Did I Just Solve The "Tanking" Problem?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by polak

Do you think the league is thrilled with the Oilers and Sabres of the league?

The league is probably mildly annoyed at the Oilers and Sabres. But they would be extremely distressed if one of them (or another bottom-feeder) relocated because the fans gave up.

The league wants parity. It's good for business. They do not want teams to relocate. They want to help bad teams by giving them the opportunity to become good teams. And they don't care that their business interests run contrary to the wishes of fans who don't like tanking.

[lazypucker]

If I can change the drafting rules, I will propose that the draft lottery will not only be for the 1st overall pick, but it will be a draw for all 1st round picks for the 14 non-playoff teams. And I would give more even odds to all teams, instead of the 3 worst teams having a 95% chance to win the draw. This way the incentives of tanking will become a lot less as the odds are getting more even.

Edit: NVM, FlamesAddition just said the exact same thing!!

[Senator Clay Davis]

Why is tanking not an issue for the NFL, even as it sends a lower % of teams to the playoffs than the NHL and NBA? Because it has the most parity of all leagues. When the NHL (and the NBA too, which is worse right now with 3 teams fielding 8-33 or worse records) has the kind of parity we see in the NFL, tanking will no longer by an issue. But the NFL has it made in terms of competitive balance, the other leagues do not. That's the key to ending tanking.

[polak]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The league is probably mildly annoyed at the Oilers and Sabres. But they would be extremely distressed if one of them (or another bottom-feeder) relocated because the fans gave up.

The league wants parity. It's good for business. They do not want teams to relocate. They want to help bad teams by giving them the opportunity to become good teams. And they don't care that their business interests run contrary to the wishes of fans who don't like tanking.

That's exactly why you keep the draft as it is and implement some version of this. The bad teams still get the best picks but not without a price if they start playing bad early on purpose.

[topfiverecords]

Just have the GMs of the 14 teams that miss the playoffs vote on a concensus 14 players that would be drafted in the top 14. Then put those names on cards, and slot them into a Wheel of Fortune bonus round style prize wheel.

Teams then spin the wheel and the player they get, is the player they get. Edmonton (last place), gets to go first and they have a shot at any of the 14 players.

Katz' kid would love it. Every kid loves spinning a prize wheel. In years where Edm is first up (almost all), you rig the cards to all be the 14th ranked player.

[codynw]

The GMs of the 14 teams that miss the playoffs should all have a big brawl in a barn to decide the draft order.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by polak

It's not really a hockey decision any more than the owners mandating a rebuild or a win-now strategy. Or deciding to spend to the cap or to aim for the floor.

The owners have to have some influence in the general attitude and direction of the team.

That's a hockey decision and should be made by the people they pay to do it. Obviously owners have their say (some more than others) but this would make it a completely business decision, which it's not. Not if you want to run your team like a hockey team that's trying to win vs a straight-up business.

Either way, I agree with most that it would end up incidentally hurting some teams more than it should. I believe tanking exists at the management level, but some teams are just bad. Putting financial contraints on teams where the finances aren't equal wouldn't be good.

Hurt their draft position, not the overall business.

[Jason14h]

Instead of worrying about tanking how about the question of :

"If the worst team doesn't get the best pick (or close too/best chance) how the hell can they ever get better?" OR

"If you were the Oilers GM how would you actually improve the team without starting over" (Which would mean trading you guys for picks and spects., and therefor be 'tanking')

1. FA's won't want to go unless massively overpaid (SEE EDM)
2. Signing average and old FA's to massive deals handcuffs team in future signing players.
3. Average overpaid older FA's fail to make team better.
4. Unable to sign quality FA's, team is forced to build through trades and drafts.
5. Trading good player for picks causes team to suck, causing them to not be allowed top picks for 'tanking'
6. Draft players who aren't the best while better teams get better drafted players
7. ?
8. ?
9. Stanley Cup

The NHL has already made changes so the top few picks are no longer guaranteed to the worst teams. Why do we need anything more.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Um, that just keeps the bottom feeders at the bottom. Last year, the Capitals barely missed the playoffs. Do you really want them adding Sam Reinhart or Sam Bennett or Aaron Ekblad or Leon Draisatl while the Panthers end up with a #14 pick? All you end up with is the situation from the 90s with the Red Wings and the Avs being superstacked.

The point of getting high draft picks for the worst teams is to maintain parity. It's only a problem when teams have

1) Awful management + scouting
2) Terrible geological location for free agent signing / retention
3) Awful development/farm systems
4) Their good picks in less-good draft years

that the same teams keep popping up in low the draft over and over and over.

I see your points - except teams like the Red Wings and Avs would not fall into this group.

The mini-playoffs could be scaled to address these concerns you raise. Two tiers of mini-playoffs, or limits on how many positions you can move up (ex. one position per round you win).

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by polak

That's exactly why you keep the draft as it is and implement some version of this. The bad teams still get the best picks but not without a price if they start playing bad early on purpose.

Who is the judge of that?

I don't think the Oilers are tanking on purpose. I think they just suck and the players don't care. You're going to punish the owners because the players don't care and the coaches can't make them?

[stemit14]

Think how embarrassing it will forever be that all these changes to the draft lottery are because of Edmonton. There's no doubt that they are the reason the changes are happening and why're people are demanding more changes to come. Too bad they are too late to deny the oilers McDavid/Eichel. Have to hope the hockey gods punish them by keeping those franchise players away from that dumpster fire.

