Pre-Consolidation Draft

[VanIslander]

Beware acid-spouting advice.
Stay positive. Do some good.
Don't be paralized by trying to be IT.

 

[rmartin65]

Alright, discussion seems to have died down. We're going to roll with the following rules:

1) Players must have debuted in the PCHA/WHL/NHL/Big 4 prior to the 1920-21 season to be eligible. Obviously this only applies to players with a post-consolidation career.

2) Players drafted will receive full credit for their entire careers.

3) No trades

4) Up to 2 teams per GM

We'll try to get the draft order posted Tuesday evening (I'll set the order if we don't get a non-participant to do so), start the draft at 0800 EST Wednesday (3 August) morning.

@Dreakmur @BenchBrawl @seventieslord - you all have been active in the thread, are you looking to join? We could use a few more GMs.

 

[VanIslander]

...get the draft order posted Tuesday evening... get a non-participant to do so,...

@Dreakmur @BenchBrawl @seventieslord - you all have been active in the thread, are you looking to join? We could use a few more GMs.

Any of them will do!

 

[BenchBrawl]

Alright, discussion seems to have died down. We're going to roll with the following rules:

1) Players must have debuted in the PCHA/WHL/NHL/Big 4 prior to the 1920-21 season to be eligible. Obviously this only applies to players with a post-consolidation career.

2) Players drafted will receive full credit for their entire careers.

3) No trades

4) Up to 2 teams per GM

We'll try to get the draft order posted Tuesday evening (I'll set the order if we don't get a non-participant to do so), start the draft at 0800 EST Wednesday (3 August) morning.

@Dreakmur @BenchBrawl @seventieslord - you all have been active in the thread, are you looking to join? We could use a few more GMs.

I don't understand Rule #1. Does this means George Hay is not eligible? His prime was from 1922-1930, so 5 years pre-consolidation, 4 years post. Wouldn't make sense to exclude him. Why not check each player case by case?

I'll decide tonight if I play. On the fence.

 

[rmartin65]

I don't understand Rule #1. Does this means George Hay is not eligible? His prime was from 1922-1930, so 5 years pre-consolidation, 4 years post. Wouldn't make sense to exclude him. Why not check each player case by case?

I'll decide tonight if I play. On the fence.

Yeah, I think I was trying to correct a problem that probably wasn't going to arise. I was/am trying to say that players like Hod Stuart- who never played in the PCHA/NHA/NHL/WHL/Big 4- are still eligible, even though the rule can be read to state otherwise.

George Hay would not be eligible as the rules are currently written. He debuted in the WCHL in 1921-1922, which is after the 1920-1921 cut-off. This does seem odd to me, though, now that you pointed it out... but we have to draw a line somewhere. I don't think people are interested in checking each player case-by-case- @ResilientBeast listed a bunch of fringe cases, and (so far), I'm the only one who has taken a shot at filling it out (and I don't even think I did a particularly great job at it). If there was more interest in actually debating the eligibility of every player in question, I agree that would be ideal.

Honestly, I'm even ok with making an exception for Hay- something like if greater than half of a player's accepted prime is pre-consolidation, then the player is considered eligible. I'd like to hear from the other participants (and/or observers) before we lock that one in, though.

 

[VanIslander]

My qualification was pretty straight forward: show evidence of 5 years of play preconsolidation. Period.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Yeah, I think I was trying to correct a problem that probably wasn't going to arise. I was/am trying to say that players like Hod Stuart- who never played in the PCHA/NHA/NHL/WHL/Big 4- are still eligible, even though the rule can be read to state otherwise.

George Hay would not be eligible as the rules are currently written. He debuted in the WCHL in 1921-1922, which is after the 1920-1921 cut-off. This does seem odd to me, though, now that you pointed it out... but we have to draw a line somewhere. I don't think people are interested in checking each player case-by-case- @ResilientBeast listed a bunch of fringe cases, and (so far), I'm the only one who has taken a shot at filling it out (and I don't even think I did a particularly great job at it). If there was more interest in actually debating the eligibility of every player in question, I agree that would be ideal.

Honestly, I'm even ok with making an exception for Hay- something like if greater than half of a player's accepted prime is pre-consolidation, then the player is considered eligible. I'd like to hear from the other participants (and/or observers) before we lock that one in, though.

