Thoughts on the Draft Lottery System

[SpikeDDS]

OK, I realize that having the 4th-worst record makes arguing for a higher chance of getting one of the top 3 picks somewhat self-serving. That having been said, it seems to me that the system is not favorable enough for the teams in the bottom five. Like it is weighted TOO much to avoid tanking.

 

It is also strange to me that nobody knows what the odds really are. Tankathon.com posts odds, but they admit that they are guesses. There seems to be zero accountability here. An understanding of how the system works should be known and public to avoid increased risk of suspicion of manipulation. This whole concept of “trust us, we will make it fair” just smells suspicious.

 

As much as I would LOVE to get Dahlin, I DON’T want the pick given to us. It should be awarded not by men but by a ping pong ball i.e. chance. 

 

But it should also be known how many ping pong balls we will have in the pot. Tankathon doesn’t seem to know that. Is it known? It should be if it is not.

 

This all just seems too hush-hush to me and too ripe for manipulation. The fact that we are WAY more likely to get the 5th or 6th picks in the draft than any of the top 4 speaks to the odds being off.

 

Or is this just seeing this too much through the Red Wing-red lenses?

[hf101]

20 minutes ago, SpikeDDS said:

It is also strange to me that nobody knows what the odds really are. Tankathon.com posts odds, but they admit that they are guesses. There seems to be zero accountability here. An understanding of how the system works should be known and public to avoid increased risk of suspicion of manipulation. This whole concept of “trust us, we will make it fair” just smells suspicious.

 

The odds apparently aren't stated until the conclusion of the 2017-18 season, which kinda stops "tanking".

 

These were the odds last season I believe  (Odds of #1, Odds of top 3 pick)  I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't much change to them as last season clearly added some excitement in the choosing of the top 3 picks during the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

 

1. 18.0%    48.1%
2. 12.5%    36.2%
3. 10.5%    31.2%
4.  9.5%    28.6%
5.  8.5%    25.9%
6.  7.6%    23.4%
7.  6.7        20.9%
8.  5.8%    18.3%
9.  5.4%    17.1%
10. 4.5%    14.4%
11. 3.3%    10.7%
12. 2.7%    8.8%
13. 2.2%    7.2%
14. 1.8%    5.9%
15. 1.0%    3.3%

[brelic]

2 hours ago, SpikeDDS said:

OK, I realize that having the 4th-worst record makes arguing for a higher chance of getting one of the top 3 picks somewhat self-serving. That having been said, it seems to me that the system is not favorable enough for the teams in the bottom five. Like it is weighted TOO much to avoid tanking.

 

Personally, I think the odds should be reversed. The highest ranked non-playoff team should have the greatest odds at 1st overall. It would stop asinine moves like the Rangers basically announcing a tank, the Blues selling off one of their best players, the Wings have been selling off too, etc. It would also make the league more competitive - you keep trying your best until the end because you'll either make the playoffs or get a really high draft pick. The Toronto Austin Matthews tank was shameful, IMO, because it worked. They were rewarded big time for giving up on trying to win.

 

At some point, the excuses need to stop for the bottom dwellers like the Sabres and Oilers. With the number of top draft picks they have had in the past, it becomes less about talent and more about organizational failure. 

 

2 hours ago, SpikeDDS said:

 

It is also strange to me that nobody knows what the odds really are. Tankathon.com posts odds, but they admit that they are guesses. There seems to be zero accountability here. An understanding of how the system works should be known and public to avoid increased risk of suspicion of manipulation. This whole concept of “trust us, we will make it fair” just smells suspicious.

 

As much as I would LOVE to get Dahlin, I DON’T want the pick given to us. It should be awarded not by men but by a ping pong ball i.e. chance. 

 

But it should also be known how many ping pong balls we will have in the pot. Tankathon doesn’t seem to know that. Is it known? It should be if it is not.

 

This all just seems too hush-hush to me and too ripe for manipulation. The fact that we are WAY more likely to get the 5th or 6th picks in the draft than any of the top 4 speaks to the odds being off.

 

Or is this just seeing this too much through the Red Wing-red lenses?

