Fixing the Draft, Stopping the Tank

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by FlamingHomer

It will never happen but how about Central Scouting ranks the top 32 players. The number one prospect picks the team he wants to play on. That team is now finished the first round unless they acquired a first round pick from another team. The second ranked prospect picks his team. Etc etc. There could be any number of reasons a player chooses their particular team. The second round would be as usual with the lowest point team picking first.
The draft would be way more exciting and good players don't have to be punished by going to a team they don't like.

“College loophole, hold my beer.”

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Better solution is something like this:
- Bottom 10 teams qualify for the draft top 10 picks of the lottery
- As soon as a team is eliminated their point % at that point is used to set reverse standings
- The team with the highest winning %, after their elimination point, gets the #1 pick. And so on.

There are things to work out, such as it doesn't account for different strengths of schedules post elimination.

However I like the concept because you reward winning down the stretch.

If a team wins 30 games, I don't see what difference the sequencing of it makes. It's great if they win them in April and bad if they win them in October?

The ideal thing is to get eliminated from playoff contention in the last game of the regular season? Picking between a "waste of eight days" and the #1 overall pick doesn't seem too difficult.

[topfiverecords]

What if you put every draft eligible player’s name in a hat and the teams have to pick that way?

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

What if you put every draft eligible player’s name in a hat and the teams have to pick that way?

A bunch of the better ones wouldn't get pulled from the hat and would become undrafted free agents, defeating the purpose of having a draft.

[bizaro86]

I like the idea, but think an auction methodology would be better, because the draft would take a predictable amount of time then.

Start with the #1 ranked player from central scouting, and have an auction. Then go to the #2 ranked player, etc.

I'd have more than a 1 point separation between teams though. I also think it would make trades very exciting - "Winnipeg has acquired 10 more points, they now have more than San Jose and could outbid them on Celebrini"...

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I like the idea, but think an auction methodology would be better, because the draft would take a predictable amount of time then.

Start with the #1 ranked player from central scouting, and have an auction. Then go to the #2 ranked player, etc.

I'd have more than a 1 point separation between teams though. I also think it would make trades very exciting - "Winnipeg has acquired 10 more points, they now have more than San Jose and could outbid them on Celebrini"...

Yeah, it is an interesting idea. I think teams would use most of the draft points on all the top prospects, so fewer players would be drafted and the undrafted free agent market would become a real thing. You could also stockpile your draft points by trading present ones for future ones and hope for a monster draft in a given year well into the future. When there is a prospect like Bedard you would probably need 500-700 draft points, which you could have accrued by planning for it and then acquiring marginal points at the draft to stay ahead of other teams.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Better solution is something like this:
- Bottom 10 teams qualify for the draft top 10 picks of the lottery
- As soon as a team is eliminated their point % at that point is used to set reverse standings
- The team with the highest winning %, after their elimination point, gets the #1 pick. And so on.

There are things to work out, such as it doesn't account for different strengths of schedules post elimination.

However I like the concept because you reward winning down the stretch.

I wouldn't worry too much about strength of schedule in amy model since the schedules are uneven anyway and the NHL doesn't seem to mind.

For me, with a model like you propose, I think it shuffles the tanking around. Surely the teams that are sitting just outside of the bottom ten will make an effort to lose their way in rather than risk getting forced up the standings into dreaded 16oa territory.

Maybe there are some tweaks that could help out. Nothing comes to mind atm.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I like the idea, but think an auction methodology would be better, because the draft would take a predictable amount of time then.

Start with the #1 ranked player from central scouting, and have an auction. Then go to the #2 ranked player, etc.

I'd have more than a 1 point separation between teams though. I also think it would make trades very exciting - "Winnipeg has acquired 10 more points, they now have more than San Jose and could outbid them on Celebrini"...

Yeah, points and slots would work for an auction too. I like the idea of stealing though just because it deprives tanking teams of the certainty of getting any particular player, which I think is hefty tanking deterrant.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by butterfly

A bunch of the better ones wouldn't get pulled from the hat and would become undrafted free agents, defeating the purpose of having a draft.