Let's at least establish for the usual Top 300ers

Let me know if I forgot someone, if there's some other players you want to clarify, whether you disagree with any of my choice, etc.

eddie shore - out
howie morenz - out
frank nighbor - in
bill cook - out (but if you want more players, I'm fine with it)
cyclone taylor - in
king clancy - ?????? I say in, the more the merrier
frank boucher - out
sprague cleghorn - in
newsy lalonde - in
eddie gerard - in
cy denneny - in
joe malone - in
georges vezina - in
hooley smith - out
clint benedict - in
hod stuart - in
georges boucher - in
nels stewart - out
tommy phillips - in
moose johnson - in
frank foyston - in
harry cameron - in
lester patrick - in
sylvio mantha - out
roy worters - out
georges hainsworth - out
babe dye - in
hugh lehman - in
reg noble - in
mickey mackay - in
didier pitre - in
herb gardiner - in
harvey pulford - in
lionel hitchman - out
art ross - in
mike grant - in
punch broadbent - in
frank fredrickson - in
hap day - out
duke keats - in
jack walker - in
art duncan - in
joe hall - in
george hay - in
alf smith - in
gordon roberts - in
russell bowie - in
joe simpson - in
percy lesueur - in
lloyd cook - in
frank patrick - in
odie cleghorn - in
tommy smith - in

 

[VanIslander]

Delete

 

[rmartin65]

This is going badly.

Respectfully- your comment isn't helping. People are trying to make sure this draft and the (hopefully) subsequent HoH project are successes. Debate and discussion at this point are good things. There is no need to rush into the draft without figuring out who is eligible- we have plenty of time.

I (and I'm sure everyone else) can tell you dislike this discussion. You went from being the first person to enter the draft to demanding to be removed from the sign-ups. You've made multiple negative comments in this thread.

 

[rmartin65]

Let's at least establish for the usual Top 300ers

Let me know if I forgot someone, if there's some other players you want to clarify, whether you disagree with any of my choice, etc.

eddie shore - out
howie morenz - out
frank nighbor - in
bill cook - out (but if you want more players, I'm fine with it)
cyclone taylor - in
king clancy - ?????? I say in, the more the merrier
frank boucher - out
sprague cleghorn - in
newsy lalonde - in
eddie gerard - in
cy denneny - in
joe malone - in
georges vezina - in
hooley smith - out
clint benedict - in
hod stuart - in
georges boucher - in
nels stewart - out
tommy phillips - in
moose johnson - in
frank foyston - in
harry cameron - in
lester patrick - in
sylvio mantha - out
roy worters - out
georges hainsworth - out
babe dye - in
hugh lehman - in
reg noble - in
mickey mackay - in
didier pitre - in
herb gardiner - in
harvey pulford - in
lionel hitchman - out
art ross - in
mike grant - in
punch broadbent - in
frank fredrickson - in
hap day - out
duke keats - in
jack walker - in
art duncan - in
joe hall - in
george hay - in
alf smith - in
gordon roberts - in
russell bowie - in
joe simpson - in
percy lesueur - in
lloyd cook - in
frank patrick - in
odie cleghorn - in
tommy smith - in

I don't think I see anything disagreeable there (unless I accidentally glanced over someone)- and outside of Hay, I think they all meet the 1920-21 rule.

Oh, I'd have Clancy out.

 

[Sanf]

I would personally say that USAHA peaked closer to the consolidation lets say from 1923 to 1926. But even before the league had bunch of their own stars that made their career in USAHA like Moose Goheen, Coddy Winters, Herb Drury... etc. McCormick brothers were very decent players.

And it became real option for top Canadian amateurs. Ivan Johnson refused "highest offer ever made to amateur player" by Edmonton Eskimos in 1922.

Obviously Nels Stewart was there.

Konnie Johansson and Mike Goodman (fastest player in hockey at the time) from Winnipeg Falcons joined the league in 1921.

Former PCHA pro Jim Seaborn was there.

Taffy Abel joined in 1921 IIRC with Michigan Soo.

Canadian Soo was there for few years without eligibility to win the championship. That team featured young Bill and Fred Cook + Babe Donnelly and Flat Walsh.

Goaltending is my favourite and I would say the high end guys like Ray Bonney and Vern Turner probably compared tfavourably to low end western goalies in the early 20´s. Two former Big-4 goalies Talbot and Renaud failed to be success in USAHA. There were some future short time NHL goalies like Frenchy Lacroix, Herb Rheaume and Flat Walsh. But overall the goaltending wasn´t that deep until closer to mid 20´s when Worters and Thompson along with Joe Miller and Abbie Cox arrived.

edit. @rmartin65

 

[Sanf]

I guess my comment isn't because of league quality rather what players "become" eligible. And since the Big 4 was a professional league (under the table) that became a viable contender for the cup it's slightly different

Nels Stewart isn't a pre-consolidation player but would become eligible
Art Gagne to me in a pre-consolidation player and stays eligible with that line drawn

I don´t mind at all about the line drawn. I agree it would be insanely hard to evaluate Nels Stewart as pre-consolidation player. Even he did in my opinion have career even before that.

