The only issue I have with the "cant pick top 3 2 years a row" or anything similar is it just makes it that much longer for a team to get better. Say Buffalo sucks again this year they auto cant get a generational talent because they picked top 3 last year? So now they will suck for even longer?
I don't see the NHL ever doing this because parity is the best for business. They want teams to get better quicker, because that will make them more money.
It's an incentive to at least play better. And, if the team happens to be a bottom 3 team, they should at least be given the opportunity to trade down. Gets an asset in return, and you also don't get penalized. I don't want Buffalo tanking for the next 2-3 seasons while we play our butts off without even having a chance at a top tier player.
The only issue I have with the "cant pick top 3 2 years a row" or anything similar is it just makes it that much longer for a team to get better. Say Buffalo sucks again this year they auto cant get a generational talent because they picked top 3 last year? So now they will suck for even longer?
I don't see the NHL ever doing this because parity is the best for business. They want teams to get better quicker, because that will make them more money.
How did your Oilers do picking first 3 years in a row? Has that helped them? Getting the picks is just part of I it I think, the rest is plain "not sucking".
The problem with this is if you traded your draft pick.
Would you want your rivals to pick higher by winning more games? I suppose you move up in the other rounds too, but this could pose to be a problem. Though more minor than the issues with tanking in the current format.
That's definitely a limiting factor in this system; same issue came up with the system that discussed points after team mathematically eliminated from the playoffs.
The simplest and most effective solution would be to put on limits to drafting in certain bands. The team that drafts first overall is immediately put in a position to draft no better than third the following draft, and forfeits their 2nd rounder if they they don't finish better than third. If that team drafts top five again the next draft they can not draft better than fifth the following year and forfeits their 2nd rounder with the same stipulation Encourages teams to try and get better, immediately.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 07-24-2014 at 03:16 PM.
Some of these suggestions are ridiculous. Players don't tank. Neither do coaches. Even if they did do you think a teams draft position is going to be their incentive to try harder? Players don't care about draft position to the point where they are altering their play to alter draft position. Look at the Flames at the end of the year two years ago. We won meaningless games that only hurt our draft position. The players just play the game.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hackey For This Useful Post:
I bet they could work out a pretty good system that ditched the draft and let everyone bid up to 2 years of their cap room for each pick. ie, you could bid 15 million for the next 2 years on McDavid, and the club would have to put that in a pool that distributed to the other 29 times and increased the floor and cap by an equivalent amount.
It would make for some nice parity where teams that are already stacked wouldn't be able to make a good bid unless they tried to sell off their players. All sorts of different build and rebuild risk/reward strategies could come into play.
So your gonna reward teams for not spending money and icing a terrible team? Isn't that basically "tanking?"
Some of these suggestions are ridiculous. Players don't tank. Neither do coaches. Even if they did do you think a teams draft position is going to be their incentive to try harder? Players don't care about draft position to the point where they are altering their play to alter draft position. Look at the Flames at the end of the year two years ago. We won meaningless games that only hurt our draft position. The players just play the game.
I wonder what a player would think if he was playing for something at the end of the season, for his team, for what's on front of the jersey and not his name on the back, for a chance for his team to land a player like Connor MacDavid and a chance to play with said player. Even if the player is thinking selfishly, he could think that if he gets a shot to play with a potential superstar it could only benefit his own stock in the long run. Maybe a longshot scenario for a player to think this way, maybe not...
Some of these suggestions are ridiculous. Players don't tank. Neither do coaches. Even if they did do you think a teams draft position is going to be their incentive to try harder? Players don't care about draft position to the point where they are altering their play to alter draft position. Look at the Flames at the end of the year two years ago. We won meaningless games that only hurt our draft position. The players just play the game.
A) It's been pointed out in this thread before that tanking has been admitted tho. While not by the players, the team was tanking
B) Psychology plays a lot in sports. If you know that management has their eyes on you being the worst team on the ice, what is your motivation for going hard into the corner or blocking a shot? Your team has moved past the games you're playing on the ice and is looking at the best way to reconcile this season. When you playing poorly has a positive impact on the managements draft position, it's pretty hard to get up in the morning.
Some of these suggestions are ridiculous. Players don't tank. Neither do coaches. Even if they did do you think a teams draft position is going to be their incentive to try harder? Players don't care about draft position to the point where they are altering their play to alter draft position. Look at the Flames at the end of the year two years ago. We won meaningless games that only hurt our draft position. The players just play the game.
