WordsOfWisdom Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 The issue of "tanking" never seems to go anywhere because as soon as you say "tanking", someone replies with "you can't prove that team X was trying to lose". Then the argument is over and the status quo remains. (And I have to make this face.) When most people (like myself) talk about the problem of tanking in the NHL, what we're really talking about how the NHL "rewards/helps teams that lose" (whether intentionally or unintentionally). So the notion of "tanking" is a side issue, and actually isn't at all relevant to the larger discussion. Even if all 30 teams tried their best to win every year, and even if I believed that every player, owner, and GM has flawless integrity and would never lose on purpose, the current draft system is still broken IMHO. I've made a variety of suggestions. Here are a bunch. Any of them are better than what is in place now. (Better = A more fair, more foolproof, and more balanced system where nobody could cheat the system even if they wanted to, and where teams can't stack #1 picks by finishing 30th every year. ie: Edmonton.) Equal draft odds to all non-playoff teams. Round-robin draft system. (A 30-year 1st overall pick draft rotation. Every 30 years your team is guaranteed the #1 pick and can plan in advance for it.) A draft limit system. (As soon as your team gets the #1 overall pick once, you can't get another #1 pick for a period of FIVE YEARS.) Highest team winning percentage among NON-PLAYOFF teams AFTER the TRADE DEADLINE. (Rewards the non-playoff team that works the hardest in March and April.) And now I promise never to mention "tanking" again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Common sense would say that the worst teams in the league should be able to draft the best young players so that they will, in time, no longer be the worst teams. The NFL, NBA, and MLB all do it that way, why should the NHL be any different? I think you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I try not to complain about threads, but honestly, do we really need a new thread about this same thing once a month? If you want the bad teams to ever have a shot, they have to have the best chance at the top talent. The system isn't broken, it will be less broken next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I like the change in the rules that come next year the top 3 picks will be part of the lottery....i wish it was the top 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 They could go with a system where the #1 pick goes to the team with the most points after they're eliminated from participating in the playoffs. Teams eliminated the earliest still have a chance to get the #1 pick, but they'll have to earn it rather than have their GMs engineer losses by clearing the roster of anybody that can remotely make/take a pass or a save. It would de-incentivize losing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 They could go with a system where the #1 pick goes to the team with the most points after they're eliminated from participating in the playoffs. Teams eliminated the earliest still have a chance to get the #1 pick, but they'll have to earn it rather than have their GMs engineer losses by clearing the roster of anybody that can remotely make/take a pass or a save. It would de-incentivize losing. we've covered that bud... so mediocre teams excel and the gap between the good and the bad only widens. The system isn't broken. People just hate that their teams stay in mediocrity for too long, but that's also partly the result of teams living in the present and not doing what it takes at the trade deadline to better prepare themselves for the future. My team has two major eras of pure stink. But I thank the people calling the shots for knowing when to say screw this season let's build a future when the time was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 we've covered that bud... so mediocre teams excel and the gap between the good and the bad only widens.Not really. Borderline teams eliminated in the last few days wouldn't have the head start in games that the basement dwellars have had, and if teams weren't trying to throw the remained of the season by ditching qualified players, they could do even better. The system isn't broken. People just hate that their teams stay in mediocrity for too long, but that's also partly the result of teams living in the present and not doing what it takes at the trade deadline to better prepare themselves for the future. My team has two major eras of pure stink. But I thank the people calling the shots for knowing when to say screw this season let's build a future when the time was right.I don't know if the system is broken, but something doesn't seem right when the home crowd cheers for losses that cement 30th place; doesn't seem to be a good thing for the integrity of the league. Also: Win% Before and After Being Eliminated:MLB 47.26%, 46.25%: -2.14%NFL 39.09%, 36.72% -6.06%NBA 37.43%, 32.35% -13.57%NHL 43.2%, 36.38% -15.79% There must be something at least a little bit off when other NA major league sports perform pretty closely to their established record even after they've been eliminated, but NHL fall so far off that number. Once it reaches that point, a certain number of those teams switch to "lose now" mode, and I don't think that should be the idea behind pro sports. And, oh my goodness, I would so much prefer to watch teams actually try to win games down the stretch rather than what we're treated to as the season progresses. It much more closely follows what should be the goal of a team: to actually win some ******* hockey games. EDIT - did some looking, and somebody already came up with such an idea:http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=5496 Anyway, I'm not going to around on this one too much. The topic comes up far too often to do that, and I also don't think it's the end of the world either. The league has bigger problems they could fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Not really. Borderline teams eliminated in the last few days wouldn't have the head start in games that the