 

I get what you're saying - but at the end of the day, these are not publicly traded entities. They don't have to show us anything. I agree that it would increase trust in the process, though.

[SpikeDDS]

2 hours ago, brelic said:

Personally, I think the odds should be reversed. The highest ranked non-playoff team should have the greatest odds at 1st overall. It would stop asinine moves like the Rangers basically announcing a tank, the Blues selling off one of their best players, the Wings have been selling off too, etc. It would also make the league more competitive - you keep trying your best until the end because you'll either make the playoffs or get a really high draft pick. The Toronto Austin Matthews tank was shameful, IMO, because it worked. They were rewarded big time for giving up on trying to win.

 

At some point, the excuses need to stop for the bottom dwellers like the Sabres and Oilers. With the number of top draft picks they have had in the past, it becomes less about talent and more about organizational failure. 

 

Love the thought process here, even though I may disagree with it. I think a better way of addressing it might be to make the draft lottery be for the FOLLOWING draft, not the immediate one. Let's be clear that the draft is designed to give truly bad teams the opportunity to right themselves through acquisition of young talent. If the draft lottery worked, but NOT until the FOLLOWING year's draft, it would discourage the one-time tanking, and make you have to commit to tanking for two seasons. Toronto seemed so egregious because it made itself a bottom feeder for one season and got rewarded for it, as you said. Making it the FOLLOWING season would make them at minimum plan their tanks and not get instant gratification.

 

Either that, or average the standings from this season and the season prior, so that a team that has been decent who decides to tank isn't rewarded for a one-year tank. I might like that idea even better. A team that is in the bottom five for 2 seasons running needs help. Avoids the one-time tankers.

 

Teams like Phoenix--other than the question of whether a team should be in Phoenix AT ALL--need help, and the draft is supposed to help them. They're not tanking. They SUCK! Same with Buffalo. The fact that Edmonton and Toronto keep taking first picks from these guys is ugly, IMHO.

 

Again, IMHO, the #17 team should have minimal chance of getting pick #1. Not zero, but not much. That part of the system seems right to me.

 

If a team is in the bottom 3-5 teams, I don't have a problem with them selling off talent to attempt to get a generational talent. But they have to suck--LONG and HARD--and shouldn't be able to just tank for half a season to easily win the big prize. that's not right either.

[SpikeDDS]

2 hours ago, brelic said:

I get what you're saying - but at the end of the day, these are not publicly traded entities. They don't have to show us anything. I agree that it would increase trust in the process, though.

 

Yeah ever since Crosby went to the Pens, and with the Oilers repeatedly winning the top picks at the expense of worse teams, I have serious concerns about meddling. Short of accusation, but like with goalie interference, I want the league to be an open book on how they run/decide things. When they hide stuff, it just opens the door to corruption. And it is naive to think there is no corruption at the top of the NHL. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[AJgoal]

I said it before a year or two back. Figure out how the odds work out to have everything be a whole number. Then put that number of logos on ping pong balls in 3 sets of buckets. Pour all of the first set of buckets into the hopper and pull one ball. Here's an example of how that might look live on TV:

 

 

Then you remove the bucket corresponding to the team pulled for first overall from the other two groups, repeat, and remove THAT team from the final pull. It's not as suspenseful since you have to pull the first overall first, but at least it's transparent.

[brelic]

1 hour ago, SpikeDDS said:

 

Love the thought process here, even though I may disagree with it. I think a better way of addressing it might be to make the draft lottery be for the FOLLOWING draft, not the immediate one. Let's be clear that the draft is designed to give truly bad teams the opportunity to right themselves through acquisition of young talent. If the draft lottery worked, but NOT until the FOLLOWING year's draft, it would discourage the one-time tanking, and make you have to commit to tanking for two seasons. Toronto seemed so egregious because it made itself a bottom feeder for one season and got rewarded for it, as you said. Making it the FOLLOWING season would make them at minimum plan their tanks and not get instant gratification.

 

Yes, I like this idea too. Anything to make it unpalatable to tank and get immediately rewarded. As much as the Maple Leafs disgust me for the way they went about getting Matthews, they played within the rules, right? Maybe not within the spirit of competitive sports, but certainly within the rules. 

