Flames & Losing For Higher Draft Order.

[tmac70]

So if an employee appears to put an effort forward and accomplish nothing, we promote them? Sounds like the Oiler's the more you fail, the bigger the promotion.

 

 

Thanks for this post because it highlights the confusion with the stance I have taken on the matter because there is no contradiction with my post. 

 

The act of "play to win" is an effort.

The act of "win a game" is a result.

 

It is entirely possible to cheer for the effort but not the result.

 

 

 

They have not gone far because they have failed to do two other important things right: 

 

1. Draft well in the mid-to-late rounds.

2. Sign the right free agents. 

 

Both of which I cheer the Flames to do well at in addition to drafting as high as possible.  You need everything done right to get out of the basement of the league.  You can't just draft 1st overall and think that will save your franchise, obviously.

[Flyerfan52]

They have not gone far because they have failed to do two other important things right: 

 

1. Draft well in the mid-to-late rounds.

2. Sign the right free agents. 

 

Both of which I cheer the Flames to do well at in addition to drafting as high as possible.  You need everything done right to get out of the basement of the league.  You can't just draft 1st overall and think that will save your franchise, obviously.

So just drafting well in all rounds & signing the right free agents wouldn't work? A team has to be a bottom dweller to be a contender?

 

I remember SC winners using players drafted high to add pieces. Also winners have traded pieces drafted high that didn't live up to the reports were traded/released to make room for talent. If you want I can name instances from all 4 of the last SC winners.

 

There's another thing that's wrong with this direction of seeing high picks as the only future. Comments like not trading them because they have great "potential". I see it here in comments about Baertschi & Gaudreau that fear moving them for a proven piece because they might someday be better then the piece traded for. Not every player traded turns into a Martin St. Louis.

[kehatch]

So just drafting well in all rounds & signing the right free agents wouldn't work? A team has to be a bottom dweller to be a contender?

I remember SC winners using players drafted high to add pieces. Also winners have traded pieces drafted high that didn't live up to the reports were traded/released to make room for talent. If you want I can name instances from all 4 of the last SC winners.

There's another thing that's wrong with this direction of seeing high picks as the only future. Comments like not trading them because they have great "potential". I see it here in comments about Baertschi & Gaudreau that fear moving them for a proven piece because they might someday be better then the piece traded for. Not every player traded turns into a Martin St. Louis.

The problem is we don't just need good players. We need some great players. And is pretty rare you can get the Toews, Doughty's, etc outside of the draft. So you hold onto your prospects and hold onto them hoping some turn into great players. Trading them for good players right now just makes us a little less bad. Pointless.

Drafting in the top 5 is clearly the most sure fire way of getting those players. Some will argue that teams like Edmonton draft high and fail to find success. But they ignore that just about every cup calibre team has star players that were drafted very high.

Boston and Detroit might be the only exceptions. And we have already proven we are not Boston and Detroit.

People isn't wrong. The best thing for the Flames is to keep their competitive hard working culture while just falling short enough to get that high draft pick. More picks. Higher picks. More prospects. That equals more lottery chances with better odds. I know you hate that idea. But trying to rebuild outside the draft is why we are where we are. And that was while we still had players like Iginla, Kipper, and Bouwmeester.

I just can't cheer for the team to lose. It's more fun to cheer for my team to win. And when sports aren't fun what's the point?

[cross16]

The problem is we don't just need good players. We need some great players. And is pretty rare you can get the Toews, Doughty's, etc outside of the draft. So you hold onto your prospects and hold onto them hoping some turn into great players. Trading them for good players right now just makes us a little less bad. Pointless.

Drafting in the top 5 is clearly the most sure fire way of getting those players. Some will argue that teams like Edmonton draft high and fail to find success. But they ignore that just about every cup calibre team has star players that were drafted very high.

Boston and Detroit might be the only exceptions. And we have already proven we are not Boston and Detroit.

