GMs to discuss changing Draft Lottery Odds

[Hockey_Ninja]

Originally Posted by DOOM

Do some of you really think teams "tank" ?

Have there been any recent examples? And no I don't mean the Oilers recent draft history as I don't think they have been "tanking"

The Avs tanked big time.

[MyFlamesFirst]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Easier fix.

If you finish in the bottom 5 twice in a row, you are not eligible for the top pick. That way if you perpetually suck ala Edmonton, you can't get the top pick at all.

I really like this. I think it should be something the GM's suggest and use as a base to build upon. I think the worst team should still have good odds for the best draft position, because often they really are the worst team. I don't think its fair if one year a team is bad but then they somehow by chance get screwed over with their pick. It should only be if they are continually bad after having many chances to improve. At some point the people in charge should be accountable for not running a successful and efficient business.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by DOOM

Do some of you really think teams "tank" ?

Have there been any recent examples? And no I don't mean the Oilers recent draft history as I don't think they have been "tanking"

Well if they haven't they probably still shouldn't get another big pick. They're truly disastrous and having that safety net there prevents them from working harder at it and getting better. Not only that, it's punishing the big picks by putting them in an organization that is either completely inept, or doesn't care.

[stemit14]

I think this change needs to be done so teams stop blowing up their rosters with the intention of rebuilding by dropping in the standings for a few years to get the higher picks. I would prefer it if every organization tried to ice the best possible team every single season. That means every team should be trying to sign better players and actively make their team better instead of looking at Craig buttons choice for #1 overall in 2015 and saying... "We'll just make sure we're really bad that season... We'll call it rebuilding."

[Poe969]

I hope this gets done this year so we actually have a chance at the #1 pick. They should also penalize the oilers for not firing Lowe and McTavish, by keeping those 2 around they're clearly tanking. I call it circumventing common sense.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Coincedence this comes up a year before McDavid's draft? Everyone wants a better chance at him and they know it'll be hard to outsuck EDM, CGY, FLA and BUF

Any change should take effect in five years so that we don't know who the beneficiaries will be.

(Just kidding, we all know the Oilers will still suck.)

[Robbob]

I think the actions of some teams last year and Oilers GM talking about drafting Ekblad with 40 games left in the season has a lot to do with this. I do think moving the lotto to more then the first would go a long way to fix things. Especially if the odds are adjusted based on previous years drafting in he top five. The last thing the NHL wants is a bunch of teams intentionally diving for McDavid.

[King Theo]

I say leave it alone, the worst team needs the best players. It is done like this in the NFL and I think the 1st pick in the NFL is worth more then the 1st in the NHL.

Its also funny because Edmonton still sucks so bad.

[FlamingHomer]

If you really want to punish the Oilers at the draft how about instead of ranking the teams, rank the top 30 picks. The number 1 rated pick chooses the team he wants to play for (there should be a reward for being a top player don't you think) then that team is off the board so the 2nd pick has 29 teams to choose from, etc.
The 2nd round and on can be done by the old school last team picks first method.

And yes, this can be in "light" green text.

[Erick Estrada]

My how times have changed in the NHL. In the 80's the league made up rules to help curb the Oilers superiority when playing 4 on 4. Current day the league is making rules to help curb the Oilers superiority at picking 1st overall.

[FlamesAddiction]

Is there actually any evidence that the draft lottery has contributed to parity in the past (or makes bad teams good)? It was in place since 1963 and for at least the past 30 years, it doesn't look like there is any correlation between teams that get high picks and teams that are successful. Teams that do well draft better in later rounds and spend money. For every example of a team drafting high and turning it around, it seems that there are more examples of teams drafting high and never turning it around, or teams succeeding is spite of not drafting high very often.

The salary cap did more in the past decade than the draft lottery has in the past 50 years to ensure an even playing field.

At this point, the lottery system only serves to offer consolation to teams that are terrible and poorly run. Perhaps there is merit in that, but let's not pretend that it has anything to do with parity or helping out bottom feeders. It's all about throwing the fans a bone.

[Burke Salad]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Is there actually any evidence that the draft lottery has contributed to parity in the past (or makes bad teams good)? It was in place since 1963 and for at least the past 30 years, it doesn't look like there is any correlation between teams that get high picks and teams that are successful. Teams that do well draft better in later rounds and spend money. For every example of a team drafting high and turning it around, it seems that there are more examples of teams drafting high and never turning it around, or teams succeeding is spite of not drafting high very often.

The salary cap did more in the past decade than the draft lottery has in the past 50 years to ensure an even playing field.

At this point, the lottery system only serves to offer consolation to teams that are terrible and poorly run. Perhaps there is merit in that, but let's not pretend that it has anything to do with parity or helping out bottom feeders. It's all about throwing the fans a bone.

It has certainly made the Penguins franchise.

[normtwofinger]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Is there actually any evidence that the draft lottery has contributed to parity in the past (or makes bad teams good)? It was in place since 1963 and for at least the past 30 years, it doesn't look like there is any correlation between teams that get high picks and teams that are successful. Teams that do well draft better in later rounds and spend money. For every example of a team drafting high and turning it around, it seems that there are more examples of teams drafting high and never turning it around, or teams succeeding is spite of not drafting high very often.

The salary cap did more in the past decade than the draft lottery has in the past 50 years to ensure an even playing field.

