SKscout Posted April 22, 2015 Report Share Posted April 22, 2015 Fixed ... FIXED!! No way man just look at the results and it's obvious that the draft lottery is horribly horribly broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKscout Posted April 22, 2015 Report Share Posted April 22, 2015 I think that EVERY team should have a shot. You get 1 ball per position in overall standings. first place team gets 1 ball. 2nd place gets 2 ... all the way down to 30th gets 30. Ends up being 465 balls in the mix and odds are 1 = 0.22% 2 = 0.43% 3 = 0.65% 4 = 0.86% 5 = 1.08% 6 = 1.29% etc 30 = 6.45% So yeah tanking really "ups the odds" but in reality they are fairly small regardless. Maybe even do the top 5 picks this way .... hell to be honest I would be happier if they just set the entire draft order this way but that's me. I get the idea that a bad team needs the help the most but when a team is consistently bad over an extended period of time it's just ruining the futures of players ending up there because the team can't manage itself properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABC923 Posted April 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 In some ways one could argue we would be better served by simply drafting in reverse order of where a team finishes. The lottery as it currently stands gives multiple bottom feeders a shot at winning the big one. But if the system only rewarded the worst of the worst, tanking would carry with it higher risk. You would look foolish if you tanked and didn't tank hard enough. But right now, if you suck and don't quite finish last, you can go to your fans and say 'well it's not like finishing last was a guarantee of first overall, we still have a chance of winning the lottery'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 In some ways one could argue we would be better served by simply drafting in reverse order of where a team finishes. The lottery as it currently stands gives multiple bottom feeders a shot at winning the big one. But if the system only rewarded the worst of the worst, tanking would carry with it higher risk. You would look foolish if you tanked and didn't tank hard enough. But right now, if you suck and don't quite finish last, you can go to your fans and say 'well it's not like finishing last was a guarantee of first overall, we still have a chance of winning the lottery'. That was the way it worked before the lottery. See Penguins for Lemieux or Sens for Daigle. Maybe rewarding the team that finished 17th OA missing the playoffs on the last day with the best odds could get teams to try all year long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameter Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 So what happens when a team tries but is legitimately the worst and can't ever finish more than last? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 So what happens when a team tries but is legitimately the worst and can't ever finish more than last? You name the team the Oilers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameter Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 The Oilers don't try Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 The lottery starting next year should work great. It strikes a good balance between improving poor teams and reducing the incentive to tank. The obvious addition is to add a rule that you don't qualify for a first overall pick if you have one in the previous three drafts. Having dour first overalls go to one team in six years sucks for everyone except for the team doing the winning. That's a lot of marketable high end players going to one team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmac70 Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 The lottery starting next year should work great. It strikes a good balance between improving poor teams and reducing the incentive to tank. The obvious addition is to add a rule that you don't qualify for a first overall pick if you have one in the previous three drafts. Having dour first overalls go to one team in six years sucks for everyone except for the team doing the winning. That's a lot of marketable high end players going to one team. I agree. Teams in a rebuild shroud, optimum word, improve a least 10% a year. With a increase every year of improvement . Never understood why the league kept feeding clubs that it was not the issue of drafting good players more than organization incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnrefinedCrude Posted April 26, 2015 Report Share Posted April 26, 2015 Really if McDavid does end up in EDM I will quit watching hockeyWow! You'll be missed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexDreki Posted April 28, 2015 Report Share Posted April 28, 2015 "Is the draft lottery fixed?" Nope it's broken hahahahaha. Don't worry guys.... I'll see myself out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKscout Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 So what happens when a team tries but is legitimately the worst and can't ever finish more than last? Completely moot point. Pre-salary cap yeah .. that poor team was eternally screwed. But in a post cap era with revenue sharing there is no reason why a team can't work it's way out of the basement without needing umpteen top picks short of inept management. The cap was there to level the player talent pool / playing field and I strongly believe it's working as intended. That does not mean that the draft should now be used to level the management playing