Did I Just Solve The "Tanking" Problem?

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

By definition this is correct. However, it does nothing to address the problem that bad teams only have 1 way to get better - Draft and develop players.

Bad luck could keep a team at the bottom of the standing indefinently.

What if the Flames had been unlucky and got the 16th pick the last 2 years instead of Monahan and Bennet? Does this seen fair?

Someone always needs to be the worst.

Except that the successful teams stay competitive despite late first round picks. Teams will get better by developing better organizations, especially scouting departments and non-playoff teams will still get to pick before playoff teams even in my scheme.

[The Coppernian One]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It is an issue on just about any hockey forum you care to note (check out any given reddit thread about either the Oilers or this year's top two prospects, for instance.) But yes, the Oilers are a significant root cause of it. When you have a team whose plan basically amounted to failing upward get three #1 overalls in a row and are STILL drafting top five every year with a chance of getting another #1 pick, that is going to rankle anyone's feathers.

The Oilers are a league-wide embarrassment.

I think the Oilers are a lightning rod for this sentiment because the #1 pick (consecutively and followed a couple years later by #3) is high profile, but they are not the first in a situation like this with top picks.

From 2002-2006 Pittsburgh drafted in the top 2 four times
2002 - Whitney (5)
2003 - Fleury (1)
2004 - Malkin (2)
2005 - Crosby (1)
2006 - Staal (2)

A couple other teams like Colorado and Florida have spread it out a bit more. Respectively:

2009 - Duchene (3)
2011 - Landeskog (2)
2013 - Mackinnon (1)

2010 - Gudbranson (3)
2011 - Huberdeau (3)
2013 - Barkov (2)
2014 - Ekblad (1)

A number of other teams have floated in those 3-7 spots for a few years consistently at times.

More to the original post, most of the points have already been covered (what is tanking vs incompetence?). When does a team accept reality and look for short term pain for long-term gain and should that be punished?

I think the current changes are a good step in the right direction. Open up the lottery for more picks, but still weight the worse teams to have the best chance (although reduced from the "old" system). The "new" system which allows all non-playoff teams to have a shot at number 1 is good. Even better when the top 3 picks are draws.

I also wouldn't mind opening up the top 5-10 picks to be determined by lottery, but would not want the teams to have roughly equal odds. Don't make the worse teams a lock for the top two or three, but don't make it so equal that the worse teams would only get lucky to get higher picks.

[Jason14h]

Except that the successful teams stay competitive despite late first round picks. Teams will get better by developing better organizations, especially scouting departments and non-playoff teams will still get to pick before playoff teams even in my scheme.

No they stay successful by having a core of very good players they usually drafted top 5 overall, and surrounding them with interchangable peices. Some team did better getting later 1st round guys but most are top picks.

Top 4 in each Division and key players

1. TB - Stamkos and Hedman
2. Detriot - Zetterberg and Datsyuk (Before other teams scouted Europe)
3. Montreal - Galchenyuk, Price
4. Boston - Great FA signing in Chara

1. Islanders - Tavares
2. Pitts - Hoard of players
3. NY Rangers - Exception as Boston
4. Washignton- Ovy

1. Nash - Seth Jones, Colin wilson (later at 8th overall) - Got a superstar late in Weber
2. St.L - Piets
3. Chicago - Toews and Kane
4. Winnipeg - GO WINNIPEG

1.Anaheim - Getz and Perry - 1st rounds but lower. Great picks exception to rule
2.Vancouver - Sedins
3.SJ - Thornton, a 1st overall who got traded in a rip off
4.Calgary - Monahan and Gio, and undrafted steal

So unless you get a amazing/lucky mangement move (Gio signing, Thornton trade) almost every team has 1 or 2 impact players drafted in the top 5, and most have a #1 pick.

None of these team except Boston has a FA as their core/best player. And that was only because of a monumental mistake by Ottawa.

Teams finishing 9-11th are perpetually screwed. Look no further then the Flames. In an every team missing playoffs get an equal chance, bad luck can stick a team who is terrible with a mid pick forever

[ben voyonsdonc]

I think that allowing all non-playoff teams to have some chance to pick number one is the best idea.

A proposal for number of balls in the lottery:
- Any team in bottom 5 would have 10%
- Any team between 6-10 would have 7%
- Any team between 11-14 could have around a 4%

[Calgary4LIfe]

I don't think you can fine teams for 'tanking'. Most teams are actually fined in a way - not every team has fans that fill a stadium, and they will see a steep drop-off in attendance. Would the league really want Phoenix or Florida to lose even more revenue? It could be the difference between 'hanging on' and having to change markets (which the league has been very opposed to).

Also, the spirit of the draft is to redistribute talent and make the league competitive. I don't think Edmonton came out and wanted to tank for the last decade. They are also a huge exception - they are a rich team. I don't think they would blink at the financial ramifications of losing revenue for 10 or 15 games.

I think the NHL has mostly got it right with next year's changes - a team can fall out of the top 3 (or 5? forget which now). It allows those teams who are barely hanging on to at least pick a possible franchise player who will help them become a contender.

We have to remember that many teams that finish in the lottery pick territory are teams that are financially struggle. Doesn't help that they are losers, and in so being, experience even less revenue making that circle ever tightening until they reach the point that they have to relocate or simply fold.

Then there is the question of what would happen if the penalty really worked to deter tanking. So a GM of Florida, or Arizona, or any other team would be forced to essentially be raped by the other teams. 29 other teams in the NHL would know that this team would be facing penalties they simply could not afford, and would low-ball them on deals that isn't even in the organization's best interest to make in the first place. They would essentially be forced to trading away youth in an effort to 'win now', but in the long-run their team would be worse off.

