, depending on their particular situation, the U.S. NHL teams either the dregs or nothing from which to draw.

But, surprisingly, as soon as I started looking at the NHL Entry Drafts from the year 2000 onwards and applying the P.D.T., the anticipated unfairness did not materialize as severely as I initially expected.

At this point I should explain the P.D.T. rules that I applied for each 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.

In an attempt to keep the revised NHL Entry Drafts for each year as simple as possible, a third rule was also applied:

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.

Pretty straightforward.

But amazing how the application of these three simple rules to the NHL Entry Drafts starting with the year 2000 could have dramatically altered the history of the NHL as we know it. Key players on some of the Cup winning teams simply might not have been there to help those teams secure their Cups or perhaps might have helped their new teams to secure a Cup.

Without further ado, let’s look at how the application of the P.D.T. to the NHL Entry Draft for the year 2000 could have started to change the history and fortunes of each NHL team.

The table below (Table 1.) is actually two tables in one. The first six columns represent how the original NHL Entry Draft transpired. 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.

For a casual fan, the recognizable names from the original 2000 Entry Draft might be – Rick DiPietro, Dany Heatley, Marian Gaborik, Rostislav Kiesla, Raffi Torres, Scott Harnell, Ron Hainsey, Brooks Orpik, Alexander Frolov, Anton Volchenkov, Brad Boyes, Steve Ott, Justin Williams, and Niklas Kronwall.

Even with the application of the P.D.T. to this entry draft, by looking at the columns to the right of the “Revised” column, it can be determined that the following players from the list above would still have been drafted by the teams which originally drafted them – Rick DiPietro, Dany Heatley, Marian Gaborik, and Rostislav Kiesla - or the first four picks.

Other names drafted by new teams would have been - Scott Harnell, Ron Hainsey, Alexander Frolov, Anton Volchenkov, Brad Boyes, Steve Ott, and Niklas Kronwall.

Looking more closely at Table 1 above, 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.:

Raffi Torres	L	Toronto	635
Ron Hainsey	D	Boston	741
Brooks Orpik	D	San Jose	770
Krys Kolanos	C	Calgary	149
David Hale	D	Colorado	327
Nathan Smith	C	Edmonton	26
Justin Williams	R	Ottawa	906
Jeff Taffe	C	Minnesota	180
Andy Hilbert	C	Detroit	307

Table 2.

To the same casual fans, the most recognizable names from Table 2 above are Raffi Torres, Brooks Orpik, and Justin Williams.

Just from two of those three names, many interesting questions could be asked as to how the history for their revised draft teams might have changed. For example:

1.  In 2002, does Raffi Torres help the Leafs get past Carolina in the Conference Finals and into the promised land of a Stanley Cup Final and perhaps even a Stanley Cup victory?

2.  Does Justin Williams help Ottawa avoid multiple defeats at the hands of the Leafs in the numerous Battles of Ontario?

3.  Without Justin Williams, does Carolina win the Cup in 2006? Does Los Angeles win multiple Cups in 2012 and 2014?

All questions that we’ll never know the answers to, but interesting to discuss and debate nevertheless.

How to Rectify the NHL Draft Lottery

The Trade Deadline day for 2015 has now passed. For Leafs fans, the next important milestone on the long road to the rebuild (The Rebuild Way?) is NHL Draft Lottery day. As is the current custom, NHL Draft Lottery day takes place on the day following the end of the regular season - this year that should be April 12, 2015. On that day, the main order of business for the NHL will be assigning, for the 14 teams who did not make the playoffs, their drafting order for the 2015 NHL Entry Draft.

Outside of front office personnel for the 14 non-playoff teams, most people don't pay much attention to the NHL Draft Lottery or its' outcome. This is understandable. In a typical draft year there are usually good players available but rarely are there great players available and rarer still are there "generational" players available.

For 2015, the consensus is that the NHL Entry Draft seems to be shaping up as one of those rare special years when a generational player is going to be available. In fact, it seems this year will be doubly special as it appears an extremely rare occurrence is going to take place - the availability of a 2nd generational player. This rarity has caused the stakes for this year's entry draft to shoot through the roof and with these sky high stakes will come a white hot scrutiny of the draft lottery process and especially the results.

Now, assuming all the conspiracy theorists, who think the winner of the 1^st overall draft pick has already been determined, are incorrect, what exactly will happen on April 12th? On that day the NHL, knowing which 14 teams did not make the playoffs, will assign a draft position and that draft position’s associated percentage odds of securing the 1st overall draft pick to each of those 14 teams.

For 2015, here’s how the odds for securing the 1^st draft pick break down:

Finish	Odds
30th	20.0%
29th	13.5%
28th	11.5%
27th	9.5%
26th	8.5%
25th	7.5%
24th	6.5%
23rd	6.0%
22nd	5.0%
21st	3.5%
20th	3.0%
19th	2.5%
18th	2.0%
17th	1.0%

Table 1.