 

So if Shanahan had to tell the Leafs fan base, well, we're going to have to tank for multiple seasons, I'm not sure he does it.

 

1 hour ago, SpikeDDS said:

Either that, or average the standings from this season and the season prior, so that a team that has been decent who decides to tank isn't rewarded for a one-year tank. I might like that idea even better. A team that is in the bottom five for 2 seasons running needs help. Avoids the one-time tankers.

 

Teams like Phoenix--other than the question of whether a team should be in Phoenix AT ALL--need help, and the draft is supposed to help them. They're not tanking. They SUCK! Same with Buffalo. The fact that Edmonton and Toronto keep taking first picks from these guys is ugly, IMHO.

 

And this brings me to the second point I raised - organizational failure. How have the Flyers and Red Wings, for example, managed to remain competitive despite the absence of top level picks? It's unfathomable that a team like the Oilers missed the playoffs for 10 straight seasons despite having a plethora of top level picks. It's the same for the Sabres - 6 straight misses and 8 of the last 10. 

 

These are organizations that fail to develop any kind of coherent, sustainable system, from drafting, development, trading, and the inability to attract top level talent. 

 

 

1 hour ago, SpikeDDS said:

 

Again, IMHO, the #17 team should have minimal chance of getting pick #1. Not zero, but not much. That part of the system seems right to me.

 

If a team is in the bottom 3-5 teams, I don't have a problem with them selling off talent to attempt to get a generational talent. But they have to suck--LONG and HARD--and shouldn't be able to just tank for half a season to easily win the big prize. that's not right either.

 

If we look at this from another perspective, teams like the Sabres, Oilers, Rangers, Coyotes, etc, would never be selling off players if a strong finish were rewarded. And playoff-bound teams would have a much thinner market, which I think would bring more stability to the league. 

 

The league recently talked about expanding the playoffs to 18 teams or more (yuck)... well, instead, how about having a mini-playoffs for the 17 teams outside of the playoffs for the 1st overall pick? That way, no magic lottery ball will save you - the organization needs to work hard from start to finish. 

 

I guess I'm just disturbed by the whole tanking mentality, and I don't feel like the organization should be rewarded. 

 

[SpikeDDS]

37 minutes ago, brelic said:

If we look at this from another perspective, teams like the Sabres, Oilers, Rangers, Coyotes, etc, would never be selling off players if a strong finish were rewarded. And playoff-bound teams would have a much thinner market, which I think would bring more stability to the league. 

 

The league recently talked about expanding the playoffs to 18 teams or more (yuck)... well, instead, how about having a mini-playoffs for the 17 teams outside of the playoffs for the 1st overall pick? That way, no magic lottery ball will save you - the organization needs to work hard from start to finish. 

 

I guess I'm just disturbed by the whole tanking mentality, and I don't feel like the organization should be rewarded. 

 

Yeah, but then again, when it comes to top 5 picks, look at Buffalo, for example. In the last 5 years, they have had 2--count 'em, TWO--top five picks. Yet they have sucked the whole time, and they still do. They got Jack Eichel with the 2 pick. And they HAVE been in the top 10, but a LOT of these drafts, the top 5 you see play, and then the talent level drops off significantly. It's not as if the Sabres have been helped all that much.

 

Remember also that Toronto got helped with Marner the year before Matthews at the 4th pick. It reall has been that combo of the two in a row that flipped the switch for them. Buffalo has never had that. Phoenix hasn't had jack squat, really.

 

Edmonton is the head-scratcher. All those number 1 picks and not much to show for it, even with a generational player like McDavid. And Taylor Hall goes to NJ and becomes a force to be reckoned with. They prove that just getting good picks ensures you of nothing. You have to develop. They obviously have issues.

