New Draft Lottery odds announced

[icarus]

Originally Posted by codynw

There is no way playoff teams should be able to win the lottery. Can you imagine if the Kings or Blackhawks won the lottery this year and ended up with McDavid? I don't even think the teams that barely missed the playoffs should be in the lottery, never mind all of the elite teams.

Perhaps. But do you think the Flames should not have had a chance to win the Sidney Crosby sweepstakes in 2005 because they made the playoffs (and then some) in the most recent season?

In any case, I am glad we did (although Pelech was a damp squib)!

[codynw]

Originally Posted by icarus

Perhaps. But do you think the Flames should not have had a chance to win the Sidney Crosby sweepstakes in 2005 because they made the playoffs (and then some) in the most recent season?

In any case, I am glad we did (although Pelech was a damp squib)!

No I don't think they should have been able to win. The lottery should only include the bad teams. For the most part (there have been exceptions), without high draft picks the bad teams will stay bad.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

So you're saying that Buffalo has the responsibility to other NHL teams' season tickets owners to not maximize the value of their assets and to not prioritize long-term goals?

Just so much wrong with that "argument."

Buffalo is a business that is about maximizing the value of its own franchise, not the utility of people who pay Buffalo ZERO dollars. Further, Buffalo already has to cross subsidize the utility of these consumers because of the salary cap floor. You can only go so low.

The point of rewarding the worst teams is actually a much better economically rational argument to the interests of the health of all franchises. It provides hope to the worst, hope can be capitalized in ways that your misplaced sense of fairness or pride cannot.

No, you missed the point. I never said Buffalo had an obligation to other teams' STHs.

I said every team has an obligation to be competitive. And I said the league (with this move) wants to motivate Buffalo (all teams) to ice a competitive product.

Buffalo, on their own, should do whatever they think is best for their franchise.

The league however, will attempt to motivate teams to do what is best for the league.

Nothing wrong with the argument in the slightest.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by codynw

I think "tanking" is the wrong word, but look at Buffalo last year. They traded every NHL quality player they had for picks/prospects. You can't tell me that you think Murray was trying to ice a competitive team.

Any league where teams are built through a draft is cyclical. Not every team is in win now mode every season. If they were, you would never see quality players traded for draft picks. Personally, I enjoy the strategy behind pursuing success in a cyclical league - the exchange of short-term pain for long-term gain (and vice-versa).

As for competitiveness, that's what the salary floor is for.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I disagree. I don't think Walmart owes Target the courtesy of being competitive, nor do I think Walmart owes its customers the courtesy of fair prices. Its a free market, competitive business. Likewise with hockey, there's only 16 playoff teams, so there has to be losers. Even if there's 8 points separating the 1st and 30th place teams, someone has to lose and get the better selection for incoming talent.

Moreover, if STHs are dumb enough to pay for a poor product, that's their problem. No business should be handcuffed by the cries of any given customer. I'm sure some STH support the tank, while others don't. You can't please everyone, so the managers need to focus on what's good for business.

1) Walmart and Target are not a comparable for NHL teams

2) STHs are not 'dumb' for paying for an inferior product, they pay for one product: their team's home games against the other 29 NHL teams, and don't get to 'choose' which games (teams) they purchase

3) the league, therefore, has a responsibility and a desire, to have all teams ice a competitive product

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

2) STHs are not 'dumb' for paying for an inferior product, they pay for one product: their team's home games against the other 29 NHL teams, and don't get to 'choose' which games (teams) they purchase

A team's relationship with its customers - the season ticket holders - is its own business. If their fans are patient enough for a rebuild, then why should other teams care? If they're not, then ownership will find out in a hurry. It's worth keeping in mind that sustained mediocrity can turns fans off more than a team that sucks but offers reasons for optimism in the future. Fans around here, for instance, seem a lot happier than they were three years ago.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Any league where teams are built through a draft is cyclical. Not every team is in win now mode every season. If they were, you would never see quality players traded for draft picks. Personally, I enjoy the strategy behind pursuing success in a cyclical league - the exchange of short-term pain for long-term gain (and vice-versa).

As for competitiveness, that's what the salary floor is for.

Yes, that is what the floor is for - because it is important to the league.

This is another step in that direction, IMO

[Resolute 14]

A better example than Buffalo is what happened in the NBA last season with Philadelphia. I find it very hard to believe that the NHL wasn't aware of what the 76ers were doing and I think that may have impacted things here. For as much as we mock the Oilers or trash the Avs, what the 76ers did was truly embarrassing, and is definitely something nobody wants to see happen in the NHL.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A team's relationship with its customers - the season ticket holders - is its own business. If their fans are patient enough for a rebuild, then why should other teams care? If they're not, then ownership will find out in a hurry. It's worth keeping in mind that sustained mediocrity can turns fans off more than a team that sucks but offers reasons for optimism in the future. Fans around here, for instance, seem a lot happier than they were three years ago.

It is its own business, yes.

But the product delivered by the other teams also affects that relationship.