People isn't wrong. The best thing for the Flames is to keep their competitive hard working culture while just falling short enough to get that high draft pick. More picks. Higher picks. More prospects. That equals more lottery chances with better odds. I know you hate that idea. But trying to rebuild outside the draft is why we are where we are. And that was while we still had players like Iginla, Kipper, and Bouwmeester.

I just can't cheer for the team to lose. It's more fun to cheer for my team to win. And when sports aren't fun what's the point?

I agree with all of this. Peeps is right the flames best case scenario is to battle hard every night, work hard, never roll over but come up short. I won't cheer for it and I don't wish it to happen but that is best case. With the cap it's often that much harder, not that it was easy before, to get those elite level players you need and with how far scouting has come it's harder and harder to get those players outside the top of the draft too.

However, flyers make a really good point about potential and that that's all it is, it's potential and I agree that I think potential has become very overrated by fans and even some organizations and it is important to remember potential is not guaranteed and I feel that people often think it is. That's why I'm not a fan of seeking out high picks, if your team is bad enough to get there then you have to embrace that but in ever liked what the oilers and islanders did because I felt they both sat back and were not actively engaged in making their team better because they figured they would reach their "potential". I liked what the Blackhawks and penguins did yes they got high picks but they were also aggressive about getting other talents as well such as boulin, Brian Campbell, Marian Hossa, pens make the Whitney for Kunitz trade, signed Gonchar etc. waiting for potential is a very dangerous game.

[kehatch]

I agree with all of this. Peeps is right the flames best case scenario is to battle hard every night, work hard, never roll over but come up short. I won't cheer for it and I don't wish it to happen but that is best case. With the cap it's often that much harder, not that it was easy before, to get those elite level players you need and with how far scouting has come it's harder and harder to get those players outside the top of the draft too.

However, flyers make a really good point about potential and that that's all it is, it's potential and I agree that I think potential has become very overrated by fans and even some organizations and it is important to remember potential is not guaranteed and I feel that people often think it is. That's why I'm not a fan of seeking out high picks, if your team is bad enough to get there then you have to embrace that but in ever liked what the oilers and islanders did because I felt they both sat back and were not actively engaged in making their team better because they figured they would reach their "potential". I liked what the Blackhawks and penguins did yes they got high picks but they were also aggressive about getting other talents as well such as boulin, Brian Campbell, Marian Hossa, pens make the Whitney for Kunitz trade, signed Gonchar etc. waiting for potential is a very dangerous game.

In Edmonton's defence they did try to bring on support players via trade and free agency. But it is tough when you are a western conference small market team that is losing. A problem we may experience.

But I agree with you. As fans we all draft up our future lineups assuming every prospect makes it, they all fit together to build a team, and they all reach the upper end of their potential. We see players like Cammalleri as throw aways ignoring the fact that Baertschi will be lucky to ever be as good as Cammalleri is now.

I like what we are doing now. Burke is taking reasonable efforts to put a competitive tram on the ice without sacrificing our future to do it. He is also attempting to gather options at every position. Through the draft, through bringing in players like Colborne, and by keeping players like Stajan.

But we still need to hit it big over the next few drafts if we want to be more than mediocre in the future. Drafting high isn't a requisite, but it will sure help our chances.

[cross16]

In Edmonton's defence they did try to bring on support players via trade and free agency. But it is tough when you are a western conference small market team that is losing. A problem we may experience.

But I agree with you. As fans we all draft up our future lineups assuming every prospect makes it, they all fit together to build a team, and they all reach the upper end of their potential. We see players like Cammalleri as throw aways ignoring the fact that Baertschi will be lucky to ever be as good as Cammalleri is now.

I like what we are doing now. Burke is taking reasonable efforts to put a competitive tram on the ice without sacrificing our future to do it. He is also attempting to gather options at every position. Through the draft, through bringing in players like Colborne, and by keeping players like Stajan.

But we still need to hit it big over the next few drafts if we want to be more than mediocre in the future. Drafting high isn't a requisite, but it will sure help our chances.