 

Detroit, let's face it, were able to buy, draft and keep exceptional talent. The 2002 team? That team was the greatest assemblage of hockey talent on one NHL team EVER! The difference-makers were bought. They were helped immensely by Steve Yzerman getting so tired of being not-good-enough to win the Cup that he WILLINGLY took a salary cut to let Ilitch buy more talent around him. Nick Lidstrom saw that and followed the example, refusing $4-5M more per season to resign with the Detroit Red Wings for his final contract for $8M/season. That set the salary ceiling for the Red Wings until he retired, and worked right into the salary cap era that way. THAT is how the Wings stayed so good for so long. They also were drafting Hall of Fame talent (Datsyuk, Zetterberg, etc.) in the later rounds of the draft. Multiple times! Those days are OVER!

 

The good teams of the last decade--Chicago & Pittsburgh--both got multiple high picks from multiple successive drafts to assemble their core (top tier scorers, top tier D-men, and goalie). They have remained successful because, unlike the Red Wings, they didn't ride out their existing talent until they all retired. Chicago mixed up the second tier players before their performance began to lapse. Pittsburgh acquired Kessel among others that, once again, put them over the top. But in order to do it, they had to get multiple top-5 picks in successive drafts/. Usually that is a winning formula. Toronto is the latest example. Marner, then Matthews, and suddenly they are significant again.

 

To me, Buffalo hasn't had that kind of break. Had they had a top-3 pick either before or after Eichel, it would be different. They didn't, and Eichel can't do it by himself. You can blame Edmonton. It's harder to blame Buffalo. They haven't had Edmonton's fortunes.

[brelic]

40 minutes ago, SpikeDDS said:

 

Yeah, but then again, when it comes to top 5 picks, look at Buffalo, for example. In the last 5 years, they have had 2--count 'em, TWO--top five picks. Yet they have sucked the whole time, and they still do. They got Jack Eichel with the 2 pick. And they HAVE been in the top 10, but a LOT of these drafts, the top 5 you see play, and then the talent level drops off significantly. It's not as if the Sabres have been helped all that much.

 

I just looked through their drafting record, and it's quite abysmal in terms of finding 1st round talent. You're right in that top level talent is usually in the top 3-5 picks, but they should still be able to find strong 1st round players after that.

 

40 minutes ago, SpikeDDS said:

 

Remember also that Toronto got helped with Marner the year before Matthews at the 4th pick. It reall has been that combo of the two in a row that flipped the switch for them. Buffalo has never had that. Phoenix hasn't had jack squat, really.

 

Don't forget that they had the #2 overall twice in a row - Eichel and Reinhart. Maybe they chose the wrong guy over Draisatl, I don't know. But add to that an 8th overall pick in Ristolainen, and Zadorov (16th overall) in 2013 draft. That's the beginnings of a foundation. They shouldn't need any more 1-2 picks. 

 

Phoenix got Keller (7th), Strome (3rd), Perlini (12th) and Domi (12th). That should be a good forward foundation. Strome could be a real star - maybe he's just a late bloomer? Marner is already tearing it up in the NHL (picked right after Strome). Is it a Reinhart/Draisatl situation? Or maybe Strome comes up next year and makes his mark?

 

I understand your overall point, and I do agree with it in some ways. But I guess the question for me is that, in those intervening years, why were they completely unable to put together a competitive squad? You don't need top 3-5 talent to be competitive. The Coyotes are going on 6 straight playoff misses, including 11 of the last 14 years. 

 

As an example (and this touches on your point below re: teams buying their way in), since the lockout and stopping the foolishness of just buying players, the Flyers have made the playoffs in 7 of the last 10 years. And this is with the absence of any top 5 picks except for JVR who didn't last very long. 

 

 

 

40 minutes ago, SpikeDDS said:

 

Edmonton is the head-scratcher. All those number 1 picks and not much to show for it, even with a generational player like McDavid. And Taylor Hall goes to NJ and becomes a force to be reckoned with. They prove that just getting good picks ensures you of nothing. You have to develop. They obviously have issues.

 

Yes, completely agree. I would argue that the Sabres and Coyotes have issues too. 

