The draft lottery is still a joke

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Do those leagues also have a salary cap structure similar to the NHL? If not, then you can't compare them.

The draft lottery system existed for 30 some years and there was no parity until the cap changes. I am not saying it should be a free for all, but I highly doubt giving all non-playoff teams an equal chance would diminish the current parity at all.

Still more parity than leagues that do not have a draft system in place.

In the last 20 years here are the winners of the English premiership:
Manchester United (12)
Arsenal (3)
Chelsea (3)
Blackburn Rovers (1)
Manchester City (1)

That's one example and many of the European soccer leagues would look similar. You do have a point about the cap being a huge factor in parity as well. But to suggest there is no evidence that the draft helps parity is a ridiculous claim. It quite obviously helps parity. It is one of the only ways a horrible team can attract talent. Without it the bottom feeders would stay horrible, never being able to attract quality free agents and rarely able to get young talent.

[Jacks]

There are 14 teams that don't make the playoffs. Make the first 14 picks lottery picks with the following formula.

56 balls
29 & 30 - 7 balls = 12.5%
27 & 28 - 6 balls = 10.7%
25 & 26 - 5 balls = 8.9%
23 & 24 - 4 balls = 7.1%
21 & 22 - 3 balls = 5.4%
19 & 20 - 2 balls = 3.6%
17 & 18 - 1 ball = 1.8%

If team 27 wins the first pick then team 29 & 30's odds of getting pick 2 increase to 14% each and so on. Winning some games and moving from the 26th spot to the 23rd spot only increases your odds by 1.8%. No real reason to tank yet the worst teams are still favored to get the best picks.

You could also subtract 1 ball from the team that picked first the previous year(s). If either team 17 or 18 picked first last year then they automatically are awarded pick 18, etc.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Still more parity than leagues that do not have a draft system in place.

In the last 20 years here are the winners of the English premiership:
Manchester United (12)
Arsenal (3)
Chelsea (3)
Blackburn Rovers (1)
Manchester City (1)

Manchester United = 3rd in EPL payrolls
Arsenal = 4th
Chelsea = 2nd
Blackburn = 14th
Man. City = 1st

Man. City sepnds roughly 10x more on salary than the last place team in the EPL. Even the outlier there (Blackburn) spends 3 times more than the last place team. All this proves is that in a league with no meaningful cap, parity is hard to achieve. It says nothing about the effects of not having a draft. Do you really think Blackpool would be competing with Manchester United if only there was a draft lottery that favoured them?

That's one example and many of the European soccer leagues would look similar. You do have a point about the cap being a huge factor in parity as well. But to suggest there is no evidence that the draft helps parity is a ridiculous claim. It quite obviously helps parity. It is one of the only ways a horrible team can attract talent. Without it the bottom feeders would stay horrible, never being able to attract quality free agents and rarely able to get young talent.

It doesn't matter. Teams that continually draft high still have trouble attracting talent (Edmonton, Florida, Columbus, etc...). Teams that spend and are are in favourable cities or have respectable histories will attract talent - bottom line.

Teams that draft high get more affordable talent in the short term, but the ability to keep and attract talent is a function of spending, not drafting. Having a salary cap forces some talent down to the have-not teams and is the big equalizer that the draft lottery never was and will never be.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Right.... but that team will have probably 14th pick, so you haven't changed anything for them anyway.
What it changes things for is a team like the Oilers, losing 10 in a row to finish the season, and getting a top 5 pick as a result.
This way they get 12th maybe.

I disagree.

If you start accumulating these "points" once you're out of the playoffs, then the team that falls out of the playoffs earlier has an advantage the majority of the time. An example of a relegated team losing 10 in a row isn't a reasonable one to guide policy because it is an outlier scenario. If you look at the league standings now, the bottom three teams are picking up an average of 0.8 points per game. In the majority of years this method will simply reward those who cash out early.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It doesn't matter. Teams that continually draft high still have trouble attracting talent (Edmonton, Florida, Columbus, etc...). Teams that spend will attract talent. Teams that draft high get more affordable talent in the short term, but the ability to keep and attract talent is a function of spending, not drafting.

Edmonton has had trouble attracting talent drafting high? Not really sure what you mean. Are you saying Hall, RNH and Yakupov have no talent?

Edmonton again would have a lot of problems attracting talent if it were just up to spending. They couldn't keep Cujo, Weight, Guerin, Smyth, etc. They can't seem to attract any big name UFAs except Schultz and they only got Schultz because they had drafted Eberle, RNH, and Hall. All their high talent that they currently have was acquired through the draft directly or indirectly (Schultz).

The cap and the draft are both mechanisms to help parity. The cap may be the more important of the two. But your claim that there is zero evidence that the draft helps parity is still clearly false.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

The solution is to seed picks 1-14 with the same odds, IMO (for the first round). That would make the draft lottery pretty exciting and it certainly de-emphasizes tanking, at least somewhat.

This is probably the best solution to the problem.

Teams #1 - #5 have lets say 10% each = 50%
Teams #6 - #10 have 7.5% each = 37.5%
Teams #11 = #14 have 3.125% each = 12.5%

If you weigh each slot more equally, then there wont be any difference in finishing 28th or 30th and a slight difference in finishing 25th and 30th.