Edmonton brought in the wrong type of players though. They spent heavy on guys for their 4th line and brought in an aging boulin so not sure you can give en much on that one. Tambellini was definetly being patient and was way too cautious to making an aggressive move fearing he'd give up up on a young guy too quick and I feel that's your collasal mistake in a rebuild you have to remain aggressive to pursue talent but how the talent comes varies. Absolutely the draft is going to be extremely key and will e the biggrstr tool for the flames going forward but I think where I was going with it is a lot of people seem to suggest that drafting high equals getting elite talent because there is always so much potential thre and I find that misleading.

I also agree that so far the flames have done a decent job so far and like that they are not sleeping on the opportunity to pickup a colborne, knight or Russell. I wish they'd leave it there and stop picking up the gallaardis and mcdermoints but I think that will come.

[s4xon]

Interesting that there are now 14 votes saying "No".

 

There are 0 saying "Yes" but there are 5 basically saying yes but with excuses why.

 

If you choose to view it that way....sure....  

[redfire11]

I put this out there last year when we were having this same discussion.  I feel this would give incentive to bottom dwelling teams in the last 20 games. Just thought I would throw it out again.

 

 

 

 

redfire11, on 22 Apr 2013 - 20:19, said:

I have been thinking of a ways to encourage teams to win once they are out of playoff contention. I feel that the draft lottery is the way to implement it.

 

Step1) Free up 20% of the lottery percentages so it would look like this below.

 

Original               Revamped - 20%

Team 1  25.0%   Team 1  20.00%  

Team 2  18.8%   Team 2  15.04%  

Team 3  14.2%   Team 3  11.36%  

Team 4  10.7%   Team 4  8.56%  

Team 5  8.1%     Team 5  6.48%  

Team 6  6.2%     Team 6  4.96%  

Team 7  4.7%     Team 7  3.74%  

Team 8  3.6%     Team 8  2.88%  

Team 9  2.7%     Team 9  2.16%  

Team 10  2.1%   Team 10  1.68%  

Team 11  1.5%   Team 11  1.20%  

Team 12  1.1%   Team 12  0.88%  

Team 13  0.8%   Team 13  0.64%  

Team 14  0.5%   Team 14  0.40% 

 

Step 2) With 20 games left in the season the bottom 14 teams would record their wins and ties ie. 2 points win, 1 point tie.

 

Step 3) At the end of the season add up all the points (2 points win, 1 point tie) in the last 20 games for the bottom 14 teams.

 

Step4) That total  (z) divided by each of the bottom 14 teams total (y) divided by the 20%. an example  z/y times .2

(an easy one) all the 14 lottery holders points added to 200 Flames win 10 of their last games = 20 so

200 divided by 20 =  10   10  times 20% .2 = 2     So where ever the flames land in the lottery add 2% to their percentage total. So if they were the 14th place team their lottery total would be 2.4%

[The_People1]

I am sure that you understand that if a person is cheering for this...

 

 

But then say's that they hope for this...

 

 

It becomes difficult to take the veracity of the first part seriously...

 

 

That is because it comes across like a woman saying that she hopes she is only a little bit pregnant when either she is, or she isn't...

 

You can only either hope to win, or hope to lose...

 

Trying to 'dress up'  hoping to lose, is like putting lipstick on a pig...   It just makes it look funny, and the pig still looks and smells like a pig...  

 

So if an employee appears to put an effort forward and accomplish nothing, we promote them? Sounds like the Oiler's the more you fail, the bigger the promotion.

 

No, it's more like cringing at your kid failing at something but knowing there's a good lesson there and it will do them good in their future.

 

It's like...

 

It's like...

 

It's like...

 

We can go back and forth with "it's like" forever and it won't end.  So what it really is, is that a higher draft pick has higher potential for making an impact in the NHL.  That's all it is. 

 

But wait!  That means we won't draft well in the 2nd, 3rd rounds and beyond?  No it doesn't.

But wait!  That means we will dwell in the basement for years and years and years?  No it doesn't.

But wait!  That means we will be like the Edmonton Oilers?  No it doesn't.

 

It's only that a 1st overall pick will almost certainly turn out to be better than a 5th/6th overall pick.

