An age restriction on the FUNHL?

Doug makes a quick case for an 'Age Restriction' (it's really an 'experience condition', but AR is the essential element), here;

"Kessel or Staal - I still think selecting an 18year old in the first round as an FP is dumb but if you want to do it, be my guest. I'm more concerned about selecting an 18year old prospect in the last round so no one can take him as a prospect and then rudely tossing him away the next week to the waiver wire. As such I propose that
we require that players taken in the ED have to have played at least one NHL game. Keep prospects for the prospect rounds (it may be the best way for the Wolves, Edge and Knights Templar to finally build the franchise they need to win it all). If you want to make an exception for FPs, fine, I really don't think there are that many GMs who would do it as there truly aren't that many Crosbys and Ovechkins out there."

AR: I endorse the proposal, but only with the FP exception attached.

- An FP selection is a 'go big or go home' selection, and Gms should have full freedom of movement in exercising it. If they want an 18 year old who hasn't played a game, that's up to them.

-16 of the top forwards selected in the last 25 NHL EDs were FP worthy. Adjust for definably weak draft years (the first forward selected is not among the top 2 selections) and you get a ratio of 73% FP hits.

For the record,

FP Hits (16):

81-Hawerchuk, 84-Lemieux, 87-Turgeon, 88-Modano, 89-Sundin, 90-Nolan, 91-Lindros, 92-Yashin, 97-Thornton, 98-Lecavalier, Heatley-00, Kovalchouk-01, Nash-02, Staal-03, Ovechkin-04, Crosby-05

FP Misses (6): Bellows-82 (with 9 seasons of 30 goals or more including one 55 goal year, and a 40 goal year, he was only a marginal FP failure opinion IMO, and I was tempted to credit him as a 'Hit' because he was at LW), Lawton-83, Clark-85, Murphy-86, Daigle-93, Stefan-99

Weak Draft years (out of top 2 picks) (3): Bonk-94, Dumont-95, Kilger-96

Not only is drafting the best forward available in a given ED year as an FP a better than an even up proposition, you are looking at getting a legit FP 3 out of every four times you do it so long as you don't pick the best forward in a year where 2 or more other positions get picked ahead of him.

So, for me, the exception for FP's must remain in place for the rule change to work. Gms not only should have the freedom to make these players FPs without them having played a game, I'd argue it is statistically meritorious in the long run to do so.

The Merits:

If we have the exemption for FP selections, Doug's plan does have the merits of; eliminating the frivilous draft picks that bother some GMs, improving the quality and coherency of Omnivore lineups, and ending the poaching of potential prospects.

However, it also repudiates the 'you can draft anyone you want' philosophy of the pool that has been around since its inception.

All in all, I'm in favour so long as there is an FP exemption.


Highlander said...

Thanks for the support Cam. As I said, I have no problem with an FP exception to drafting prospects who have played 0 NHL games - still think it is more of a pig-in-a-poke risk than Cam does, but who am I to complain.

For me the real tragedy is prospect poaching. As there is no ability to simply waive an FP once selectd, the poach and purge problem really isn't a factor.

moriarty said...

i think AR's revision to the highlander proposal is good one and the proposal itself is much needed. However, you pick an FP with 0 games and s/he is NOT ovechkin or crosby etc...you're not in a poke...you're in the fire - or the pig on the bbq and purging FPs is not an option.