Proposed Two-tiered Draft Lottery System

[B21]

 There is one big problem with that line of thinking. When you have those "special" once in a decade players, usually refered to as "generational" players....guys like Crosby, Stamkos, McDavid etc...if the wrong team gets a hold of one of those great youngsters, it can *greatly* upset the balance of power in the league. For instance, if the Penguins, Ducks etc get their hands on McDavid (which is much more likely under this two tiered system being discussed), they would be very, very hard to beat. It would create an unfair advantage over other top contenders.

 

 That's not the only big negative, a struggling franchise like the Panthers, Canes etc could be saved by the increased attendance associated with a young superstar. Plus, teams that are mid range draws on the road, would draw more crowds when a previously mediocre team comes to town with the new superstar. A lot of negatives, not many positives in this proposal.

 

I have two perfect example that fit your argument.  Not NHL but still...

 

Andrew Luck.

 

Tim Duncan.

 

The Colts were awful the year Manning was injured and ended up being able to draft Luck #1 overall who is on his way (along with Aaron Rodgers) to succeeding Manning and Brady as one of the top 2 QB's in the leage.

 

The Spurs had an off year in 1996-97 due to injuries and ended up being able to draft Tim Duncan #1 overall who became one of the best players in NBA history and led the Spurs to 5 NBA titles in 15 years.

 

Those teams had awful years due to injuries to key players (Manning in Indy and David Robinson in San Antonio) but they were otherwise good teams already that had down years. 

 

Perfect example of what can happen if you give good teams a real chance at the #1 overall pick. Neither the Colts nor the Spurs experienced the usual "off" years teams see when a generational talent's career ends.

[WordsOfWisdom]

I have two perfect example that fit your argument.  Not NHL but still...

 

Andrew Luck.

 

Tim Duncan.

 

The Colts were awful the year Manning was injured and ended up being able to draft Luck #1 overall who is on his way (along with Aaron Rodgers) to succeeding Manning and Brady as one of the top 2 QB's in the leage.

 

The Spurs had an off year in 1996-97 due to injuries and ended up being able to draft Tim Duncan #1 overall who became one of the best players in NBA history and led the Spurs to 5 NBA titles in 15 years.

 

Those teams had awful years due to injuries to key players (Manning in Indy and David Robinson in San Antonio) but they were otherwise good teams already that had down years. 

 

Perfect example of what can happen if you give good teams a real chance at the #1 overall pick. Neither the Colts nor the Spurs experienced the usual "off" years teams see when a generational talent's career ends.

 

Okay so what do you think of my tweak? 

 

Teams 17-30 will draft #1-14, then the playoff based teams will begin drafting from #15 to 30.

• Every non-playoff team would have equal odds of drafting any spot between 1-14.
• Every playoff team would have equal odds of drafting any spot between 15-30.

It's still a two tiered system, and it still eliminates tanking, but now your concern about a good team getting a top draft pick is solved.

 

I can come up with a million different draft systems, but none of them will ever give the last place team better odds of getting the #1 pick because it's the "loser point" all over again. I refuse to reward losing. 

[B21]

Okay so what do you think of my tweak? 

 

Teams 17-30 will draft #1-14, then the playoff based teams will begin drafting from #15 to 30.

• Every non-playoff team would have equal odds of drafting any spot between 1-14.
• Every playoff team would have equal odds of drafting any spot between 15-30.

It's still a two tiered system, and it still eliminates tanking, but now your concern about a good team getting a top draft pick is solved.

 

I can come up with a million different draft systems, but none of them will ever give the last place team better odds of getting the #1 pick because it's the "loser point" all over again. I refuse to reward losing. 

 

Negative for me.  I like a weighted system based on the standings (for lotter teams) and playoff results for everyone else.  No proble tweaking the odds but the worst team should have some edge over the 2nd worst team.

 

I see where you are coming from but to me you are tying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

[WordsOfWisdom]

Negative for me.  I like a weighted system based on the standings (for lotter teams) and playoff results for everyone else.  No proble tweaking the odds but the worst team should have some edge over the 2nd worst team.

 

I see where you are coming from but to me you are tying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

 

Here's a question: From a philosophical point of view, why do you feel that the last place team needs to have the best odds? 

 

(I realize most people share your view. I'm just curious as to where that opinion comes from and how you arrive at that conclusion.) 