 

So just drafting well in all rounds & signing the right free agents wouldn't work? A team has to be a bottom dweller to be a contender?

 

I remember SC winners using players drafted high to add pieces. Also winners have traded pieces drafted high that didn't live up to the reports were traded/released to make room for talent. If you want I can name instances from all 4 of the last SC winners.

 

There's another thing that's wrong with this direction of seeing high picks as the only future. Comments like not trading them because they have great "potential". I see it here in comments about Baertschi & Gaudreau that fear moving them for a proven piece because they might someday be better then the piece traded for. Not every player traded turns into a Martin St. Louis.

The problem is we don't just need good players. We need some great players. And is pretty rare you can get the Toews, Doughty's, etc outside of the draft. So you hold onto your prospects and hold onto them hoping some turn into great players. Trading them for good players right now just makes us a little less bad. Pointless.

 

FF52, it's clear you have some stereotypes about 1st overall picks that you cannot let go of. 

 

ie.

Only "bottom dwellers" draft 1st overall.

Once you draft 1st overall, you abandon the need for mid-to-late round picks.

Once you draft 1st overall, you get obsessed with "potential".

etc, etc

 

The Oilers haven't been saved by Hall, RNH, and Yakupov but at the same time, had they drafted later in those years, they would've ended up with Neidereitter, Adam Larsson, and Griffin Reinhart.  They would be no better off.

 

So in other words, the problem with the Oilers goes deeper than drafting 1st overall, as many others have already pointed out.  And as I've repeated many times, let's not be the Oilers.  Let's do everything else right in addition to drafting 1st overall (or as high as possible).

 

--

 

And further to that.  Kehatch is right.  We don't need good players, we need great players.  In order to draft great players, we should aim to draft a high as possible, OR, draft anywhere in the 2003 draft... but it's not 2003 anymore.

[Lucid_Flame91]

Well People1 win's this thread now, just got schooled.

[Flyerfan52]

FF52, it's clear you have some stereotypes about 1st overall picks that you cannot let go of. 

 

ie.

Only "bottom dwellers" draft 1st overall.

Once you draft 1st overall, you abandon the need for mid-to-late round picks.

Once you draft 1st overall, you get obsessed with "potential".

etc, etc

 

--

 

And further to that.  Kehatch is right.  We don't need good players, we need great players.  In order to draft great players, we should aim to draft a high as possible, OR, draft anywhere in the 2003 draft... but it's not 2003 anymore.

BS.

You can't get the 1/1 without finishing bottom 5.

 

I stated what you do in the lower rounds & FA are as important or more so as having that 1/1 that you place so much importance on.

 

The "potential" remark I made was about posters that fear trading young players in case we miss out on another Brett Hull or Martin St. Louis. Heck, lets forego getting players for the now on the off chance all those young players become stars someday. The Flames haven't drafted 1/1 to date but some posters are obsessed with Baertschi & Gaudreau's "potential". If both reach what is hoped for we have 2 players that are talented but play small as top forwards. Remind you of another team?

 

Leaving out 2003 look @ 2006. Would you take Erik Johnson or Jordan Staal over Toews? Nicklas Backstrom, Frolik & Tlusty were the highest ranked Euros.

It's less about drafting high as it is drafting smart.

[kehatch]

BS.

You can't get the 1/1 without finishing bottom 5.

I stated what you do in the lower rounds & FA are as important or more so as having that 1/1 that you place so much importance on.

The "potential" remark I made was about posters that fear trading young players in case we miss out on another Brett Hull or Martin St. Louis. Heck, lets forego getting players for the now on the off chance all those young players become stars someday. The Flames haven't drafted 1/1 to date but some posters are obsessed with Baertschi & Gaudreau's "potential". If both reach what is hoped for we have 2 players that are talented but play small as top forwards. Remind you of another team?

Leaving out 2003 look @ 2006. Would you take Erik Johnson or Jordan Staal over Toews? Nicklas Backstrom, Frolik & Tlusty were the highest ranked Euros.

It's less about drafting high as it is drafting smart.