But the Big-4 to WCHL I don´t necessarily agree. I have commented on this that WCHL was more of child of SSHL and Big-4. I can´t reaaly remember procentually how many players they had on both leagues. But for example goalies were at the halfway of the first season Winkler (SSHL), Laird (SSHL), Reid (Big-4) and Hebert (former NHL).

Out of players Hay. Irwin Benson, Halderson, Dukowski and Traub for example came from SSHL. I would expect it to be close to half.

I guess as just a friendly recommention maybe coun 1919-1921 from SSHL. And talking about "Frank Frederickson line" the whole Winnipeg Falcons disbanned all over in one year. Yes Frederickson turned openly pro, but I would strongly suspect that the reason Slim Halderson and Bobby Benson choose to leave to SSHL and Konnie Johansson and Mike Goodman year later to USAHA had something to do with money. I have seen these player being on the eye of "Open pro" leagues too.

Sorry if messing with your dragt

 

[Professor What]

Respectfully- your comment isn't helping. People are trying to make sure this draft and the (hopefully) subsequent HoH project are successes. Debate and discussion at this point are good things. There is no need to rush into the draft without figuring out who is eligible- we have plenty of time.

I (and I'm sure everyone else) can tell you dislike this discussion. You went from being the first person to enter the draft to demanding to be removed from the sign-ups. You've made multiple negative comments in this thread.

I've been quiet because I don't feel I have much to add, but I do want to agree with this. Constructive criticism is great. Criticism without purpose or something in alternative is only an anchor.

 

[rmartin65]

@Sanf - I greatly appreciate the extra information on the USAHA and your input concerning the SSHL!

The USAHA thing is giving me fits, eligibility-wise; I think you brought up some names who would otherwise be ineligible (Goheen definitely deserves discussion, the McCormick brothers, Drury as well), but I still don't like the idea of opening the door for Stewart... he's just so firmly entrenched in my mind as a post-consolidation guy.

Putting some further thought into the matter; what if we left the USAHA out of it, but included participants in the 1920 Olympics to be eligible? That would make all of Goheen, the brothers McCormick, and Drury eligible, and it keeps the 1920-1921 line. Does anybody have any further input here?

As for the SSHL- I think you are right, and we should open up eligibility for players who debuted in that league prior to 1920-1921. Any comments from participants/observers?

And please don't worry about messing up the draft! These are the kinds of questions and discussions we should be having.

 

[Dreakmur]

@Sanf - I greatly appreciate the extra information on the USAHA and your input concerning the SSHL!

The USAHA thing is giving me fits, eligibility-wise; I think you brought up some names who would otherwise be ineligible (Goheen definitely deserves discussion, the McCormick brothers, Drury as well), but I still don't like the idea of opening the door for Stewart... he's just so firmly entrenched in my mind as a post-consolidation guy.

Putting some further thought into the matter; what if we left the USAHA out of it, but included participants in the 1920 Olympics to be eligible? That would make all of Goheen, the brothers McCormick, and Drury eligible, and it keeps the 1920-2921 line. Does anybody have any further input here?

As for the SSHL- I think you are right, and we should open up eligibility for players who debuted in that league prior to 1920-1921. Any comments from participants/observers?

And please don't worry about messing up the draft! These are the kinds of questions and discussions we should be having.

I don’t think we should be making cutoffs to specifically target certain players.

 

[rmartin65]

I don’t think we should be making cutoffs to specifically target certain players.

That's a fair point.

I still don't think Stewart is a pre-consolidation player, and I think that the 1920 Olympic rule works, but I respect (and understand) where you are coming from.

 

[Professor What]

Have we decided not to do this?

 

[VanIslander]

There are 3 kind of people:

1. Those who promise;
2. Those who try to deliver;
3. Those who deliver.

 

[rmartin65]

Have we decided not to do this?

Sorry, yeah, it’s dead. We only had 3 GMs interested in participating, which really isn’t enough, IMO.

There are 3 kind of people:

1. Those who promise;
2. Those who try to deliver;
3. Those who deliver.

I guess I fall into number 2 here, then. But, I can’t force people to join. Nor can I force people to NOT quit after they signed up.

 

[VanIslander]

*sigh*

... we need someone to deliver!

 

[ResilientBeast]

Have we decided not to do this?

Well VanI dropped out, so only 3 people isn't really the best for a draft like this. I'm happy to still do it