 

40 minutes ago, SpikeDDS said:

 

Detroit, let's face it, were able to buy, draft and keep exceptional talent. The 2002 team? That team was the greatest assemblage of hockey talent on one NHL team EVER! The difference-makers were bought. They were helped immensely by Steve Yzerman getting so tired of being not-good-enough to win the Cup that he WILLINGLY took a salary cut to let Ilitch buy more talent around him. Nick Lidstrom saw that and followed the example, refusing $4-5M more per season to resign with the Detroit Red Wings for his final contract for $8M/season. That set the salary ceiling for the Red Wings until he retired, and worked right into the salary cap era that way. THAT is how the Wings stayed so good for so long. They also were drafting Hall of Fame talent (Datsyuk, Zetterberg, etc.) in the later rounds of the draft. Multiple times! Those days are OVER!

 

 

The Flyers were in the same boat for a long-time pre-lockout - they just basically bought their teams. Clarke and Homer tried to keep up that tradition, playing with the Cap feature OFF in their own fantasy world, but it didn't take long for them to run into cap problems and a whole slew of roster issues. They didn't even have the benefit of drafting and developing smartly - I'd say there are only FOUR players that were well-developed under Holmgren and Clarke - Richards, Carter, Gagne, and Giroux. None of those guys were in the top 10 of their draft class.

 

 

 

40 minutes ago, SpikeDDS said:

 

The good teams of the last decade--Chicago & Pittsburgh--both got multiple high picks from multiple successive drafts to assemble their core (top tier scorers, top tier D-men, and goalie). They have remained successful because, unlike the Red Wings, they didn't ride out their existing talent until they all retired. Chicago mixed up the second tier players before their performance began to lapse. Pittsburgh acquired Kessel among others that, once again, put them over the top. But in order to do it, they had to get multiple top-5 picks in successive drafts/. Usually that is a winning formula. Toronto is the latest example. Marner, then Matthews, and suddenly they are significant again.

 

Totally agree - that seems to be the winning formula for a Cup these days. Since teams can no longer just buy their Cup (*cough*Rangers*cough), they have to draft and develop smartly. So in that sense, to me Arizona and Buffalo don't really have legitimate excuses. They've had top level picks. Time for them to do something with it. Oilers too. I can't imagine being a fan of that poor excuse for a franchise. 

 

And for Chicago, they had two top level picks - Kane (1) and Toews (3). The rest of their squad they had to develop by finding excellent draft picks (Keith, Hjalmarsson, Seabrook, Crawford, Byfuglien (8th rounder), Brouwer (7th rounder), Bolland, Bickell, Pirri, Saad).

 

Of those, only Seabrook was a 1st rounder.

 

In that context, it's just really hard for me to feel bad about perennial bottom dwellers. Their problems run deep - much deeper than a top 3 pick or two. 

 

 

40 minutes ago, SpikeDDS said:

To me, Buffalo hasn't had that kind of break. Had they had a top-3 pick either before or after Eichel, it would be different. They didn't, and Eichel can't do it by himself. You can blame Edmonton. It's harder to blame Buffalo. They haven't had Edmonton's fortunes.

 

[yave1964]

@brelic

 

The Wings bought a cup in 2002 (Hasek, Hull and robitaille all added for nothing much more than the long green) and the salary cap era left the Wings unable to draft well enough to overcome not being able to simply buy players. Holland was masterful at pickups, Rafalski, the aforementioned big three, Brad Stuart, Shanny, Larionov, so many more, but his drafting skills have always been weak and have gotten worse. Give me the days where money can overcome ineptitude any day of the week, lol

[WordsOfWisdom]

On 19/03/2018 at 6:58 AM, SpikeDDS said:

That having been said, it seems to me that the system is not favorable enough for the teams in the bottom five. Like it is weighted TOO much to avoid tanking.

 

...

 

On 19/03/2018 at 6:58 AM, SpikeDDS said:

Tankathon.com ...

 

 

As a Leafs fan, I certainly don't miss having draft lottery discussions. 

 

Look, if you reward teams for finishing farther down in the standings, then that's exactly what they'll do. On one hand, people talk about tanking being a bad thing and that the league should take steps to prevent it. On the other hand, fans want their team to be rewarded for finishing last. You can't have it both ways. 