Actually every team that finishes out of the playoffs has a chance at the top pick. Regardless, you can draft smart or you can draft dumb no matter where you end up. But drafting smart when you pick first is an advantage because the other teams can't take the player you wanted.

I know you hate the idea of finishing last. I respect that. But picking first is an undeniable advantage.

[Kulstad]

I know you hate the idea of finishing last. I respect that. But picking first is an undeniable advantage.

 

There's no question that picking first is a huge advantage.  The question is: do you purposely tank (or support tanking) in order to gain that advantage?

[tmac70]

Getting your player doesn't guarantee jack. There are just as many clubs that have drafted high that have no results as there are clubs that have had results. The past 6 cup winners, with the exception of Detroit, drafted in the top 5. With in a span of 3 to 4 years won a cup. Everyone has touched on the simple fact as it isn't as simple as tanking for 1st overall, there are too many other factors in place to simple.

 

Even if clubs finish in the bottom you can't fix stupid. If top picks were a guarantee of immediate success, Edm, Islnaders, Florida, Columbus, Tor and Winnipeg a few seasons back would all be cup contenders. 

 

 

Actually every team that finishes out of the playoffs has a chance at the top pick. Regardless, you can draft smart or you can draft dumb no matter where you end up. But drafting smart when you pick first is an advantage because the other teams can't take the player you wanted.

I know you hate the idea of finishing last. I respect that. But picking first is an undeniable advantage.

[SheriforPM]

To me it's simple. I cheer for the Flames to win every single game. Right up to the very last minute of the season.

 

I agree with some about the lottery. Take the bottom 14 teams out of the playoffs, give each team a ping pong ball with a number on it.

 

One draw and that's where you pick. One through fourteen. Same with the top 16. This would eliminate losing for picks mentality and would give everyone a fair chance at a good pick.

 

So simple. I wonder why it hasn't been tried yet?

[travel_dude]

There's no question that picking first is a huge advantage.  The question is: do you purposely tank (or support tanking) in order to gain that advantage?

 

Tanking is an art that the Flames have never mastered.  It requires all or some of the following:

- having no players in a contract year, therefore nobody playing for a new contract

- the core players have to play just a bit off to appear to still be trying but not succeeding

- Management trades away viable players

- Coach and GM have an understanding that losses will not mean firing

- No prospects trying to show their value late in the year

 

If we didn't tank last year, I would not expect nor support tanking this year.  I'm glad that we have Monahan, as he is that big center that we have desired for years.  Is he better than Jones or MacKinnon or Barkov or Lindholm or Drouin?  Don't know yet, but he fits this team's needs.   

[The_People1]

BS.

You can't get the 1/1 without finishing bottom 5.

 

I stated what you do in the lower rounds & FA are as important or more so as having that 1/1 that you place so much importance on.

 

The "potential" remark I made was about posters that fear trading young players in case we miss out on another Brett Hull or Martin St. Louis. Heck, lets forego getting players for the now on the off chance all those young players become stars someday. The Flames haven't drafted 1/1 to date but some posters are obsessed with Baertschi & Gaudreau's "potential". If both reach what is hoped for we have 2 players that are talented but play small as top forwards. Remind you of another team?

 

Leaving out 2003 look @ 2006. Would you take Erik Johnson or Jordan Staal over Toews? Nicklas Backstrom, Frolik & Tlusty were the highest ranked Euros.

It's less about drafting high as it is drafting smart.

 

You are trying to turn this into a debate of:

 

Drafting High And Drafting Dumb

vs

Drafting Low And Drafting Smart

 

I am presenting the possibility of Drafting High And Drafting Smart.  Yet, for whatever reason, it's a notion that has been dismissed as BS and is not allowed to occur by your reasoning. 

 

 

Actually every team that finishes out of the playoffs has a chance at the top pick. Regardless, you can draft smart or you can draft dumb no matter where you end up. But drafting smart when you pick first is an advantage because the other teams can't take the player you wanted.

I know you hate the idea of finishing last. I respect that. But picking first is an undeniable advantage.

