Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cobra
Most of the changes suggest that the better non-playoff teams get the best pick.
How does that change the premise that the worse teams need the better picks.
Tanking is the only way the small market teams can survive.
Just because Calgary refuses to partake in the best way for them to become a contender, shouldn’t mean we need to change the rules to favour them.
It will never change that the worse teams have the best odds of the best picks.
Nor should it.
|
Except in recent years the draft lottery has favoured big market teams like the Rangers, Leafs, Canadiens, and Blackhawks.
I think there's more of an argument to be made in favour of preventing teams from picking #1 in back to back years or multiple times within a short number of years. This would prevent teams from monopolizing the draft lottery. We probably do not want to see a repeat of the Oilers, Penguins, Capitals, Panthers, or Blackhawks (argument to be made for Buffalo but they haven't capitalized on their draft lottery success) monopolizing the draft lottery essentially shutting out other teams from.having their chance.
It's an imperfect system. I think the current format is okay even if it is not perfect.
We've even seen these playoffs that successful franchises can be built in many different ways (see Dallas and Carolina), and just having a bunch of high picks does not always guarantee a rapid turnaround (see Buffalo). Even Edmonton took more than 8 years since McDavid was drafted to finally become contenders. In comparison, the Penguins and Blackhawks won their cups when their franchise players were under 23 years old.