I do like this idea of making ownership accountable for tanking. Also would like a rule that prevents any team from picking top 5 in consecutive years. And also want a rule that makes teams lose balls in the lottery draw if they picked in the top five within the last few seasons. Something like... If picked twice in the top five the last five seasons enough balls are removed to decrease the chance of winning the lottery by 30%. The lost balls are distributed evenly amongst the teams above in the standings to increase their chances of winning the lottery. Don't know the details or the mechanics of how to make these rules work but something along those lines.

[polak]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Who is the judge of that?

I don't think the Oilers are tanking on purpose. I think they just suck and the players don't care. You're going to punish the owners because the players don't care and the coaches can't make them?

Yes. Then the owner gets mad and tells the GM to admit he was wrong and make some changes.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by polak

Yes. Then the owner gets mad and tells the GM to admit he was wrong and make some changes.

Again, who is the judge of what tanking is? The league? So they can spin the wheel of justice again?

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Who is the judge of that?



I don't think the Oilers are tanking on purpose. I think they just suck and the players don't care. You're going to punish the owners because the players don't care and the coaches can't make them?

The players aren't tanking... Management has been tanking since the tough start to the season. Evident by how slow they were to react in any way to try to salvage the season when it was somewhat statistically salvageable. It took 2 months before they considered firing the coach. 3 months before they would make a trade. They were afraid to spark the team or improve the team just enough to not make the playoffs while removing their shot at McDavid.

Heck... Throw out my previous post. Make it so the lottery is completely even odds for all the teams that don't make the playoffs. And have a lottery draw for every draft position. End any benefit of finishing dead last. Before you try to say that it will prevent really bad teams from ever improving... That's already happening with the oilers. Under the current system... Young high-end draft picks are being consumed and ruined by that organization while the team never improves. Meanwhile... Teams like Phoenix for example don't ever get a chance to develop those kind of players.

[Robbob]

The NHL has already done this.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=728795

Starting in 2016 the top 3 spots will be drawn for. Being last and not being guaranteed top 2 pick does it IMO.

[polak]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Again, who is the judge of what tanking is? The league? So they can spin the wheel of justice again?

You look at historical data of teams that are accused of tanking in the past, see which game they were mathematically eliminated from the playoffs and then compare that to the mean game number which teams that finish in the bottom 5 are eliminated by in consensus weak draft years and then decide at which point is being eliminated from playoff contention normal and thats point where you no longer punish teams for being eliminated.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by stemit14

The players aren't tanking... Management has been tanking since the tough start to the season. Evident by how slow they were to react in any way to try to salvage the season when it was somewhat statistically salvageable. It took 2 months before they considered firing the coach. 3 months before they would make a trade. They were afraid to spark the team or improve the team just enough to not make the playoffs while removing their shot at McDavid.

Again, this is from an outsiders viewpoint. This is what fans and outsiders have decided. Are you in the room with the talking heads in Edmonton? Do you know what is said behind closed doors? Has anyone stopped to consider that they actually thought they saw improvement and didn't want to rock the boat after the storm they've been weathering for the past few seasons?

I'm saying it's subjective. You don't know when they decided to tank or even if they decided to tank. It's really hard to fire your coach when you know no-one wants to come there. It's really hard to make trades when no one wants to trade with you or play for you. We all sit here and laugh and make assumptions but we don't actually know what goes on in Edmonton.

Further to that, think of how hard the Owners fought for parity. Think of the games we've missed and again, we have the potential of missing games in the future. For parity. All the calculations were based off HRR which in turn, affects a teams payroll. Bearing in mind that away games don't create HRR for a team, teams only have 45 games (including pre-season) to earn HRR for the season. If you've decided they started tanking midway through the season they now only have 21 or so home games to even earn HRR. What do you think would happen to their player salaries for the next season? Now they only have half of their income. They clearly won't be spending as much because they won't be able to afford to. Do you think that would help the Oilers situation? I mean, they're a cap team. Take away half of their income and do you think they still spend to the cap?

I'm not saying the Oilers are smart or are trying to defend them as God knows they make a lot of stupid decisions but IMO, reducing the ability for a struggling team to actually spend money on decent players will not help them 'avoid tanking' it will just make them awful.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by polak

That's exactly why you keep the draft as it is and implement some version of this. The bad teams still get the best picks but not without a price if they start playing bad early on purpose.

The draft has existed since 1963. I am not sure if it was always a case where the worst teams picked first, but since at least the 1980s through to 2004, the draft lottery existed where the bad teams got the top pick, but parity throughout the league was never achieved or even improved because of it.

The closest thing to bring about parity was the salary cap and the lowering of the UFA age. If anything, it is probably time to make the draft way less favourable to bad teams. In most cases, bad teams stay bad because of bad management regardless of where they draft. Occasionally in a good draft when there is a "Crosby" or "Lemieux", it can turn bad teams into powerhouses, but again, that isn't promoting parity. That is just creating another kind of imbalance.

Originally Posted by Robbob

The NHL has already done this.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=728795

Starting in 2016 the top 3 spots will be drawn for. Being last and not being guaranteed top 2 pick does it IMO.

A step in the right direction, but not good enough. I do think it is a process though. They can't just turn it upside down over night.

[bob-loblaw]

I have two alternate solutions:

1. Keep track of every team's points for the last 25 games of year. The ones that miss the playoffs but have the best record over the 25 games gets the best chances for picks.

2. Alternately the picks would be given in order of the teams that miss the playoffs but have the best records in the last 25 games.

These might put some pressure on the bottom two-thirds of the league to at least make an effort at the end of the schedule.

[Geeoff]

Even with this system, Edmonton would still be no good. The Oilers haven't been this bad for as long as they have in an attempt to accrue high picks. They just have ####ty management, drafting and player development.