There's no question that picking first is a huge advantage.  The question is: do you purposely tank (or support tanking) in order to gain that advantage?

Getting your player doesn't guarantee jack.. 

 

The advantage of drafting higher is undeniable but there is an ethical conflict required to overcome in order to attain this advantage.  I feel we should do whatever it takes to have a better tomorrow.  Some aren't willing to cross that line to get that reward.

 

Some, like tmac, is trying to deny the advantage altogether and that's just wrong.

 

 

To me it's simple. I cheer for the Flames to win every single game. Right up to the very last minute of the season.

 

I agree with some about the lottery. Take the bottom 14 teams out of the playoffs, give each team a ping pong ball with a number on it.

 

One draw and that's where you pick. One through fourteen. Same with the top 16. This would eliminate losing for picks mentality and would give everyone a fair chance at a good pick.

 

So simple. I wonder why it hasn't been tried yet?

 

I think the league is not progressive enough.  The current draft system is based off ancient CBAs, no salary cap, no UFA, no RFA, and very low roster turnover.  With all these new tools available to GM's in today's hockey world, the advantage of drafting higher based off a poorer record should be eliminated.

 

Not sure what's taking so long for this to happen.

 

 

Tanking is an art that the Flames have never mastered.  It requires all or some of the following:

- having no players in a contract year, therefore nobody playing for a new contract

- the core players have to play just a bit off to appear to still be trying but not succeeding

- Management trades away viable players

- Coach and GM have an understanding that losses will not mean firing

- No prospects trying to show their value late in the year

 

If we didn't tank last year, I would not expect nor support tanking this year.  I'm glad that we have Monahan, as he is that big center that we have desired for years.  Is he better than Jones or MacKinnon or Barkov or Lindholm or Drouin?  Don't know yet, but he fits this team's needs.   

 

Had the Flames drafted 1st overall, they could've traded down to draft Monahan and gained additional assets.  Drafting 1st overall still has an advantage over not.

[cross16]

The NHL, as well as every major sport league that has a draft by the way, views the number one pick as a parity tool that's why they have not changed it. The NHL wants to achieve parity best they can so the best prospect goes to a bottom team to help them get better. You can talk about free agents and played movement but the reality is typically top players arnt interested in going to non winning teams so the draft provides a rebuilding platform to bring teams back to revelance and it's clearly working. Until players like Tavars, Stamkos, Toews, Kane went to their respective clubs there was little interest in good players going there and that has changed. It's a parity too and thus why the NHL won't change the lottery process and quite frankly they shouldn't have too. The process works just fine but it's fans and media that fabricate problems with it.

[kehatch]

Had the Flames drafted 1st overall, they could've traded down to draft Monahan and gained additional assets.  Drafting 1st overall still has an advantage over not.

 

Indeed.  The Flames offered three firsts, including the 6 overall, for the top pick.  Colorado turned them down because it wasn't enough.  We are all in agreement that intentionally tanking is the wrong thing to do.  I disagree with you in that I don't cheer for losses.  But to each his own.  But I don't get how anyone can defend that getting the 1st overall pick doesn't help the hockey club. 

[tmac70]

The advantage you speak of is only an advantage to those who know what to do with it. Show me with 100% accuracy that getting a #1 or #2 draft choice changed every teams movement in the standings. With every club that improves there is one that doesn't. 

 

 

 

 

 

You are trying to turn this into a debate of:

 

Drafting High And Drafting Dumb

vs

Drafting Low And Drafting Smart

 

I am presenting the possibility of Drafting High And Drafting Smart.  Yet, for whatever reason, it's a notion that has been dismissed as BS and is not allowed to occur by your reasoning. 

 

 

 

The advantage of drafting higher is undeniable but there is an ethical conflict required to overcome in order to attain this advantage.  I feel we should do whatever it takes to have a better tomorrow.  Some aren't willing to cross that line to get that reward.

 

Some, like tmac, is trying to deny the advantage altogether and that's just wrong.