 

I'm a firm believer that tanking does exist in pro sports. I think the fact that a term exists for it is already solid proof, but you mentioned that it has happened before. I think it still does in some form or fashion, although nobody would ever admit to it. (No team can ever admit that they're tanking because it violates league fair competition rules.) The problem the league has is that they can't prove it if/when a team tanks.

 

Here's another question: How do you know if a team is tanking (assuming they don't admit to it)?

 

If a non-playoff team loses its last 10 games of the season, were they tanking? There are people that will always say that the last place team is simply a "bad" team. That they never intend to tank. So when does that reasoning vanish? If a team loses it's final 20 games of the season, did they tank? 30 games? 40 games? Is there a number where it becomes tanking?

 

Hypothetical scenario that could unfold this season: Toronto is battling for the last playoff spot in the East. They have one game left. Win and they're in, lose and they're out. They play Montreal. Detroit (also battling for the last playoff spot in the East) is tied with Toronto in the standings with one game left. They play Carolina. Carolina and Buffalo each have one game left in the season and are tied for last overall in points. Buffalo gets a point in their final game. Now the stage is set. If Carolina loses, they finish 30th overall. If they win, they finish 29th. The difference in McDavid odds is almost 10% between 29th and 30th. What are the odds that Carolina beats Detroit? How hard do they try to win that game?

[B21]

Here's a question: From a philosophical point of view, why do you feel that the last place team needs to have the best odds?

 

Because it's fair. It's not philosophical for me because I don't see the last place team having that "big" of an advantage over the next-to-last-place team. This year for the 3 worst teams the odds (roughly) are 5:1, 7:1 and 8:1 for getting the top pick.  It's a slight advantage for the worst team over the next worst team and so-on until you get to the "best" team that misses the playoffs. That team should have no where near the same odds as the worst team.

 

How do you know if a team is tanking (assuming they don't admit to it)?

 

If a team is really tanking - it's obvious. Like the Pens sending down legit NHL players and calling up career minor leaguers towards the end of the 83-84 season as well as trading away what little talent they had.  On the flip-side, what Buffalo is doing this year is not tanking. It's a total tear down and rebuild and maybe (because the odds aren't "that" great) they end up with the top pick.  They know they will get a high pick which is not the same as tanking. It's a realistic approach to what was once a dire situation. Teams are not obligated to "win" every year. Teams are obligated to win as many championships as possible and that sometimes means rebuilding. The Leafs and Flyers should really try this...and most Flyers would agree.

 

 

Hypothetical scenario that could unfold this season: Toronto is battling for the last playoff spot in the East. They have one game left. Win and they're in, lose and they're out. They play Montreal. Detroit (also battling for the last playoff spot in the East) is tied with Toronto in the standings with one game left. They play Carolina. Carolina and Buffalo each have one game left in the season and are tied for last overall in points. Buffalo gets a point in their final game. Now the stage is set. If Carolina loses, they finish 30th overall. If they win, they finish 29th. The difference in McDavid odds is almost 10% between 29th and 30th. What are the odds that Carolina beats Detroit? How hard do they try to win that game?

 

My first thought - what does the rest of that scenario have to do with Toronto? Win and your in, right? So who cares if Carolina "tanks" against Detroit. All Toronto needs to do is win.  If that situation were reversed, shame on Toronto for putting themselves in a spot where they do not control their own destiny.

 

And (using your scenario) - if you are Toronto and are average enough to need to win to sneak into the playoffs on the last day (and get beat down by the #1 seed), what's to keep them from tanking to have an equal shot at the #1 pick at teams who are far far worse? 

[AJgoal]

Here's a question: From a philosophical point of view, why do you feel that the last place team needs to have the best odds? 

 

(I realize most people share your view. I'm just curious as to where that opinion comes from and how you arrive at that conclusion.) 

 

I'm a firm believer that tanking does exist in pro sports. I think the fact that a term exists for it is already solid proof, but you mentioned that it has happened before. I think it still does in some form or fashion, although nobody would ever admit to it. (No team can ever admit that they're tanking because it violates league fair competition rules.) The problem the league has is that they can't prove it if/when a team tanks.

 

Here's another question: How do you know if a team is tanking (assuming they don't admit to it)?

 

If a non-playoff team loses its last 10 games of the season, were they tanking? There are people that will always say that the last place team is simply a "bad" team. That they never intend to tank. So when does that reasoning vanish? If a team loses it's final 20 games of the season, did they tank? 30 games? 40 games? Is there a number where it becomes tanking?