Individual teams can do nothing to motivate other teams to ice a competitive product. So the league does it for them.

In another example, watching Minnesota can be painful (in past years anyway). I welcome rules changes that motivate teams like Minnesota to play a more entertaining brand of hockey.

[DriveByPunch]

I like the "oilers draft amendment" alot. There should never be huge upside/incentive to lose. I think these numbers will keep the order more honest in who should get the picks.

I also thought the idea of locking the draft order at the trade deadline would be an interesting idea. Far enough into the season to know which teams are really out of it, and early enough before a team would start to tank for picks.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by codynw

Pretty much every team trades their UFAs when they're that bad, and it's fair, but the team still made themselves significantly worse short term so that they could improve long term, and that included getting a top 2 draft pick. Tanking probably isn't the right word, but they're definitely not planning on making the playoffs.

They were in last place before they traded them. I don't see the issue at all. It would make absolutely no sense to keep them and lose them in the off season for nothing. A team is always going to be in last place. This whole tanking thing is so blown out of proportion. Buffalo made a lot of signings this summer. Tanking obviously isn't their goal but unfortunately being last happens. Highly doubt it's any teams goal coming into a season.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No, you missed the point. I never said Buffalo had an obligation to other teams' STHs.

I said every team has an obligation to be competitive. And I said the league (with this move) wants to motivate Buffalo (all teams) to ice a competitive product.

Buffalo, on their own, should do whatever they think is best for their franchise.

The league however, will attempt to motivate teams to do what is best for the league.

Nothing wrong with the argument in the slightest.

What's best for the league is having Buffalo rebuild properly and become the next Blackhawks. There is going to be a last place team no matter what. There are going to be bad teams no matter what. Why should we put this pressure on them to do everything possible in the short term to make the team marginally better when it may hurt them long term and make the road to being a contender even longer? Just doesn't make sense. All because of this conspiracy theory of "tanking" people love to whine about around here.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

1) Walmart and Target are not a comparable for NHL teams

2) STHs are not 'dumb' for paying for an inferior product, they pay for one product: their team's home games against the other 29 NHL teams, and don't get to 'choose' which games (teams) they purchase

3) the league, therefore, has a responsibility and a desire, to have all teams ice a competitive product

Only the 3rd point is really a counter arguement to things I said. A hockey team competing with another team has a very similiar relationship to any two businesses competing in the same market. Even within my business I have to be careful about stealing too many jobs from specific competitors, who I may use as a sub in dire times. There's industry associations that all of the competing outfits participate in so that there's standardization in quality of product and practices. We're all out to see a healthy industry for all of us, especially when there's a similar industries who perform similar work.

But that doesn't mean I answer to competitors or customers. Any STH can spend money elsewhere. They're not stakeholders. They're no different than any pissed off customer yelling at a cashier at McDonalds. You simply won't please everyone.

[MarkGio]

I get it. No simple fan wants to feel bad for cheering for a team that has no incentive to win. A poor ability to delay gratification is prevalent in our society. But no team aspires to be mediocre permanently.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I get it. No simple fan wants to feel bad for cheering for a team that has no incentive to win. A poor ability to delay gratification is prevalent in our society. But no team aspires to be mediocre permanently.

Of course not.

But that doesn't mean that the league can't push for some basic standards in the meantime.

It's a big business, and the business is entertainment.

[albertGQ]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

A better example than Buffalo is what happened in the NBA last season with Philadelphia. I find it very hard to believe that the NHL wasn't aware of what the 76ers were doing and I think that may have impacted things here. For as much as we mock the Oilers or trash the Avs, what the 76ers did was truly embarrassing, and is definitely something nobody wants to see happen in the NHL.

I don't follow the NBA too much until the playoffs

What did the Sixers do?

[Newton]

Originally Posted by icarus

Perhaps. But do you think the Flames should not have had a chance to win the Sidney Crosby sweepstakes in 2005 because they made the playoffs (and then some) in the most recent season?

In any case, I am glad we did (although Pelech was a damp squib)!

The lockout - nobody won. The lottery was appropriate for all teams that year IMO

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

I don't follow the NBA too much until the playoffs

What did the Sixers do?

Everything the Oilers have done via incompetence, the 76ers did by design. They went out and deliberately built a team with no hope of competing so as to collect top draft picks. And in a fit of curiousity, they are drafting players they know can't help them any time soon (NBA is a college draft, so most kids can come in and help right away, but this year they drafted a player who is likely going to be unable to play for most or all of the season due to injury) specifically because they can keep losing today while hoping a bunch of picks come in and help them win later. They finished last season 19-63, but that is deceptive as they were 12-21 just after the new year. They then went 5-42 and tied the NBA record of 26 consecutive losses.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/writer/...omes-to-an-end

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...-strikes-again

[albertGQ]

^^^

And they still didnt get the first overall pick?

[Resolute 14]

Cleveland won the lottery with a 1.7% chance, and Milwaukee was marginally worse.