I beg to differ....
Pittsburg did it. Maybe the players didn't do it on purpose but it sure sounds like the coaches/management wanted to lose.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Yeah...the suggestion that teams deliberately lose is absurd IMO. If anyone has ever known pro hockey players and what it takes them to reach the NHL level, it would never enter your mind to make such a suggestion. These guys work their collectives asses off and sacrifice a lot on the journey to the NHL...they arent then just going to lie down and play dead just so the team can draft some hotshot kid that may or may not contribute to each of their teams success. Coaches get FIRED for losing so they will never ever have any part in it. "Tanking on prurpose" is nothing more than a fan driven fallacy.
The current system is just fine....just because the Oilers havent figured it out doesnt mean a thing other than Kevin Lowe is a complete dummy.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
I think they should have tiered lottery system. With the parity caused by the cap and point system, I don't believe the difference in standings positions is truly representative of a teams talent situation any more.. At least not enough to gift wrap generational talent to teams simply because they finish last.
They should take the bottom 5 teams and have all draw for the picks between 1 to 5, each with an equal chance of winning. Then take the remaining non-playoff teams and have them draw for positions 6 to 14. Then have the playoff teams draw based on standings with the Cup winner picking last and have a snaking draft.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
These points after elimination schemes that people are suggesting are silly. Even the teams near the bottom of the league are still technically not eliminated until last last 7-10 days of the season. The draft order would go from being determined based on an 82 game sample to a 4-8 game one. And it doesn't really solve any problem.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
The lottery shouldn't be a mechanism to correct franchises that are horribly run over the long term. It should be weighted to assist the worst teams to rebuild.
Long term mismanagement should be dealt with via a "relegation" concept. If a team is so incompetently managed that it misses the playoffs time-and-time again over many years, then it should be relegated to the AHL and replaced in the NHL with the top AHL team.
This appropriately penalizes boneheaded owners and GMS where it counts - in the pocket book - and weeds out poorly run franchises.
How many years out of the playoffs should be required before relegation? We'll, that's the $64,000 question. I'd think six or seven years.
The Following User Says Thank You to Meers For This Useful Post:
Long term mismanagement should be dealt with via a "relegation" concept. If a team is so incompetently managed that it misses the playoffs time-and-time again over many years, then it should be relegated to the AHL and replaced in the NHL with the top AHL team.
Relegation is a bad idea, it's always been a bad idea, and it will always be a bad idea.
You can't simply promote the best AHL team to the NHL. It's a development league for crying out loud; the players are already "property" of other NHL teams. Not to mention the fact that these teams operate on tiny budgets and usually play in small arenas to even smaller crowds. Do you honestly believe Glens Falls, Rockford, or any of the other locations that aren't already in NHL territories (ie the Toronto Marlies) can be NHL markets?
The way long term mismanagement is dealt with in the NHL is usually done with the sale of the poorly run team to -- hopefully -- better management and if that doesn't work -- a move to another market.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kool Keef For This Useful Post:
The current lotto format seems to work. The last 2 seasons the bottom place team has not won the first overall pick. Why change it?
At the end of the day it is smart drafting and some luck that pays off, not always getting first overall. Look at the teams who have had great recent success; Boston, LA, Chi. Yes they all had a couple of low picks allong the way but they also made great moves and have smart GM's. Edmonton is perfect proof that drafting alone doesnt do it.
The idiotic concept of relegation and promotion is as quaint as the Victorian era concept of pure amateurism in sport. And just as useless. There is a good reason why many top level hockey leagues in Europe have actually abandoned the idea.
flip the percentages and draw all 14 lottery picks in the lottery, not just 1st overall. The 14th overall team has 25 percent for the 14th pick, then continue with 13th overall and so on ... re-do the percentages after every pick and draw until there's only 1 team left. Would actually make the lottery show way more interesting and would eliminate some of the tanking. Then include a rule that you can't pick in the top 3 three times in a row and be done with it.
It doesn't what type of draft system the NHL have, there is always at least one or more teams that will make a mockery of the system and tank their season especially if the consensus 1st pick overall is going to be an awesome player who can help any team right away. The only thing I can think of is not letting any team get the first pick overall back-to-back years or team should only get a first round pick in 5 years. Even them some teams will still tank.