 

 

 

I think the league is not progressive enough.  The current draft system is based off ancient CBAs, no salary cap, no UFA, no RFA, and very low roster turnover.  With all these new tools available to GM's in today's hockey world, the advantage of drafting higher based off a poorer record should be eliminated.

 

Not sure what's taking so long for this to happen.

 

 

 

Had the Flames drafted 1st overall, they could've traded down to draft Monahan and gained additional assets.  Drafting 1st overall still has an advantage over not.

[senor_incendiarse]

The process works just fine but it's fans and media that fabricate problems with it.

 

It's really just an illusion that people get that championship teams are built by one superstar, and the number 1 pick will take you straight to the cup.  Food for thought, since 1990 only 4 number 1's have won a cup, (Kane, Crosby, Fleury and Lecavalier).  

[The_People1]

The NHL, as well as every major sport league that has a draft by the way, views the number one pick as a parity tool that's why they have not changed it. The NHL wants to achieve parity best they can so the best prospect goes to a bottom team to help them get better. You can talk about free agents and played movement but the reality is typically top players arnt interested in going to non winning teams so the draft provides a rebuilding platform to bring teams back to revelance and it's clearly working. Until players like Tavars, Stamkos, Toews, Kane went to their respective clubs there was little interest in good players going there and that has changed. It's a parity too and thus why the NHL won't change the lottery process and quite frankly they shouldn't have too. The process works just fine but it's fans and media that fabricate problems with it.

 

The draft used to be the ONLY parity tool in the NHL.  With the introduction of the salary cap, RFA offer sheets, waivers, etc, the draft is not the only parity tool anymore and yet, the draft system has not curbed enough to adjust for this.  It should still be a parity tool but only for use amongst all teams who miss the playoffs, not curbed in favour of the team with the worst record.

 

Hypothetically speaking, if the draft was non-weighted amongst non-playoff teams, then the teams at the bottom will either dwell at the basement forever or, more likely, make use of the other tools available to them to improve.  They will scout better, draft better in the late rounds, etc.  Without the draft as a parity tool, teams will be adaptive.  They will actually not dwell in the basement like many would seem to think because after all, the 1st overall pick isn't as critical as drafting well in the late rounds and signing the right UFAs.  Right?

 

This should be the progression of pro sport leagues that have a draft along with a "properly" functioning salary cap.

[DirtyDeeds]

It's really just an illusion that people get that championship teams are built by one superstar, and the number 1 pick will take you straight to the cup.  Food for thought, since 1990 only 4 number 1's have won a cup, (Kane, Crosby, Fleury and Lecavalier).  

Food for thought indeed. Pretty terrible odds even after you have picked the #1 selection.

[jjgallow]

Thanks DD.

I would have prefered a simpler yes or no as while I type this it's 3 against tanking & 3 on the "it's not that simple" side. That choice is yes to tanking but has excuses. Excuses are usually made when someone fails.

 

I see it as a black & white question. Tank or no.

 

 

Really?  All black and white?

 

How about the options:

 

"Yes, as long as we don't get caught.   "

 

or,

 

"No!  I mean, Yes.  But don't tell anyone I said that.  Because I'm going to criticize the team for tanking Very harshly right up until the moment  we draft Monahan.  Then I'm going to buy his jersey and pass myself for an authentic fan that was there in the hard times."

 

or,

 

"Yes, but only if the Flames raise ticket prices at the same time, so that I can complain about it bitterly on internet forums, all while I'm financially supporting the practice in a big, big way"

 

or

 

"No!  Absolutely not.  But we should trade Cammy at the deadline.  It just makes sense.  You know..."

[tmac70]

Which was exactly my point to Peeps and Kehatch it isn't a guarantee. There are no proven results to show that it makes as big of an impact as they indicated. 

 

The YES vote is IMO an integrity issue. If a club for some reason trades UFA or makes a trade at the deadline isn't a matter of tanking as it is allowed by the rules to re position itself for next season. There is no proof that a club specifically mailed it in. Professional athletes, coaches GM owners play to win. 

 

Food for thought indeed. Pretty terrible odds even after you have picked the #1 selection.