Small Draft Tweak

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

But if this is what everybody wants, I have no problem with voting with the majority. Just changes the way I go about things alittle. Most of my other players don't matter in the game to me.

[New Jersey Devils GM]

After thinking about it, it just seems like a lot of work for little(to no) gain.
A lot of work because Pens/Yotes would need to add everyone to the draft list expect the 240 keepers & goalies, then the work of making sure nobody loses more than 5 players in the draft.

[Deleted]

It's not that much work.

A tad bit more copy and paste work from one thread

[New Jersey Devils GM]

You'd have a lot more players to organize, and you'd need a system to make sure teams only lose 5 players.
And if all players are eligible, could I still redraft my own players?

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

Yes, you could draft your only players. We can right now, so they woudn't change. Would be funny. Trade for 5 1sts and draft 5 players of yoru own and now you keep the rest LOL

[Justin]

Jan 19, 2013 23:20:09 GMT -5 New Jersey Devils GM said:

After thinking about it, it just seems like a lot of work for little(to no) gain.

For you, perhaps. You are like, 4th in your conference. For someone like me, this pick could be a big deal. The gain is huge. Right now I am handcuffed to re-building my losing team a very specific way - with ratings. I don't want to build my team that way, and I don't think people should be forced to.



---
And I am still very confused by this "so much extra work" stuff.

Sample Lay out:

(This is a thread - ONE post)
--------------------------------------------------------------
TEAM PICKS AVAILABLE
ANA - 5
BOS - 5
BUF - 5
CAR - 5
CGY - 5
(etc)

AVAILABLE PICKS
Jon Smith 88 PLY TB
John Smyth 95 SNP CGY
Joan Smythe 76 OFD TOR
(etc)
-------------------------------------------------------------

Each time someone is selected, as the Available Players list is updated, so too is the Team Picks Available list. So if you take John Smith SNP CGY, in that same post, when you edit it to no longer have John Smith as an available pick, you also change CGY - 5 to CGY - 4

And so on...

We have 10 staff members - that's a third of this league. I am sure between them it could be handled pretty easily. Hell, if not, I would accept the job. It's pretty simple stuff.

[The Admin Account]

Jan 19, 2013 23:20:09 GMT -5 New Jersey Devils GM said:

After thinking about it, it just seems like a lot of work for little(to no) gain.
A lot of work because Pens/Yotes would need to add everyone to the draft list expect the 240 keepers & goalies, then the work of making sure nobody loses more than 5 players in the draft.

^ This.

As I said earlier, not in favour of changing the draft format. As Yotes noted this won't do anything except complicate the draft and make it more convoluted, but regardless, if a majority wants it, it will be looked at.

[New York Rangers GM]

This just looks more like Canes wants certain players and less like he's trying to help any other teams. I really don't see how this is going to help lower level team either, when their just as suseptable having these players plucked from their rosters as the better teams.

This new idea solves nothing and does create more work for the staff. I'm not for it at all.

[Wynne - Retired Flyers GM]

No need to change the draft so someone can get an 79 they really want.

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

I think if somebody wants certain players that are 79-80 they can always make offers that blow them away. I know I would have no issue trading a 79-80 that somebody likes for an upgrade. I have paid huge for players that I really liked. Get your votes in guys. I have no issue doing what the people want here. This would be just a small change and not a drastic change.

[Detroit Red Wings GM]

Pass.

[Boston Bruins GM]

It seems kind of pointless to me. I think it would also impact trading negatively. Take a look at the trade deadline for example. People trade to protect bench players and downgrade on the players they're set to lose, to upgrade other bench players. This wouldn't happen anymore. And I can just imagine some teams giving up 5 82's and drafting 5 79's. They'd end up worse than they started.

[Justin]

Jan 20, 2013 14:31:52 GMT -5 Boston Bruins GM said:

It seems kind of pointless to me. I think it would also impact trading negatively. Take a look at the trade deadline for example. People trade to protect bench players and downgrade on the players they're set to lose, to upgrade other bench players.

This doesn't sound like a broken system to you? People have to go out and acquire guys they don't want just to hold them until draft to protect the lower-end players they DO want?

Basically year after year there are the same guys in the draft. This would mix things up a bit. This still feels like the haves trying to keep their locked up teams locked up to me. I have volunteered to do EVERY SECOND of extra work this would involve, and people still think it's "too much work".

Since the "too much work" argument is moot, I am wondering why people are REALLY not in favour of this? Because most people were until Pens and Phx said something...

[New Jersey Devils GM]

Because there is no gain, where's the gain?

Instead of me losing 84,84,83,82,81 I can lose a different 81 or if people go full retard I could lose a 79 and keep a 81. Where is there a gain, the only thing that will come from this is in the later rounds people will choose who like like, say someone really liked Henrique, he gets drafted and I keep Leino instead of Henrique. Wow, that's a game changer.

It's pointless.

I'm curious as to why you're so gungho about it. It just seems like more work for literally no gain.

[Colorado Avalanche GM]

This helps rebuilding teams in one way only - Season turnarounds.

Like I mentioned, a team would probably snag B.Schenn from me in the hope that the season after (or whenever) a turnaround occurs, that player will go up in rating.

I'd be cool with that since like I said I'd rather lose these depth guys than my top guys.