 

Hypothetical scenario that could unfold this season: Toronto is battling for the last playoff spot in the East. They have one game left. Win and they're in, lose and they're out. They play Montreal. Detroit (also battling for the last playoff spot in the East) is tied with Toronto in the standings with one game left. They play Carolina. Carolina and Buffalo each have one game left in the season and are tied for last overall in points. Buffalo gets a point in their final game. Now the stage is set. If Carolina loses, they finish 30th overall. If they win, they finish 29th. The difference in McDavid odds is almost 10% between 29th and 30th. What are the odds that Carolina beats Detroit? How hard do they try to win that game?

 

First, saying that the chance is almost 10% is fairly disingenuous, as it's 6.5%, which is more than twice as far from 10% as it is from 5%. Secondly, players aren't going to go out there and not try to win a game for draft position, as you imply. They just won't, it's not in the nature of most athletes who have gotten to that level. Those that don't give 100% game in and game out aren't doing it regardless of where the team is in the standings. And with one game to go, there's not much a team's management staff can do to "tank." They can't call up a bunch of AHL guys to play that game, they can only switch out three players at most. Maybe go with their backup goalie, but Khodubin's only good for one goal more per 100 shots against, so that's not a significant downgrade. An NHL team simply can't "tank" one game, especially not at the end of the season. In order to tank, Carolina would have to trade players, call up AHLers to replace them, and generally have a bad team. You can't do that with one game left in the season.

[WordsOfWisdom]

Because it's fair. It's not philosophical for me because I don't see the last place team having that "big" of an advantage over the next-to-last-place team. This year for the 3 worst teams the odds (roughly) are 5:1, 7:1 and 8:1 for getting the top pick.  It's a slight advantage for the worst team over the next worst team and so-on until you get to the "best" team that misses the playoffs. That team should have no where near the same odds as the worst team.

 

To whom?  The last place team yes, but not to the teams that fought hard for a playoff spot and just missed. You don't earn any playoff revenue unless you get in. The message that sends is:

 

"If you're going to go for it, go for it, but if you don't think you can make the playoffs, then aim for the bottom. There's no point in finishing in the middle. Either be really good or really bad."

 

It sort of runs contrary to the parity that the NHL wants. Parity means lots of teams in the middle. (Teams that are roughly equal in strength.) The current draft system encourages a wide gap between the top and bottom teams. The top teams load up for the Cup while the bottom teams trade away any remaining talent they have to try and finish 30th. It's as though the current points system and the current draft system are at odds. 

 

Also, if you give the last place team the best chance of getting the #1 pick, can you see how someone could interpret that to be the same thing as a reward for losing? Example: If the NHL were a school class with 30 students, then the 16 students with the highest marks in the class would get a reward, but the student with the lowest mark in the class would also get a reward. Everyone else would get nothing. Does that seem right to you?

 

• Under the current scenario, 17 teams win, 13 teams lose.
• Under my proposed scenario, 30 teams win.

 

(I need to learn how to multi-quote.) 

[WordsOfWisdom]

First, saying that the chance is almost 10% is fairly disingenuous, as it's 6.5%, which is more than twice as far from 10% as it is from 5%. Secondly, players aren't going to go out there and not try to win a game for draft position, as you imply. They just won't, it's not in the nature of most athletes who have gotten to that level. Those that don't give 100% game in and game out aren't doing it regardless of where the team is in the standings. And with one game to go, there's not much a team's management staff can do to "tank." They can't call up a bunch of AHL guys to play that game, they can only switch out three players at most. Maybe go with their backup goalie, but Khodubin's only good for one goal more per 100 shots against, so that's not a significant downgrade. An NHL team simply can't "tank" one game, especially not at the end of the season. In order to tank, Carolina would have to trade players, call up AHLers to replace them, and generally have a bad team. You can't do that with one game left in the season.

 

What if management has a closed door meeting with the players prior to the game that goes something like this:

 

"As you all know, the season is lost. We have a chance to finish 30th overall and get McDavid. Short term pain for long term gain. Make it look good tonight boys, but I don't want us to come away with any points."

 

[B21]

To whom? The last place team yes, but not to the teams that fought hard for a playoff spot and just missed. You don't earn any playoff revenue unless you get in. The message that sends is:

"If you're going to go for it, go for it, but if you don't think you can make the playoffs, then aim for the bottom. There's no point in finishing in the middle. Either be really good or really bad."