For example, if the season had ended on March 10th, the order of finish from 30th to 17th and therefore the percentage odds assigned to each team to secure the 1st overall draft pick would have been:

Finish	Team	Odds
17th	Los Angeles	1.0%
18th	San Jose	2.0%
19th	Florida	2.5%
20th	Colorado	3.0%
21st	Ottawa	3.5%
22nd	Dallas	5.0%
23rd	Philadelphia	6.0%
24th	New Jersey	6.5%
25th	Columbus	7.5%
26th	Carolina	8.5%
27th	Toronto	9.5%
28th	Arizona	11.5%
29th	Edmonton	13.5%
30th	Buffalo	20.0%

Table 2.

A key point concerning the 2015 NHL Draft Lottery needs to be clarified:

The 30^th place team is guaranteed, at worst, the 2^nd overall pick!

As can be seen from Table 2 above, by having a plan and very obviously sticking to it, Buffalo would have guaranteed themselves one of the two generational players available in the 2015 NHL Entry Draft.

Is this an example of Buffalo being handsomely rewarded for what the NHL has previously publicly stated it considers bad behaviour? i.e ”tanking”.

Not to be seen as condoning “tanking”, the NHL will attempt to discourage such bad behaviour, starting with the 2016 Draft Lottery. In 2016 the NHL will remove from the team finishing in 30th place the guarantee, at worst, of receiving the 2nd overall draft pick. Instead the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd overall draft picks will ALL be assigned via the lottery system. In this new system, the team finishing in 30th place could, in fact, fall all the way from the 1st overall draft pick to the 4th overall draft pick. Will this be enough to discourage the bad behaviour?

Whether the revised rules for the 2016 NHL Draft Lottery will discourage “tanking” or not, the NHL should be applauded for their attempts to fix the perceived flaws in the current NHL Draft Lottery by changing the rules to discourage this bad behaviour.

Unfortunately, whether these rule changes will actually have the desired effect won’t be determined until the next generational player becomes draft eligible. But, as long as the team finishing in 30^th place still has substantially better odds than the other 13 non-playoff teams it seems the answer is pretty clear.

While everyone seems most concerned with the obvious “tanking” behaviour that some teams are engaged in, what is being ignored from Table 2 above is the very real possibility that one of the really good teams on that list of 14 non-playoff teams, for example Los Angeles, could win the 1st overall pick in the 2015 NHL Draft Lottery. If this was to happen it is almost guaranteed that the 29 other teams would be at the head of a rather large angry mob marching on NHL headquarters in New York.

Now imagine if the unthinkable was to happen in the 2016 Draft Lottery and the teams finishing 17th, 18th, and 19th overall were to secure some combination of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd overall draft picks?

In my opinion, only a bold change can address what most other teams and fans outside of the “lucky 3” cities would describe as the extreme injustices discussed in the two previous paragraphs.

My Radical Suggestion

Re-introduce the concept of protected drafting territories similar to what the NHL operated under in the mid-sixties before expansion took the league from 6 to 12 teams.

This idea (The Protected Drafting Territory Rule) would allow each NHL team to select 1 player per year from within their assigned protected drafting territory. This selection would not count as one of their picks in the NHL Entry Draft.

The NHL, its constitute teams, the affected players, and the local communities around each NHL team would all benefit from the Protected Drafting Territory Rule (P.D.T.R.) in the following ways:

1. It would encourage each NHL team to help establish (if not already in place) and continue to nurture hockey in their local market. By helping to establish and nurture amateur hockey in their nearby communities, each team would help grow their local fan base.

2. Players, who most likely would have grown up fans of their local NHL team, would know in the year they became eligible for the NHL Entry Draft that they would get a chance to play for their local team if they were the player designated under the P.D.T.R.

3. Local communities around NHL teams might be encouraged to more strongly support their local team if they knew that players they had watched develop throughout their local amateur hockey leagues would be given a chance to play for their local team. This localization of a fan base has been proven many times over at various levels of football, basketball and baseball – particularly in the U.S.

4. By growing the game at the grass roots level, the NHL would see an increase in revenues and therefore franchise values.

5. As any potential generational players might be unavailable to the 29 other teams because of the P.D.T.R. it would therefore discourage the bad behaviour of "tanking".

The obvious question concerning the P.D.T.R. is how viable is it.

As can be seen from the locations of the current NHL teams on the map below, most of the teams are sufficiently spread out geographically so as to allow them to have a fairly large Protected Drafting Territory (P.D.T.).

