from Scott Stinson of the National Post,
Defenders of the traditional draft order note that it preserves fairness, allowing poor teams the chance to rebuild with obvious young talent that is not available to the league’s powers. But, you want fairness? Wipe the thing out entirely. With the NHL’s salary cap linked to revenues already in place, there would be no risk that big-money teams would snap up all the top talent and leave small-market teams to fight over a bunch of pluggers — the imbalance often on display in international soccer, where all but a small number of powerhouses are aware that if any of their players eventually become really good, they will also be almost certain to leave.
No, the fascinating thing about a draft-less NHL would be how much it would force team management to reconsider player values. Someone in his early 20s today is highly valuable to a team precisely because his contract is within CBA-defined affordable limits. But what if those limits didn’t exist? Tampa Bay has had seven years of Steven Stamkos at below market value because their 2007-08 mediocrity was rewarded with a 2008 first overall draft pick and the cap-friendly contract that the CBA dictates for a player’s early years. Would some other team have offered to pay him superstar money with his first contract as an 18-year-old? The more relevant question today is for Connor McDavid: As of Friday, Edmonton gets him for seven years on the cheap. But how many teams would offer him, today, the eight-year, $84-million contract that the Chicago Blackhawks gave to each of Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane last summer?
Create an Account
In order to leave a comment, please create an account.