It gets even worse for some organizations like Columbus. They were touted as a playoff caliber team and some were even saying a 'dark horse' for the East. Then they experienced a rash of injuries and their playoff hopes were dead. Would it be fair to penalize this team? They would be double-punished IMO. They would have been forced to sell some of their youth at rock-bottom prices (vultures circling) to acquire more vets or impact players to keep their heads above water and in the race. Then they would have to unload vets (again, at rock-bottom prices since 29 other teams know they are in trouble) to remain cap compliant and to not lose players on waivers. In no way would I accuse them of tanking, but they would be unfairly punished for in the 'tanking' spirit.

You can't allow a team like Edmonton or Colorado to make it difficult for the bad teams to get better. All that will result in is an even distribution of talent in a draft, which would then result in the destruction of parity in the league. The draft's essence is to make the bad teams good in time by giving them the best players.

I think the NHL has it right - or at least almost right - with next year's changes. If it needs to be changed again, they will alter it. Maybe a 'no 3 top 5 picks in 5 years' rule. Who knows. Maybe the NHL will increase the number of teams that make the playoffs (would increase revenue for the teams and the league as a whole), and the remaining teams have an absolute equal shot at the lottery. There are quite a number of possibilities. Financially penalizing a team I would think would work against the poor teams in the league (or the 'bad luck' teams who run into huge injury issues) in the long run, which really goes against the intention of the draft in the first place.

[Scoutski]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Also, some tanks are happening far before being mathematically eliminated. The Oilers started looking towards the 2015 Draft in ****ing November 2006

ftfy

[memphusk]

All non playoff teams get one ball each for the lottery. Hold an auction for the sale of 2 extra balls to increase your odds. ( like buying an international players rights to negotiate in baseball) Money made from the sale goes to president trophy winning team.

[Joborule]

I don't know why it bothers people that teams that suck so bad for numerous years continue to get first overall picks. If they keep acquiring them, then clearly they still need them since the players they've drafted previously aren't making a difference; and there's no other way they can improve.

[#-3]

I've always been for the points after elimination idea, it just makes so much sense, some teams may tank for three or four games around the 60 game mark.

The complicated thing will be how they calculate when a team is eliminated

[RoughRiderRowdy]

I dont think Stajan has touched the puck once this game. Cant believe he is even in the NHL just hot garbage for the last 2 seasons

[Karl]

Originally Posted by RoughRiderRowdy

I dont think Stajan has touched the puck once this game. Cant believe he is even in the NHL just hot garbage for the last 2 seasons

You come here to derail this thread with this nonsense? And you are dead wrong. The last 2 seasons have been Stajan's best as a Flame.

[RoughRiderRowdy]

Originally Posted by Karl

You come here to derail this thread with this nonsense?

Sorry supposed to go in game day thread.

[cral12]

Originally Posted by troutman

I'd like to see the 14 teams that don't make the playoffs, play some sort of tournament or mini-playoffs for draft position (could be done in 2-3 weeks).

More revenue. More playoff hockey. No tanking. Every team has something to play for in April.

I concur - I proposed this couple years back at THW.
***
I edited this alternative proposed system written by a colleague.
***
As much as I'd like to see alternatives investigated, trialed and implemented, not sure how much difference from current system and minor changes they've recently made.

[Buck Murdock]

put 30 teams names in a hat, first team pulled gets #1, second gets #2, etc.

[driveway]

I'm a pretty big fan of the NBA's 'Wheel' proposal.

It would establish a draft order for the next 30 years, you'd know exactly which picks you had. You get at least one top-six pick every five years, and a top-12 pick every four.



It would make the trading of draft picks interesting, because you'd know exactly which pick you'd be trading for.

[Hackey]

Nothing wrong with the current system.

[Traditional_Ale]

How about this:

If you finish bottom two three years in a row, on the third time you automatically get the 30th overall pick in the first round of the draft and all the other teams simply move up a spot.

?

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

The best anti-tanking plan I've read on here is to have draft order determined by points earned after elimination.

I remember reading that. I think it's genius. It helps the lower teams by giving them more opportunity to earn "draft points" since they'll have the most games to play, and it also allows every teams fans to cheer for wins at the end of the season. Failure should not be rewarded just because they're bad and need help. They should have to show they're trying to improve and earn the right to improve.

[Stupid]

Diminishing returns on top 5 picks.

Picked first? 5 place penalty next draft. Picked second? 4 place penalty next draft.
In case of two teams ending up 6th for example give the tier breaker to the lower penalty team.

Edit: I guess it should be finished 30th and 29th instead of picking first so as to eliminate the penalty for teams trading to get the first pick.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by cral12

I concur - I proposed this couple years back at THW.
***
I edited this alternative proposed system written by a colleague.
***
As much as I'd like to see alternatives investigated, trialed and implemented, not sure how much difference from current system and minor changes they've recently made.

I can tell you right now, I would not waste the time or money to attend this so-called "draft playoff" if the Flames were part of it.

Originally Posted by driveway

I'm a pretty big fan of the NBA's 'Wheel' proposal.

It would establish a draft order for the next 30 years, you'd know exactly which picks you had. You get at least one top-six pick every five years, and a top-12 pick every four.

It would make the trading of draft picks interesting, because you'd know exactly which pick you'd be trading for.

The wheel proposal is actually a horrible idea and the complete antithesis of what a draft is meant to do. What the wheel draft does is take top prospects away from the bad teams that need them to improve and moves them to the top teams that don't need the help.

Imagine if this system were in place, and it was Chicago or Pittsburgh's year to draft first?