At this point, the lottery system only serves to offer consolation to teams that are terrible and poorly run. Perhaps there is merit in that, but let's not pretend that it has anything to do with parity or helping out bottom feeders. It's all about throwing the fans a bone.

Penguins x2

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Burke Salad

It has certainly made the Penguins franchise.

You can't separate the fact that when they were bad, they were also poor, or that they also drafted well in general outside of the top 5 picks they had, and that they also had new management at the time they turned it around.

Even if you attribute their success to high draft picks, for every "Pittsburgh", there is an Islanders, Columbus, Edmonton, Florida or Atlanta who didn't have the same success, or a Detroit that has had success despite never having many consecutive high picks.

The anecdotal evidence does not suggest a relationship between the draft lottery and success. One example does not mean correlation.

[troutman]

At what point are about 8-10 teams mathematically eliminated from playoffs? 60 games? 70 games?

After that point, the eliminated teams could compete for draft order. Most points gets the first overall pick, and so on. Teams can't tank - they will have to play to win. Could be exciting - like trying to avoid relegation in EPL.

One problem with this - there may be an imbalance in home/away games remaining. Solution - mini-playoffs amongst the 8 worst teams? Best of three series. More revenues.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

At this point, the lottery system only serves to offer consolation to teams that are terrible and poorly run. Perhaps there is merit in that, but let's not pretend that it has anything to do with parity or helping out bottom feeders. It's all about throwing the fans a bone.

Only a relatively small portion of NHL fans - the hardcores - even follow the draft. And it's not the hardcore fans who the NHL worries about losing in marginal markets.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The anecdotal evidence does not suggest a relationship between the draft lottery and success. One example does not mean correlation.

If the draft lottery doesn't affect on-ice success, then who cares if the worst teams get the top picks every year? If you're right, then it doesn't matter anyway.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

You can't separate the fact that when they were bad, they were also poor, or that they also drafted well in general outside of the top 5 picks they had, and that they also had new management at the time they turned it around.

Even if you attribute their success to high draft picks, for every "Pittsburgh", there is an Islanders, Columbus, Edmonton, Florida or Atlanta who didn't have the same success, or a Detroit that has had success despite never having many consecutive high picks.

The anecdotal evidence does not suggest a relationship between the draft lottery and success. One example does not mean correlation.

You're arguing that it doesn't help. You're wrong.

It does EXACTLY that: help.
High draft picks does not an elite team make, but for teams that put the work in it certainly helps the process. Good teams are built by astute management, but having high level players is a general requirement of being a high level time.

You brought up Detroit, excellent example. After years of poor drafting in the 1st round (save for Kronwall) and trading that pick, where are they now? They were elite 3-4 years ago, but they've been falling down to earth ever since because of the lack of young high end talent on their roster.

Drafting high helps. It's not how you build a great team, but to write it off as having no correlation is misinformed.

[CliffFletcher]

Let's be honest. The reason we are facing a long and painful rebuild isn't because of a faulty draft lottery. It's because Flames management has been awful at drafting and developing young players. Chronically among the worst in the NHL.

And personally, I'm finding this season far less painful to watch then the last few years of the Iginla era, when a veteran roster that was clearly not going to contend for a Cup drifted along in mediocrity and gradual decline. The cyclical nature of a league with a draft and a salary cap makes it more interesting for me as a fan. It means management that is patient and far-sighted (and competent) can exchange short-term pain for long-term gain and tilt the odds towards building a contender.

But yeah, I'd be satisfied with a weighted lottery system where a team couldn't pick top-5 three years in a row. All non-playoff teams get three balls. One is removed each time you've drafted in the top-5 in the last two seasons. Win the lottery and you move up five spots. If you've drafted in the top-5 in the last two years, highest you can pick is sixth.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by dino7c

exactly, this is the best explanation

I have barely even watched the games this year when normally I don't miss one...its no fun when my team is better off losing

Once you realize that your team isn't better off losing, you will find it fun again.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If the draft lottery doesn't affect on-ice success, then who cares if the worst teams get the top picks every year? If you're right, then it doesn't matter anyway.

It does matter though, because as mentioned by a few others, it is player development that is the real key. If we keep handing over the best young talent year after year to teams that can't develop them properly, is that good for the league in general?

Originally Posted by strombad

You're arguing that it doesn't help. You're wrong.

It does EXACTLY that: help.
High draft picks does not an elite team make, but for teams that put the work in it certainly helps the process. Good teams are built by astute management, but having high level players is a general requirement of being a high level time.

You brought up Detroit, excellent example. After years of poor drafting in the 1st round (save for Kronwall) and trading that pick, where are they now? They were elite 3-4 years ago, but they've been falling down to earth ever since because of the lack of young high end talent on their roster.

Drafting high helps. It's not how you build a great team, but to write it off as having no correlation is misinformed.

I am not arguing that it never helps or that it can't help. Obviously it can, just like spending to the cap "can" help. I am just saying that the relationship between picking high and building a winner does not seem to be there, at least not any more so than other factors (i.e., competent management, player development, access to free agents and money). There is way too much focus on awarding high draft picks to bad teams.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Let's be honest. The reason we are facing a long and painful rebuild isn't because of a faulty draft lottery. It's because Flames management has been awful at drafting and developing young players.

Bingo. And that is true with every team that fails continuously.