field. If a team is legitimately the worst team in the NHL and can't find a way to build out of it then they need new people at the top not more guaranteed drafting. if anything you are simply punishing these promising players by forcing them into teams and systems that simply won't allow them to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 The cap was there to level the player talent pool / playing field and I strongly believe it's working as intended. That does not mean that the draft should now be used to level the management playing field. Agreed man. The argument against it is, "Oh no but the bad teams will never get out of the basement!" but no, why did they trade away all their best players at the trade deadline then? Hang onto their best players on trade deadline, sign UFAs in the summer, get better the next season. There should be no incentives to managerially tanking to the bottom of the league. I still believe all non-playoff teams should be put into a non-weighted lottery. One ball each in the jar and the entire first round seeding is set based the results of a draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted May 2, 2015 Report Share Posted May 2, 2015 Agreed man. The argument against it is, "Oh no but the bad teams will never get out of the basement!" but no, why did they trade away all their best players at the trade deadline then? Hang onto their best players on trade deadline, sign UFAs in the summer, get better the next season. There should be no incentives to managerially tanking to the bottom of the league. I still believe all non-playoff teams should be put into a non-weighted lottery. One ball each in the jar and the entire first round seeding is set based the results of a draw. Your idea is flawed because the Oilers would still find a way to win the lottery most years. Plus, allowing a great team like LA (2 SC in the past 3 yrs and a favorite to win it all next year) to have the same odds as the weaklings at acquiring a generational player is also wrong. The NHL is not far from perfecting this. The weighted system is fine and it favours the weakling as it should. Next year there are two lotteries for the first two picks, which is great. The only thing missing is the “Oiler Rule”. A team should only be allowed to have a 1/1 pick every X number of years. This is a no brainer, and I'd bet that it will be rubber stamped at the next GM meetings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKscout Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 Your idea is flawed because the Oilers would still find a way to win the lottery most years. Plus, allowing a great team like LA (2 SC in the past 3 yrs and a favorite to win it all next year) to have the same odds as the weaklings at acquiring a generational player is also wrong.... Why? Why is it wrong that LA, in a year that they miss the playoffs, not be allowed their shot. Let's pretend for a minute that LA landed McDavid they are not going to be able to keep the team they have AND him. They currently spend the second MOST in the NHL, they have all of what 4 million of cap space? Right there that "generational" talent is going to require them to make room on the team and it's probably a big name because dropping 3 or 4 "depth" players to make room isn't going to keep that team winning. You are going to need to drop Richards or Carter to make the room and that frees up a solid Centre for the rest of the league. Sure they upgraded down the middle but so will at least one more team out there. Having that same player show up on a crappy team that is not spending anywhere near the cap only has the potential to help that team, though in the Oilers case I feel it's more hurt McDavid. Personally I would be happy with a system that seeded the draft order completely (but lightly weighted) randomly. if the one that I proposed a page or so back isn't palatable then how about keeping it dead simple. 1 ball for everyone 1 extra ball for everyone who didn't win the Stanley cup 1 extra ball for everyone who didn't make the playoffs So that puts 73 balls in the mixer 1st place = 1.4% chance 1st overall 2nd - 16th = 1.9% chance 1st overall 17th - 30th = 4.1% chance 1st overall Again with the Cap in the mix the importance of 1st overall to make you team better is somewhat diminished. Even a good team getting a "generational" talent just means they need to move some of the pieces that made them good to afford it, in doing so they make available those same players for other teams to build with and make better. The crux of what I am saying is that bad teams can improve only themselves through the draft, good teams can improve themselves and other teams out there through the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 Your idea is flawed because the Oilers would still find a way to win the lottery most years. Plus, allowing a great team like LA (2 SC in the past 3 yrs and a favorite to win it all next year) to have the same odds as the weaklings at acquiring a generational player is also wrong. The NHL is not far from perfecting this. The weighted system is fine and it favours the weakling as it should. Next year there are two lotteries for the first two picks, which is great. The only thing missing is the “Oiler Rule”. A team should only be allowed to have a 1/1 pick every X number of years. This is a no brainer, and I'd bet that it will be rubber stamped at the next GM meetings. Why? Why is it wrong that LA, in a year that they miss the playoffs, not be allowed their shot. Every team that misses the playoffs deserves a fair chance to improve their team for the following season because every team that misses the playoffs aren't good enough to compete for the Cup. It doesn't matter if your team has won the Cup 2 times in the last 3 years or 0 times in franchise history. If you miss the playoffs, then it means you suck and you need to improve your team. Instead of rewarding teams that tank, (a.k.a. trade away their best players at the trade deadline for draft picks and slide down the standings), let's reward teams that win down the stretch. Let's make the draft unweighted for all teams that misses the playoffs. 