[the_only_turek_fan]

AND.....if you finish last one year, you are disqualified from winning the lottery the next.

[harmony]

I'd like to see all the non playoff teams have their own mini-playoffs. winner gets #1 pick, runner up gets 2nd pick, etc etc.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by harmony

I'd like to see all the non playoff teams have their own mini-playoffs. winner gets #1 pick, runner up gets 2nd pick, etc etc.

Thats pretty much what my idea represents. A playoff like atmosphere from the trade deadline to seasons end. Battle of the basement dwellers for the best chance at a number 1 pick.

[Itse]

While having some sort of a draft seems obviously beneficial to parity, it's a whole different question whether or not it's actually best to reward the worst team. You can't compare a league that has no draft to a league that has some kind of a draft.

It's vastly different if every team just needs to entice the best players with money, as opposed to every team getting to pick at least some good players.

The lottery draft was from the start an obviously broken way of trying to fix the original problem of tanking. Simply sometimes giving the first overall to someone else than the last team overall does nothing to change the overall situation; on average tanking is still beneficial.

You could even argue that tanking is even more beneficial now, since you could argue that more teams have a motivation to tank now for the hope that they MIGHT get the first overall if they only finished a little lower.

I think my solution right now would be to have full lottery of the first 14 picks among the teams out of the playoffs. I think that's as fair as it needs to be. If a team can't drag itself out of the bottom of the league by picking mid- to high firsts year after year, they don't deserve it anyway. They don't need the absolute first pick.

[Hockey_Ninja]

I bet you wouldn't be feeling this way puckluck if the Flames won it.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

I bet you wouldn't be feeling this way puckluck if the Flames won it.

The lottery hasn't happened yet so how can you say this? I'm against tanking like what the Flames are doing tonight.

I've already said I hope they win every game to finish the season giving them the least possible chance at the lottery. Them winning the lottery won't change my mind. I hope the league investigates this crap.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

In the majority of years this method will simply reward those who cash out early.

Right. It will. So in the majority of years the results will be the same as they currently are, because in the majority of years the teams eliminated earliest finish up lowest overall.
So essentially it would change nothing - except eliminating the statistical outlier (cough Oilers cough) from significantly improving their draft standing by a long losing run to end the season.

And no - it's not a plausible system. And this year would likely to be a mess that way anyway, as a shortened season will keep everyone in contention longer. I just like the notion not rewarding 'tanking' to finish the season.

[Yrebmi]

My shot at an anti tanking solution idea.

Draft position for non playoff teams is assigned according to ranking at the trade deadline.
Lottery for first overall is still done weighted on final position.

Teams could still tank, but they would have to begin tanking prior to the trade dead line.
Tanking after the deadline would serve no purpose other than improving lottery chance, and I doubt many teams would find that worth the gamble.

[GGG]

I like the idea of draft order being fixed on trade deadline day. Step one of tanking is always trading away your vets for picks and prospects. So if you fix the draft order at that point in time it better reflects the actual quality of the teams.

I also like the idea of creating a rule that the sum total of your draft picks in consecutive years has to be more than 6 and in 3 consecutive years more than 12. So the best you can draft is 1,5,6 or 2,4,6 in consecutive 3 year periods. And the best you can draft in two consecutive years is 3,3 or 1,5. This is important because of the talent lag in the NHL. It takes 2 - 4 years before top line talent impacts the playoff races so a team spends too long on the bottom before swinging to the top. We need to moderate those swings so you don't go as high or as low.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

I've already said I hope they win every game to finish the season giving them the least possible chance at the lottery. Them winning the lottery won't change my mind. I hope the league investigates this crap.

Why? No one gets upsets when teams that have qualified for the playoffs rest their top players. What's the difference? When the game is not meaningful, there is no sense in icing the best line-up possible.

[lifetime_flamesfan]

Originally Posted by HOOT

The NBA is one.

Just ask the San Antonio Spurs what happens you don't dress your regular line up.

[edn88]

No matter what system you implement, it will be imperfect. I am pretty sure that the NHL and NBA have some pretty bright minds trying to figure this problem out.

At the end of the day the lottery is really an opportunity for the NHL to ensure that highly regarded talent makes it into the right market by riggin the lottery

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Its a black mark on the league and should be considered an embarrassment. I understand the philosophy of letting the weaker teams draft higher, but there needs to be an incentive to actually compete. Also, teams like the Oilers should not be consistently rewarded with top assets every year just becuase they mask continuous suckage as some type of amazing management strategy. That is horse manure.

The integrety of the league and the game really takes a hit when you look at whats going on this season.

Pretty annoying when the Oiler's can keep grabbing top picks when other teams are just as, or more deserving. Top picks are what helps other buildings get fans in the building. The system should reward other teams that need skilled players. Teams should not be allowed to draft top picks for consecutive years and should be bumped each year after the first one if they finish 1 through 5.

[CliffFletcher]

To the league (and by the league I mean the owners), awarding franchise players to the worst teams to save them from relocating or folding trumps any consideration of competitive integrity. To them, a Pittsburgh or a Carolina failing and driving down the value of everyone's franchises is a disaster. A bigger disaster than the competitive integrity of the last 10 or so games being cast in doubt by GMs tanking.

It's just another reminder that the NHL is first and foremost a business. Or, more accurately, a cartel.