It sort of runs contrary to the parity that the NHL wants. Parity means lots of teams in the middle. (Teams that are roughly equal in strength.) The current draft system encourages a wide gap between the top and bottom teams. The top teams load up for the Cup while the bottom teams trade away any remaining talent they have to try and finish 30th. It's as though the current points system and the current draft system are at odds.

 

So why have a trade deadline then? If you are bad team, isn't trading away a star player in the final year of his contract "tanking"?  Using your rationale, everyone should be forced to keep the players they start the season with only finding replacements via their minor league system. At some point in the season (might as well use the trade deadline) every team has to decide - can I make the playoffs or not? If I can, what are my chances? At least 20 of the league's 30 teams are still in contention at that point.  Usually more. Those bottom feeders aren't trading away that talent for nothing. They usually get picks and/or prospects back in an effort to have a better team in the future.

 

 

 

Also, if you give the last place team the best chance of getting the #1 pick, can you see how someone could interpret that to be the same thing as a reward for losing? Example: If the NHL were a school class with 30 students, then the 16 students with the highest marks in the class would get a reward, but the student with the lowest mark in the class would also get a reward. Everyone else would get nothing. Does that seem right to you?

Under the current scenario, 17 teams win, 13 teams lose.

Under my proposed scenario, 30 teams win.

 

That analogy is way out of left field. Comparing education to the NHL Draft Lottery??

 

Under your proposed "scenario" the teams who would normally have the better odds at the #1 pick lose because those odds just became equal to the teams that are already good.

 

Look at it from a fan's point of view.  If your team is in the playoffs, you are  "happy". If they are not, you are "sad". But you have a chance at the #1 pick; a good chance if your team is really bad. "Happy" again.

 

It's a weighted scale. It's fair.  It gives the worst teams the best chances at improving without a "guarantee".

[WordsOfWisdom]

So why have a trade deadline then? If you are bad team, isn't trading away a star player in the final year of his contract "tanking"?  Using your rationale, everyone should be forced to keep the players they start the season with only finding replacements via their minor league system. At some point in the season (might as well use the trade deadline) every team has to decide - can I make the playoffs or not? If I can, what are my chances? At least 20 of the league's 30 teams are still in contention at that point.  Usually more. Those bottom feeders aren't trading away that talent for nothing. They usually get picks and/or prospects back in an effort to have a better team in the future.

 

 

 

 

That analogy is way out of left field. Comparing education to the NHL Draft Lottery??

 

Under your proposed "scenario" the teams who would normally have the better odds at the #1 pick lose because those odds just became equal to the teams that are already good.

 

Look at it from a fan's point of view.  If your team is in the playoffs, you are  "happy". If they are not, you are "sad". But you have a chance at the #1 pick; a good chance if your team is really bad. "Happy" again.

 

It's a weighted scale. It's fair.  It gives the worst teams the best chances at improving without a "guarantee".

 

Re: Trade deadline.  When a team throws in the towel late in the season by trading away top talent to a top team, it is a form of tanking to me yes. It also means that good players always have a lifeboat waiting for them when the ship sinks, so they quit on their team partway through the season when things aren't working out good and just wait for the inevitable trade. So it's kind of bad for both reasons.   I don't mind those sorts of trades provided that there's no advantage to finishing last.

 

Re: Draft. I'd actually rather flip the current draft lottery percentages upside down so that the team with the most points that doesn't make the playoffs should have the highest chance of getting the #1 pick! That's a genuine reward (consolation prize) for narrowly missing out on the playoffs but at least making the effort to try and get in. That gets the middle teams over the hump. That way it sends a clear message: "Always try to win and you will be rewarded. Tank, and you will always lose." It would also mean that team building strategy would involve more than just finishing 30th for five consecutive years and collecting #1 picks.

[flyercanuck]

Re: Trade deadline.  When a team throws in the towel late in the season by trading away top talent to a top team, it is a form of tanking to me yes. It also means that good players always have a lifeboat waiting for them when the ship sinks, so they quit on their team partway through the season when things aren't working out good and just wait for the inevitable trade. So it's kind of bad for both reasons.   I don't mind those sorts of trades provided that there's no advantage to finishing last.