1 ball each in the jar. This is the ultimate weapon against tanking. Bad teams can still improve via UFA and should have cap room to make trades with teams struggling to stay under the cap. The entry draft is no longer the only route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 UFA is not as valuable too as you think Peeps, especially now considering that NHL has allowed teams to sign their own player for longer term as they could get as a UFA. not to mention you have the problem in markets like Edmonton for example that are going to struggle to attract FA. Take a look at some o the top UFA options this year Mike Green Michael Frolik Cody Franson St Louis horcoff Gonchar Erat Mezaros Vermette not a very attractive group and hats is suppose to now become a bigger tool for building your team? Better yet let's take a look at the top 10 scorers and see how they were acquired: Benn - Draft but a late round pick Tavares - 2nd overal Crosby - 1st overal Ovechkin - 1st overal voracek - Top 10 pick Backstrom - top 3 Segin - Trade Hudler - UFA Sedin - draft Tarasenko - draft Foilgno - trade Girou - draft Sedin - draft Stamkos - draft You draft is always going to be your best resource to get the top end talent and that's why there is so much emphasis on it. That's not going to change because if you have truly elite players they don't leave their organizations until they are no longer elite so I don't agree that we don't need the draft to be so important because we have UFA and trades. Of course it is not the only route but it is by far the best route. As I have said before I don't think tanking is as big a deal as people think. yes it was this year because of the talent level of McDavid, but in all others years I firmly believe the penalties for tanking outweigh the positive and the Oilers are a prime example of that. Save for getting lucky in the McDavid lottery they tanked for years and have very little to show for it and have done a great deal of harm to their franchise so outside of a generational player I say let teams tank if they want because they are likely going to learn the hard way that tanking is very problematic. I do believe though that now the NHL has taken good steps to remove the incentive and I've always thought that was the model to go with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senor_incendiarse Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 Instead of rewarding teams that tank, (a.k.a. trade away their best players at the trade deadline for draft picks and slide down the standings), let's reward teams that win down the stretch. Let's make the draft unweighted for all teams that misses the playoffs. 1 ball each in the jar. This is the ultimate weapon against tanking. Bad teams can still improve via UFA and should have cap room to make trades with teams struggling to stay under the cap. The entry draft is no longer the only route. Why should teams feel the urge to hold onto players that will walk in free agency just so people don't view it as a tank. Buffalo a year ago wasn't winning games with Miller or Vanek, same with Phoenix this year. Its not really all about trading to improve draft position, but to collect the assets to help aid the rebuild, take the '04 Capitals for example, sure won the lottery and Ovechkin, but Ovechkin can score 50 goals and the team can still be brutal (Stamkos as well), nearing the deadline they turned Gonchar into Schultz and Morrison, Lang into Fleischmann and Green, and Bondra into Laich. Some decent moves that in the end I believe helped turn that team around. The only way I'd see teams be alright with holding on to pending UFA's is if compensatory picks were brought in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 Why? Why is it wrong that LA, in a year that they miss the playoffs, not be allowed their shot. Let's pretend for a minute that LA landed McDavid they are not going to be able to keep the team they have AND him. They currently spend the second MOST in the NHL, they have all of what 4 million of cap space? Right there that "generational" talent is going to require them to make room on the team and it's probably a big name because dropping 3 or 4 "depth" players to make room isn't going to keep that team winning. You are going to need to drop Richards or Carter to make the room and that frees up a solid Centre for the rest of the league. Sure they upgraded down the middle but so will at least one more team out there. Every team that misses the playoffs deserves a fair chance to improve their team for the following season because every team that misses the playoffs aren't good enough to compete for the Cup. It doesn't matter if your team has won the Cup 2 times in the last 3 years or 0 times in franchise history. If you miss the playoffs, then it means you suck and you need to improve your team. Instead of rewarding teams that tank, (a.k.a. trade away their best players at the trade deadline for draft picks and slide down the standings), let's reward teams that win down the stretch. Let's make the draft unweighted for all teams that misses the playoffs. 