basement dwellars have had, and if teams weren't trying to throw the remained of the season by ditching qualified players, they could do even better. I don't know if the system is broken, but something doesn't seem right when the home crowd cheers for losses that cement 30th place; doesn't seem to be a good thing for the integrity of the league. Also: Win% Before and After Being Eliminated:MLB 47.26%, 46.25%: -2.14%NFL 39.09%, 36.72% -6.06%NBA 37.43%, 32.35% -13.57%NHL 43.2%, 36.38% -15.79% There must be something at least a little bit off when other NA major league sports perform pretty closely to their established record even after they've been eliminated, but NHL fall so far off that number. Once it reaches that point, a certain number of those teams switch to "lose now" mode, and I don't think that should be the idea behind pro sports. And, oh my goodness, I would so much prefer to watch teams actually try to win games down the stretch rather than what we're treated to as the season progresses. It much more closely follows what should be the goal of a team: to actually win some ******* hockey games. EDIT - did some looking, and somebody already came up with such an idea:http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=5496 Of course win % drop after elimination. They trade off to improve their future. Something that really doesn't happen in the other leagues to the level it does in the NHL. So those percentages really are irrelevant, as teams preparing for their future can't be faulted (unless you're a mediocre team jealous you never got a superstar). As for the wins after elimination you have conferences deciding that so a stronger conference gets the head start as the weaker teams tend to get eliminated earlier. You also have teams eliminated earlier due to injuries that when their star player returns after being eliminated go on long tears of winning. And now you're going to kill a lot of trade deadline moves because teams who may have sold off players for the hopes of building a future now have to keep them to try for that pick, so eliminate a lot of that fun from the sport as well. And seriously... where would Edmonton, Pittsburgh or Buffalo be with needing to win to get good picks? They'd be in the basement with no electricity. Let alone some of the awful seasons endured by numerous other franchises... how would they have ever climbed out of it? Not all cities are great free agent destinations, especially when losing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted May 29, 2015 Author Share Posted May 29, 2015 Common sense would say that the worst teams in the league should be able to draft the best young players so that they will, in time, no longer be the worst teams. The NFL, NBA, and MLB all do it that way, why should the NHL be any different? I think you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. #1, 3, and 4 in my list would address that. (Depending on how you define the worst teams.) If you would be willing to define the "worst teams" as the set of all 14 teams that don't make the playoffs, then this would work. The issue I have, is that the draft has become the only team building strategy in the NHL now. You can't win any other way except to finish last and collect #1s. To me, that's a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted May 29, 2015 Author Share Posted May 29, 2015 I try not to complain about threads, but honestly, do we really need a new thread about this same thing once a month? If you want the bad teams to ever have a shot, they have to have the best chance at the top talent. The system isn't broken, it will be less broken next year. Sorry it's a slow month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted May 29, 2015 Author Share Posted May 29, 2015 They could go with a system where the #1 pick goes to the team with the most points after they're eliminated from participating in the playoffs. Teams eliminated the earliest still have a chance to get the #1 pick, but they'll have to earn it rather than have their GMs engineer losses by clearing the roster of anybody that can remotely make/take a pass or a save. It would de-incentivize losing. #4 on my list is an improved variation of that idea because it prevents teams from bottoming out sooner in order to get eliminated faster and start grabbing points earlier. Using the trade deadline as a common starting line is easier to monitor as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 I like ya Wisdom... but we've shot this whole subject down so many ways so many times I wish we had an "ignore thread" option. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted May 30, 2015 Author Share Posted May 30, 2015 we've covered that bud... so mediocre teams excel and the gap between the good and the bad only widens. The system isn't broken. People just hate that their teams stay in mediocrity for too long, but that's also partly the result of teams living in the present and not doing what it takes at the trade deadline to better prepare themselves for the future. My team has two major eras of pure stink. But I thank the people calling the shots for knowing when to say screw this season let's build a future when the time was right. One could argue that there's a problem in the NHL for the teams in the middle. Going from the bottom to the middle is easy (through the current draft system by collecting #1s) but then you're stuck. You can't go from the middle to the top unless you happened to land the best player in the game among those #1 picks. For everyone else, they just spin their wheels. They can't get any more good picks being in the middle and they just plateau. Success in the NHL now depends entirely on how many #1 picks you get and who you selected #1 in the draft. If you don't hit on a Crosby level player, you're doomed to sit in the middle of the standings forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted May 30, 2015 Author Share Posted May 30, 2015 I like ya Wisdom... but we've shot this whole subject down so many ways so many times I wish we had an "ignore thread" option. LOL I know. My bad. It's a slow month. I kicked my own ass... EDIT: ... and I