 

So far to date, the NHL has NEVER implemented ANY draft system that does anything other than ENCOURAGE TANKING. The NHL wants it to happen. It's as much a "race" as it is for the President's trophy among the top teams. The league has managed to  manufacture intrigue for all 31 teams. Everyone is in a race for something. It's all by design.

 

I've mentioned on numerous occasions that tanking can be eliminated completely by implementing this system:

 

- Equal draft odds for ALL non-playoff teams.  Done. 

 

It really IS that simple. If you want to eliminate tanking, that's the ONLY system that encourages all 31 teams to try for the playoffs, knowing that there's no carrot waiting for them at the end of the season if they don't. 

 

Even if you create a system where the last place team has 2% odds and everyone else has 1%, it's still 2x the odds and there's incentive to tank.

 

Whether the league reveals the odds ahead of time or not, we all know what it's going to be. Every draft system the NHL ever creates will be no different than the previous ones and all of them will reward teams for tanking. 

 

 

[belowthegoalline]

On 3/19/2018 at 8:07 AM, brelic said:

 

Personally, I think the odds should be reversed. The highest ranked non-playoff team should have the greatest odds at 1st overall. It would stop asinine moves like the Rangers basically announcing a tank, the Blues selling off one of their best players, the Wings have been selling off too, etc. It would also make the league more competitive - you keep trying your best until the end because you'll either make the playoffs or get a really high draft pick. The Toronto Austin Matthews tank was shameful, IMO, because it worked. They were rewarded big time for giving up on trying to win.

 

At some point, the excuses need to stop for the bottom dwellers like the Sabres and Oilers. With the number of top draft picks they have had in the past, it becomes less about talent and more about organizational failure. 

 

 

I get what you're saying - but at the end of the day, these are not publicly traded entities. They don't have to show us anything. I agree that it would increase trust in the process, though.

 

How would any really bad team ever get better then? Not saying the constant lottery picks have helped the Oilers, but how horrible would they be now if they had hardly no chance at getting the first overall pick when they were (still are?) terrible? They would have no chance of ever getting out of the NHL basement.

 

Yeah, it should be noted that teams should be discouraged from tanking. But do you mean to tell me that they Arizona Coyotes should have a poor chance of drafted early in the first round after the horrid season they had this year? They are NOT tanking. They are just bad.

 

I think the teams near the bottom should have a better chance at winning.

[brelic]

16 hours ago, belowthegoalline said:

 

How would any really bad team ever get better then? Not saying the constant lottery picks have helped the Oilers, but how horrible would they be now if they had hardly no chance at getting the first overall pick when they were (still are?) terrible? They would have no chance of ever getting out of the NHL basement.

 

I would say by improving their drafting, development, and player transaction processes. In a sense, the lottery pick is a get out of jail free card that seems to replace the three things I mentioned. There's no reason a team *without* a top overall pick can't be competitive.

 

16 hours ago, belowthegoalline said:

Yeah, it should be noted that teams should be discouraged from tanking. But do you mean to tell me that they Arizona Coyotes should have a poor chance of drafted early in the first round after the horrid season they had this year? They are NOT tanking. They are just bad.

 

I think the teams near the bottom should have a better chance at winning.

 

Exactly, and I think this speaks to the point I made above - it seems Arizona and Edmonton and Buffalo's problems, for example, are due to a poor organization. 

 

I mean, I completely understand your point from a logical standpoint. Over time, in theory, different teams get a chance to land a top 3 pick and rebuild their team around that player, and become competitive. But some organizations are chronically bad - and in my world view, that shouldn't be rewarded. It's like real-world lottery winners who end up blowing all their winnings because their foundation was poor in the first place.

 

So, again, I can agree with your point and understand why the league sets it up this way. Even fans of non-playoff teams and cellar dwellers have something to look forward to. It gives them hope and a reason to cheer. When the Flyers finished dead last in 2009, it was exciting that they could get a #1 overall pick - which didn't work out that way, but still, a #2 gives you a building block. Just like they were lucky to get the #2 this year in Patrick. 