 

Re: Draft. I'd actually rather flip the current draft lottery percentages upside down so that the team with the most points that doesn't make the playoffs should have the highest chance of getting the #1 pick! That's a genuine reward (consolation prize) for narrowly missing out on the playoffs but at least making the effort to try and get in. That gets the middle teams over the hump. That way it sends a clear message: "Always try to win and you will be rewarded. Tank, and you will always lose." It would also mean that team building strategy would involve more than just finishing 30th for five consecutive years and collecting #1 picks.

 

 

I think they should ban the team that charges the most for tickets, sells the most merchandise, sells out all their games yet never gives their loyal fans a product worth watching, from ever winning the lotttery. Whoever that team may be. 

[AJgoal]

So, the solution is that you make it harder for bad teams to get better in order to prevent something that's not really an issue? How about we just eliminate the first round draft pick for the worst overall team? THAT will teach them not to tank.

[WordsOfWisdom]

I think they should ban the team that charges the most for tickets, sells the most merchandise, sells out all their games yet never gives their loyal fans a product worth watching, from ever winning the lotttery. Whoever that team may be. 

 

ROFL. 

[WordsOfWisdom]

So, the solution is that you make it harder for bad teams to get better in order to prevent something that's not really an issue? How about we just eliminate the first round draft pick for the worst overall team? THAT will teach them not to tank.

 

I'd be in favour of sending the 30th place NHL team to the AHL and replacing them with the championship winning AHL team! That way teams have to earn their way into the NHL (just like the players) and they have to compete to stay there. 

 

Being serious though, I don't think there's much separating a 17th place team from a 30th place team. You don't need a #1 overall draft pick to get better. But if you think about it, the current NHL team building model is to bottom out (finish 30th many times), grab up #1 draft picks until you land a franchise player or two, then build towards a Stanley Cup. And then watch the team get dismantled due to cap issues. The teams in the middle of the standings can't get better. They're stuck.

 

Why not have it be: Build your way up to being a somewhat competitive team, then land some key top draft picks that develop with your team and help put you over the top? Why does an 18-year old rookie have to be the #1 player on a 30th place team when he could be the #2, #3, #4, or #5 player on a somewhat decent team and grow into the role of being #1 by learning from veterans how to play the game -- eventually usurping them?

 

I'd like to see a #1 draft pick be a padwon learner rather than a Jedi knight on their first game in the NHL. To me, a rookie should never be expected to carry a franchise.

[flyercanuck]

@WordsOfWisdom

 

Thought you'd like that.

[B21]

Re: Trade deadline.  When a team throws in the towel late in the season by trading away top talent to a top team, it is a form of tanking to me yes. It also means that good players always have a lifeboat waiting for them when the ship sinks, so they quit on their team partway through the season when things aren't working out good and just wait for the inevitable trade. So it's kind of bad for both reasons.   I don't mind those sorts of trades provided that there's no advantage to finishing last.

 

Not tanking at all.  If it is a player not coming back (F/A at the end of the season) why not trade them for something??  If a GM knows the team is a few years away, why not trade them for something??  Also, not all good players on bad teams get traded away. And again - the "advantage" for finishing last is minimal.

 

Re: Draft. I'd actually rather flip the current draft lottery percentages upside down so that the team with the most points that doesn't make the playoffs should have the highest chance of getting the #1 pick! That's a genuine reward (consolation prize) for narrowly missing out on the playoffs but at least making the effort to try and get in. That gets the middle teams over the hump. That way it sends a clear message: "Always try to win and you will be rewarded. Tank, and you will always lose." It would also mean that team building strategy would involve more than just finishing 30th for five consecutive years and collecting #1 picks.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.  It's clear your stance on this is a tad bit jaded by the Leafs simply not sucking enough to land the #1 overall pick.  

[WordsOfWisdom]

We'll have to agree to disagree. It's clear your stance on this is a tad bit jaded by the Leafs simply not sucking enough to land the #1 overall pick.

I love agreeing to disagree!

Yes, I do believe the Leafs should have received something for finishing 9th place about eight years in a row. I blame Bettman.

It's all a matter of principle to me. If you stack the 9th place teams with #1 draft picks, they get over the hump and challenge for a Stanley Cup as opposed to plateauing in that murky middle area where you can't move up or down because the last place team keeps landing franchise players and you watch them sail past you in the standings a few years down the road. It seems that you have to move down before you can move up in the NHL standings. Teams can't seem to go up from the middle. But I digress...