kicked it one more time for good measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 I know. My bad. It's a slow month. I kicked my own ass... EDIT: ... and I kicked it one more time for good measure. Thank you. And I disagree you're stuck in the middle. Bad GM's are stuck in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted May 30, 2015 Author Share Posted May 30, 2015 Thank you. And I disagree you're stuck in the middle. Bad GM's are stuck in the middle. Well bad GMs are stuck anywhere lol, but assuming good management, how does a team go from 8th or 9th in the standings to 1st in today's NHL? Assume that they drafted #1 during a weak or ordinary draft year when they first built their team, and assume that the player they drafted develops into a good but not elite level player. How does this team add to their existing roster in a system where all the potential free agents are locked up on long term deals with their existing clubs, where you can't make trades without bumping into the salary cap, and where you can't get rid of the players you have because they too are signed to long term contracts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Common sense would say that the worst teams in the league should be able to draft the best young players so that they will, in time, no longer be the worst teams. The NFL, NBA, and MLB all do it that way, why should the NHL be any different? I think you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.I absolutely agree with this (pause for you to climb back into your seat). I prefer the current system to any of the suggestions. I really think the suggestions are counter-productive and regressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 #1, 3, and 4 in my list would address that. (Depending on how you define the worst teams.) If you would be willing to define the "worst teams" as the set of all 14 teams that don't make the playoffs, then this would work. The issue I have, is that the draft has become the only team building strategy in the NHL now. You can't win any other way except to finish last and collect #1s. To me, that's a problem.That's not a result of the draft process. That's a result of the cap and the need of many teams to keep costs under control. This really is, from my perspective, an imaginary problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 I absolutely agree with this (pause for you to climb back into your seat). I prefer the current system to any of the suggestions. I really think the suggestions are counter-productive and regressive.GMTA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 I do like the idea of not allowing a team to have back to back #1 overall.But, like the top three being in the lottery, that's a reasonable modification to the current system.None of the Conference Finalists this season can be said to hav ever "tanked" so again the rest are sokutions in search of problems.McDavid will be out of EDM when he is a UFA because EDM has shown they are simply godawful regardless of their picks. And no amount of day care at the rink is going to change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 I do like the idea of not allowing a team to have back to back #1 overall.But, like the top three being in the lottery, that's a reasonable modification to the current system.None of the Conference Finalists this season can be said to hav ever "tanked" so again the rest are sokutions in search of problems.McDavid will be out of EDM when he is a UFA because EDM has shown they are simply godawful regardless of their picks. And no amount of day care at the rink is going to change that.The Gawks have been accused of it. But is it really a factor? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 McDavid will be out of EDM when he is a UFA because EDM has shown they are simply godawful regardless of their picks. And no amount of day care at the rink is going to change that. I would have agreed with you a few months ago, but with the arrival of Peter Chiarelli, I think for the first time in a LONG time, the Oilers are actually being run by a legit hockey mind. This is the guy who off loaded Kessel for Seguin and Hamilton....(let go of Seguin much to cheaply, but a story for another day).....he will be ripping off teams left and right, instead of being the fleecee, the Oilers are now going to turn the table and be doing the fleecing. Having a another GREAT hockey mind in upper management, Bob Nicholson...the long time president of Hockey Canada will not hurt either. Those are two talented hockey minds that will inevitably turn this ship around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 @jammer2 That, and McDavid/Hall/RNH/Eberle/Draisaitl/Yakupov/Nurse...obviously they need help at D and goal, but having a super talented young top 6 is a nice start, as well as a potential #1 in Nurse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notfondajane Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Well bad GMs are stuck anywhere lol, but assuming good management, how does a team go from 8th or 9th in the standings to 1st in today's NHL? Assume that they drafted #1 during a weak or ordinary draft year when they first built their team, and assume that the player they drafted develops into a good but not elite level player. How does this team add to their existing roster in a system where all the potential free agents are locked up on long term deals with their existing clubs, where you can't make trades without bumping into the salary cap, and where you can't get rid of the players you have because they too are signed to long term contracts? don't get stupid when signing a player! (3-4 yrs for time) a little common sense goes a long way! Sometimes it is better to have a bunch of average to above average players than a superstar with a bunch of below average players! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notfondajane Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 The Gawks have been accused of it. But is it really a factor? I don't think so.I thought the lottery system was to prevent *tanking*. I guess I was wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.