1 ball each in the jar. This is the ultimate weapon against tanking. Bad teams can still improve via UFA and should have cap room to make trades with teams struggling to stay under the cap. The entry draft is no longer the only route. LA did not miss the playoffs this year because they are a weak team, they missed because of the excess hockey they have played going deep into the playoffs over the last 3 years. They're tired plus they lost their urgency this year, then ran out of time to qualify. ----------- LA will be back next year and will be a legitimate threat. McDavid on their team would cost them next to nothing in the first 3 years of his ELC. They could have another 3 SC’s by the time McDavid got paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 There is a big difference between Arizona and Buffalo compared to teams like Boston and LA. The former are at the bottom end of a rebuild and aren't close to the playoffs. The latter two are teams that normally go deep in the playoffs and have won a cup recently. The lottery should favor the former teams over the latter teams. At least if we want parity in our league. I have two issues. One, Buffalo tanked. They clearly attempted to be as bad as they could be for two straight seasons trying to get the top draft pick. Two, Edmonton should be contending for a playoff spot and finishing in the 10 to 20 range. They have had every opportunity to get better. This is no longer an issue of parity. Its an issue of incompetence. I don't like to see incompetence rewarded. I think the changes to the draft lottery starting next season will curb the first issue a bit. Now the worst team is guaranteed no better then the 6 overall pick. I would like to see the curb level off even more between the bottom 5 teams. But this is a good start. The second issue isn't being addressed though. There needs to be some sort of scale so teams that have won the lottery previously can't keep winning it. There are a dozen ways you could set that up. But they need to do something. Edmonton shouldn't have qualified for this seasons draft lottery. Or if they did their chances should have been weighted lower due to the previous wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 The system is not working very well. It needs to be "Fixed". I don't see the latest changes including next year, changing much or enough. It appears the NHL wants to change by baby steps instead of reactionary changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 You draft is always going to be your best resource to get the top end talent and that's why there is so much emphasis on it. As I have said before I don't think tanking is as big a deal as people think. The entry draft is a best enough resource for top end talent that tanking is a big deal. Just simply ask, if this year's lottery is non-weighted, then how would the Sabres look to end this season? The simple fact that the league has adopted a lottery means it's a big deal by default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 The system is not working very well. It needs to be "Fixed". I don't see the latest changes including next year, changing much or enough. It appears the NHL wants to change by baby steps instead of reactionary changes. That is how you change big systems though. Too much change and there is unintended consequence that you can't troubleshoot because it's tough to figure out which change caused which problem. They took a big step this draft. They are taking another next draft. We will see where the chips fall after that. I would also argue that the change is already having an impact. The only team to legitimately tank this season was Buffalo. Arizona didn't have a choice. Edmonton and Toronto both tried to make the playoffs but failed due to sheer incompetence. Carolina was the next worse team and they had over 70 points. Heck, all but two teams in the west were next deep in the playoff race. Edmonton winning is terrible. But I don't think the draft lottery is as broken as some are making it out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 It's like saying the salary cap is unnecessary because teams who horded high end expensive players never won Cups. i.e. Leafs, Rangers, Flyers, etc. But we knew it was a problem and now that it's been fixed, the league is better for it. Teams who tank don't win Cups, like the Oilers. So therefore there's no problem with tanking? Wrong. It's just so incorrect. I think everyone will be amazed at how much more competitive the league would become if there was a non-weighted draft lottery. Absolutely zero incentives to drop any games down the stretch. Just think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 I don't agree Peeps. If the team that wins the cup had the same chance to win McDavid as the teams that aren't close you aren't promoting parity. Also, as I said above it is working. You are trying to solve a problem that isn't there. Or that isn't as big as you are making it out to be. One team intentionally tanked this season. 80 percent if the teams were in the playoff race. Most teams are like the Flames. Competitive with a few high draft picks that were naturally acquired. The new lottery reduces the tank incentive while still giving rebuilding teams access the draft picks they need to turn things around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.