 

I just happen to disagree with the way the lottery system is set up. It definitely encourages tanking once playoffs are out of the picture. Or, put another way, it *discourages* making moves to improve your team until the end of the season.

 

If it were up to me, there would be about half a dozen fewer teams. You'd see a better product overall. 

[hf101]

On 3/19/2018 at 3:54 PM, brelic said:

 

I understand your overall point, and I do agree with it in some ways. But I guess the question for me is that, in those intervening years, why were they completely unable to put together a competitive squad? You don't need top 3-5 talent to be competitive. The Coyotes are going on 6 straight playoff misses, including 11 of the last 14 years. 

 

There are several factors here, as you mentioned above various organizational failures explain a lot of this. Failure to put a consistently winning team on the ice affects an organizations cash flow.  Without a large fanbase, teams who struggle to stay above minimal cap also struggle to grow their franchise. Most top rated FA do not choose to play for a team that is rebuilding and hasn't made the playoffs in years.   These organizations also often lose their own grown talent via free agency where their players will look for a better organization to play for... and the cyclical organizational failures continue.    

 

I think the league has realized this and put in measures to help build up the struggling organizations.  And the current speed of the game that we have now though is better suited for success for teams building through the draft as teams are becoming younger with less pressure to sign top Free Agents.

[WordsOfWisdom]

On 20/03/2018 at 8:37 PM, belowthegoalline said:

The Toronto Austin Matthews tank was shameful, IMO, because it worked. They were rewarded big time for giving up on trying to win.

 

About time too!  

[WordsOfWisdom]

On 20/03/2018 at 8:37 PM, belowthegoalline said:

How would any really bad team ever get better then? Not saying the constant lottery picks have helped the Oilers, but how horrible would they be now if they had hardly no chance at getting the first overall pick when they were (still are?) terrible? They would have no chance of ever getting out of the NHL basement.

 

If draft odds were equal for all non-playoff teams, this wouldn't be an issue. 

 

[Russian Botfly]

 Perhaps someone already worked through if this whole "tanker" system is even possible.  To claim any team is losing on purpose is not a science.  There is no absolute empirical data to make this like some scientific theory.  Opinions are just that.  I don't see how this cannot be subjective.  Also, who has ultimate authority to decide who's and who's not "tanking"?  A committee that cannot possibly agree because not everyone perceived team play in the same way?  Keep the current system.  The "tanker" System would either end in gridlock or be horribly biased (I don't trust Bettman).  Let the players ("tankng" or not, since it's fair for any team to do the same) decide with their play and keep the draft.  Perenial bottom-dwellers can't afford to keep most of these top picks after the Entry Level Contract expires, anyway.  So, those players are moved on in their early twenties.  I don't see what the big deal is about all of this.  If the Wings were to get the First Overall Pick, who here would be complaining?

[JR Ewing]

I've never bought into the idea of any conspiracies that the NHL has or would rig the lottery system. It requires a level of planning, secrecy and sophistication of which the league has too many times demonstrated they are not capable.

 

[hf101]

3 hours ago, Russian Botfly said:

 Perhaps someone already worked through if this whole "tanker" system is even possible.  To claim any team is losing on purpose is not a science.  There is no absolute empirical data to make this like some scientific theory.  Opinions are just that.  I don't see how this cannot be subjective.  Also, who has ultimate authority to decide who's and who's not "tanking"?  A committee that cannot possibly agree because not everyone perceived team play in the same way?  Keep the current system.  The "tanker" System would either end in gridlock or be horribly biased (I don't trust Bettman).  Let the players ("tankng" or not, since it's fair for any team to do the same) decide with their play and keep the draft.  Perenial bottom-dwellers can't afford to keep most of these top picks after the Entry Level Contract expires, anyway.  So, those players are moved on in their early twenties.  I don't see what the big deal is about all of this.  If the Wings were to get the First Overall Pick, who here would be complaining?

 

Non-Red Wing fans,  

 

Glad to have another on this site!   

 

Great first post btw. and I agree, I like the current system as changes have been made to improve the success for not only the bottom dwellers but it also adds a chance to grab one of the top 3 picks for all teams failing to make the playoffs in a given year.