 Map courtesy of NHL.com

Working from the West to East Coasts, here is a suggestion for each team’s P.D.T.:

  1.  Vancouver   – province of British Columbia

 2.  San Jose    - state of California N. of San Jose

 3.  Los Angeles - state of California S. of L.A. to Anaheim

 4.  Anaheim     - state of California S. of Anaheim

 5.  Calgary     - province of Alberta S. of Calgary

 6.  Edmonton    - province of Alberta N. of Edmonton

 7.  Arizona     - state of Arizona

 8.  Colorado    - state of Colorado

 9.  Dallas      - state of Texas

10. Winnipeg    - province of Manitoba

11. Minnesota   - state of Minnesota

12. St. Louis   - state of Missouri

13. Chicago     - state of Illinois

14. Nashville   - state of Tennessee

15. Detroit     - state of Michigan

16. Columbus    - state of Ohio

17. Tampa       - state of Florida N. of Tampa

18. Pittsburgh  - state of Pennsylvania E. to ½ distance to Philly

19. Florida     - state of Florida S. of Sunrise

20. Toronto     - province of Ontario E. to ½ distance to Ottawa

21. Buffalo     - state of New York E. to Albany

22. Carolina    - State of North Carolina

23. Washington  - states of Maryland & Virginia

24. Ottawa      - province of Ontario W. to ½ distance to Toronto

25. Philly      - state of Pennsylvania W. to ½ distance to Pitt.

26. Montreal    - province of Quebec

27. New Jersey  - state of New Jersey

28. Rangers     - state of New York N. to Albany

29. Islanders   - state of New York – Long Island

30. Boston      - state of Massachusetts

As can be seen from the above chart, there are some potential areas of overlap. But with the expectation that the above serves only as a starting point, it would be fairly easy to hammer out the details as to the exact territories for each of the 30 teams.

In fact, a first modification of the above could see each team be granted a 25 mile radius around their arena and where this did not make sense from a geographical point of view (i.e. oceans and/or lakes), the distance in the opposite direction from the barrier could be doubled to 50 miles.

Now I know my radical suggestion will be deemed impractical. But is it really? Wouldn’t it go a LONG way towards helping solidify the game at the grass roots level all over the NHL but particularly so in some of the more challenging markets in the U.S.

In the near future, I’ll be posting follow up articles to this one where I’ll use the P.D.T.R. to create possible alternate drafts from the past few years. How different would each team, especially the Leafs, look?

The Day After

OK, it's the day after the March 2nd Trade Deadline and what exactly has changed in Leaf land.

A couple of minor moves were made in the minors. The Leaf's reacquired T.J. Brennan (25) by shipping out Spencer Abbott and claimed Tim Erixon (24) on waivers. While neither move is a particularly earth-shattering move for the Leaf's, they may help the Marlies in their push for the playoffs. A worthwhile goal in its own right as it can provide the developing youngsters with extra games and some playoff experience.

A potentially more significant move, at least as far as the cap is concerned, was the trading of David Clarkson for Nathan Horton (29). Even if Nathan Horton never plays a game as a Leaf (the most likely outcome) and this rebuild takes as long as it most likely should, 4 to 7 years, and the Leaf's aren't where they shouldn't be in that time frame (up against the cap), this should still be looked upon as a good move by Leaf management. It gives them something that may prove useful if the rebuild goes faster than planned - flexibility concerning the cap.

In fact, a case could be made to say that this is a very shrewd move by Leaf's management. They are exploiting one area where they have a distinct advantage over most of the other teams in the league - an essentially unlimited amount of money to spend outside the confines of the cap.

Even though the above changes, in and of themselves, are good moves, the most important changes happened on the trade front.

From my original list of 7 players (List A) scheduled to become UFAs at season's end and therefore new homes had to be found for, we can see that Leaf's management has found a new home for 5 of the 7. A pretty solid effort.

The 5 now ex-Leafs:

1. Cody Franson
2. Mike Santorelli
3. Korbinian Holzer
4. Daniel Winnick
5. Olli Jokinen

Unfortunately, new homes could not be found for David Booth or Trevor Smith.

To provide a grade for the solid effort put in by Leaf's management let's look at the total haul of what assets were acquired for the above 5 players:

1. 2015 - 1st Round
2. 2015 - 4th Round
3. 2016 - 2nd Round
4. 2016 - 5th Round
5. 2016 - 6th Round (Conditional)

6. Brendan Leipsic (20)

7. Zach Sill (26)
8. Joakim Lindstrom (31)
9. Eric Brewer (35)

Five draft picks (including a 1st rounder!), 1 high "C" maybe low "B" level prospect, and a free look at 3 players (roster placeholders) who most likely don't fit into the long-term plans of the Leafs but should buy more time for some of the youngsters to develop down in the minors - which is where they should be developing.

All in all an effort worthy of a solid B+. It could have been an A- or even an A if more of the 2016 draft picks had been 2015 draft picks, but since this rebuild is going to be a multi-year effort, taking the 2016 draft picks was the prudent move.

Now that the "excitement" of Trade Deadline is over, we have no choice but to wait for the next significant date on the Leaf's calendar - draft lottery day.