Fixing the Draft, Stopping the Tank

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Cappy

The Calgary Flames have never been able to re-sign there own players. They have never been able to sign UFAs.

Yeah, not without big overpays anyway

[N-E-B]

Am I the only one who genuinely doesn’t care if a team wants to tank?

If a team wants to be bad, let them. Who cares?

[dino7c]

A fan should never been in a position to want his team to lose. League shouldnt reward failure.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think the number of steals would be less than 3000, but still way more than the league would realistically put up with for time reasons.

Perhaps..A cap on steals or a cost to make them could keep things in check. Limiy three steals per team, so max 96 in amy draft and/or 11 point make a steal sacrifice. I prefer only the latter. More steals! Higher consequences. Giving up 11 points is giving up an extra pick. Also another point sink to help move things along.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Only thing that needs changing are the odds.

Teams in the 17-22 slots having virtually zero chance at moving up despite not phoning it in down the stretch is dumb. Need more incentive, or better said, less of a deterrent to choosing to put in effort to win games when playoffs are out of reach.

The way the odds are laid out if anything reinforces losing cultures in teams that have acquired good talent but gotten used to bottoming out.

A smaller incline in odds and higher floor for higher seeded teams would be a good starter. I wouldn't even hate the idea of equal odds across the board. Teams that can't help sucking might get bumped but they'd still pick earlier than most. Teams that push for playoffs only to come our short have the consolation of fair odds at the lottery.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Only thing that needs changing are the odds.

Teams in the 17-22 slots having virtually zero chance at moving up despite not phoning it in down the stretch is dumb. Need more incentive, or better said, less of a deterrent to choosing to put in effort to win games when playoffs are out of reach.

The way the odds are laid out if anything reinforces losing cultures in teams that have acquired good talent but gotten used to bottoming out.

A smaller incline in odds and higher floor for higher seeded teams would be a good starter. I wouldn't even hate the idea of equal odds across the board. Teams that can't help sucking might get bumped but they'd still pick earlier than most. Teams that push for playoffs only to come our short have the consolation of fair odds at the lottery.

Oh, so NOW you drop your "most annoying poster* signature (which was great btw).

While way less fun than points/slots/steals would be, what if the 17 - 32 teams had the same odds as the 8 teams eliminated in round one of the playoffs. You think that would work? I don't see any incentive to tank.

[dino7c]

even odds for non playoff teams for all spots
if you have had a top 3 pick in the previous season you are not eligible for another one and your pick is bumped back

Team sucks? get a new manager...there is a hard cap for crying out loud its as even as its gonna get

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Even odds except for repeat lottery winners feels like the option to beat. Every one except for Edmonton goes home happy, and sitting near the bottom has less allure.

Oh, I just selected the hide signature button. The sig lives on. I'll have to alter it though.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by dino7c

even odds for non playoff teams for all spots
if you have had a top 3 pick in the previous season you are not eligible for another one and your pick is bumped back

Team sucks? get a new manager...there is a hard cap for crying out loud its as even as its gonna get

Why just non-playoff teams?

A 1/4 shot at Bedard, Michkov, Fantilli, Carlsson, or getting destroyed in the first round? Should be all teams, then there is never an incentive to lose.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by dino7c

A fan should never been in a position to want his team to lose. League shouldnt reward failure.

That all fine and dandy in theory, except...

If a team's good players choose to leave, or just bust, or whatever, with no reverse draft, it becomes extremely difficult to overcome and rebuild. And good teams can become lengthy dynasties with a couple lucky draft lotteries. Free agents would become much more valuable, and much more expensive, because it would be the only way to improve, if your team is weak.

Teams would wallow in mediocrity for much longer. And powerhouses could remain on top for many years if they get lucky.

Sounds like a horrible way to run a league.

[Jason14h]

Let's reward the good teams with better players then the bad teams!

The bad teams should find some magic way to get better without the best young cost controlled players because they are "trying" to lose! How ? Well there's not really any way to acquire good players other then the draft or having them demand a trade (and when that happens it isn't a trade to a bad team ever)

Makes total sense.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by dino7c

A fan should never been in a position to want his team to lose. League shouldnt reward failure.

It's the only league that does. You get rewarded for failing, as long as it's in overtime.

[Enoch Root]

What? EVERY league rewards failure with higher draft picks.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

What? EVERY league rewards failure with higher draft picks.

And the NHL rewards failure with points in the standings!

I don't think there's anything wrong with bad teams having more draft power, by the way.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That all fine and dandy in theory, except...

If a team's good players choose to leave, or just bust, or whatever, with no reverse draft, it becomes extremely difficult to overcome and rebuild. And good teams can become lengthy dynasties with a couple lucky draft lotteries. Free agents would become much more valuable, and much more expensive, because it would be the only way to improve, if your team is weak.

Teams would wallow in mediocrity for much longer. And powerhouses could remain on top for many years if they get lucky.

Sounds like a horrible way to run a league.

I disagree...player all leave? here is a mountain of cap space. Like teams suck for decades already.

Besides there is still a draft, non playoff teams get equal odds and no repeat winners, bad teams still get picks they just not incentivized to purposely be bad while charging $200 to watch games.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I disagree...player all leave? here is a mountain of cap space. Like teams suck for decades already.

Besides there is still a draft, non playoff teams get equal odds and no repeat winners, bad teams still get picks they just not incentivized to purposely be bad while charging $200 to watch games.

Yeah. Really with any "points" based system why not give all the teams an equal number of points every year. Trades would make it so there was always a team with the most points, and you could always say tie-bids go to the team that finished lower in the standings.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I disagree...player all leave? here is a mountain of cap space. Like teams suck for decades already.

Besides there is still a draft, non playoff teams get equal odds and no repeat winners, bad teams still get picks they just not incentivized to purposely be bad while charging $200 to watch games.

Cap space for a bad team with no young stars only has value to take wretched contracts from other teams or to broker trades. If you use it on long-term UFAs you will have a team of Huberdeaus.

If you use it on short-term UFAs, the hope is that your Anthony Mantha doesn't turn into John Klingberg.

[bizaro86]

Whoops wrong thread

[Itse]

It would be very easy to stop tanking. First 16 spots go to non-playoff teams, randomly. There, fixed it.

In fact, give the non-playoff teams two picks each before playoff teams start. Two good young players can after all make a big difference fast, so non-playoff teams would be encouraged to keep a team mostly together, because there would be a pretty legitimate chance that in a couple of years things look up again, and there would really be little incentive to do anything else.

This current system is really the worst system you could have. The idea of draft pick odds changing with final standings is so dumb only NHL executives could have come up with it. The current system massively encourages tanking, but then doesn't necessarily even reward teams for doing it,

Either you want to give the absolute best players to the absolute worst teams, or you don't. Clearly the NHL is going with "we don't". They've already accepted that any non-playoff team can have the #1 pick. Just go with that.

The current system discourages teams from trying to be better, but doesn't do enough to actually pull them up once they've dismantled, resulting in teams getting stuck as perpetual non-playoff teams.

[Wastedyouth]

Can we wait to fix it till the flames are done tanking?