Exactly! So there’d be no point in tanking if there’s no point in drafting. Then you don’t have good players so there’s no point in playing and then there’d be no point in posting on CP. I think we’ve solved this.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

Yeah, points and slots would work for an auction too. I like the idea of stealing though just because it deprives tanking teams of the certainty of getting any particular player, which I think is hefty tanking deterrant.

You can still steal in an auction format by outbidding the other team.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Better solution is something like this:
- Bottom 10 teams qualify for the draft top 10 picks of the lottery
- As soon as a team is eliminated their point % at that point is used to set reverse standings
- The team with the highest winning %, after their elimination point, gets the #1 pick. And so on.

There are things to work out, such as it doesn't account for different strengths of schedules post elimination.

However I like the concept because you reward winning down the stretch.

So, a team is eliminated on the second last day and wins their last game and gets #1 pick.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

So, a team is eliminated on the second last day and wins their last game and gets #1 pick.

They likely wouldn’t be bottom 10 if eliminated that late

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You're quite sure the league will have exactly 32 teams, no more, no less, for the next 32 years?

Change it to 33 or 34.
Inserting expansion teams into the draft process is already part of the negotiation.if they can go from 21 to 32 in my lifetime pretty sure the league can figure that out.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

They likely wouldn’t be bottom 10 if eliminated that late

So shift the tanking to the 17-22 teams. Different, yes. Better?

Creates an artificial cliff between 22 and 23.

[AustinL_NHL]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Better solution is something like this:
- Bottom 10 teams qualify for the draft top 10 picks of the lottery
- As soon as a team is eliminated their point % at that point is used to set reverse standings
- The team with the highest winning %, after their elimination point, gets the #1 pick. And so on.

There are things to work out, such as it doesn't account for different strengths of schedules post elimination.

However I like the concept because you reward winning down the stretch.

But what if the last place team at the time of official playoff elimination has the easiest strength of schedule from that point on, while teams behind them have way harder strength of schedules?

Would be quite annoying in that scenario that sounds like a lot of luck involved from the schedule makers.

Edit: ignored your strength of schedules part before responding lol

[GGG]

Can this draft ever end?

The points never get spent accept when buying a player from the NHL. So you spend 1 point on a player and you want to get him stolen for more so you can rack up picks to go after the number 1 pick. The strategy would be to be to accumulate the most points and then fill your draft slots with your actual targets. This becomes very clunky and I’m not sure if you ever actually run out of points.

I like the concept though. I would adjust it to either an auction or a blind bid. Same point system as you describe but teams nominate a player to be auctioned and then teams bid on the player and the high bid takes the player.

Do you spend all your points to get a top prospect or is 7 20 pointers better after people blue entire drafts in the top 5 picks.

Or a blind bid for each player with your points and the high bid taking it. The you have all kinds of game theory for how to maximize your point usage.

[butterfly]

I’d trade all my points for future draft points until I had a nice nest egg and use them all on a top prospect. There would be a lot of 3rd-7th round talent available to sign for 0 points after the draft.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I like the idea, but think an auction methodology would be better, because the draft would take a predictable amount of time then.

Start with the #1 ranked player from central scouting, and have an auction. Then go to the #2 ranked player, etc.

I'd have more than a 1 point separation between teams though. I also think it would make trades very exciting - "Winnipeg has acquired 10 more points, they now have more than San Jose and could outbid them on Celebrini"...

I was thinking auction, too.

I'd do it for the first 64 players. I'd make a random order for the 32 teams who get to introduce a player to the auction block. It would make the strategy fascinating and crazy. Especially in years without consensus #1.

Points remaining sets the order for rds 3-7

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I’d trade all my points for future draft points until I had a nice nest egg and use them all on a top prospect. There would be a lot of 3rd-7th round talent available to sign for 0 points after the draft.

My intuition on an auction is that if you had 110 points you'd probably want to go BPA for 102, and then take the best 8 players you could get for 1 point each. I suspect they'd be the 3rd and below layer of the current draft.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Change it to 33 or 34.
Inserting expansion teams into the draft process is already part of the negotiation.if they can go from 21 to 32 in my lifetime pretty sure the league can figure that out.

But the draft process you're talking about is not part of the negotiation.

I'd be really pissed if I owned a team that waited 30 years for its 1st-overall pick, and then they expanded the league and had to tear up the rotation and start over.