Discussion: How to fix the Draft Lottery

[flambers]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

Leave the draft for now. if anything needs fixing it's the LTIR issue.

Agreed, Islanders won the lottery this year, they finished 10th.

[calf]

Once a team is mathematically eliminated (say, the Sharks at game 60), weight the odds for all non playoff teams for points earned after game 60 and do a draw to determine the order for all teams.

However, the odds follow a reverse bell curve. 17th place and 32nd have the best odds. 18th and 31st have the next best, and so on.

The worst teams still have good odds to get some help, the league's mediocre teams can get that final piece/not punished for trying

[Jason14h]

Scrap the draft and make them all UFAs every year with no restrictions on contracts other then what is currently in place

We have a cap - bad teams who aren’t spending would have the most $$ to sign picks and bad teams that are spending to the cap are poorly managed and don’t deserve the best draft eligible players

Might need a bit of tweaking for the tax situation in certain countries and states but that’s a general problem

Other than cost control for owners now that there is a cap why do we need a draft ? If the Flames want to throw 10$ million at the top draft eligible players why shouldn’t they be able too

Removes any tanking other then trading players with salary which would facilitate quicker rebuilds for well managed teams

[Scimitar]

The 16 non-playoff teams are drawn for picks 16-1 with equal odds. Well, not exactly equal -- I would still want the Oiler ruler to remain. More interesting draft lottery event for TV, teams that just miss the playoffs are rewarded, tanking does not pay off.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Scrap the draft and make them all UFAs every year with no restrictions on contracts other then what is currently in place

We have a cap - bad teams who aren’t spending would have the most $$ to sign picks and bad teams that are spending to the cap are poorly managed and don’t deserve the best draft eligible players

Might need a bit of tweaking for the tax situation in certain countries and states but that’s a general problem

Other than cost control for owners now that there is a cap why do we need a draft ? If the Flames want to throw 10$ million at the top draft eligible players why shouldn’t they be able too

Removes any tanking other then trading players with salary which would facilitate quicker rebuilds for well managed teams

I don’t like this idea at all. It would be terrible for teams like the Flames and they’d effectively be managing with a cap penalty because they’d have to overpay any decent prospect.

[just_tim]

I’d leave it as-is but add that no team that picks first can do so again for at least 5 years. Something like their lotteryball position -5 the first year, -4 the second year down to their actual draft lottery-ball position on year 6.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I don’t like this idea at all. It would be terrible for teams like the Flames and they’d effectively be managing with a cap penalty because they’d have to overpay any decent prospect.

Why ? 18 year olds are more likely to take the highest offer then anyone - they have no career earnings, and good teams who typically attract the best UFA or trade demands won’t have cap to spend on rookies

Instead the Flames are picking in the 2nd half of the draft , with a ton of cap room - that they can use on overpaid UFAs instead of

The best destinations can’t sign the UFAs, get the best rookies and be the teams players demand trades too in a cap world .

If anything the current draft helps the desired destination teams as much as anyone as they get cost controlled players while being able to sign or trade for the best established players

[The Cobra]

Most of the changes suggest that the better non-playoff teams get the best pick.

How does that change the premise that the worse teams need the better picks.

Tanking is the only way the small market teams can survive.

Just because Calgary refuses to partake in the best way for them to become a contender, shouldn’t mean we need to change the rules to favour them.

It will never change that the worse teams have the best odds of the best picks.

Nor should it.

[Derek Sutton]

What needs to be “fixed” is picking 1st overall in back to back years or three times in 5 years. Once you pick 1st overall you cannot pick in the top five for the next three years. You pick second overall no top five pick for the nex two years. Third overall no top five pick for the next year.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Most of the changes suggest that the better non-playoff teams get the best pick.

How does that change the premise that the worse teams need the better picks.

Tanking is the only way the small market teams can survive.

Just because Calgary refuses to partake in the best way for them to become a contender, shouldn’t mean we need to change the rules to favour them.

It will never change that the worse teams have the best odds of the best picks.

Nor should it.

On what basis can you say "tanking is the only way the small market teams can survive"? That's a pretty extreme statement that lacks evidence.

For me, I don't like rewarding failure. We see examples of teams stripping down and trying to ice a losing team. We see it most sports. I don't think that's a good trend.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Why ? 18 year olds are more likely to take the highest offer then anyone - they have no career earnings, and good teams who typically attract the best UFA or trade demands won’t have cap to spend on rookies

Instead the Flames are picking in the 2nd half of the draft , with a ton of cap room - that they can use on overpaid UFAs instead of

The best destinations can’t sign the UFAs, get the best rookies and be the teams players demand trades too in a cap world .

If anything the current draft helps the desired destination teams as much as anyone as they get cost controlled players while being able to sign or trade for the best established players

The best destinations would attract the best players, without having to overpay for them.

Lesser destinations would have to overpay, and would be left fighting for lesser players.

This system would kill smaller market teams, and would not create the level playing field you are hoping for.

The most level playing field possible, is a draft that continually redistributes assets among all the teams. Turning it into a popularity contest is beyond stupid.

[littlereddevil]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Most of the changes suggest that the better non-playoff teams get the best pick.

How does that change the premise that the worse teams need the better picks.

Tanking is the only way the small market teams can survive.

Just because Calgary refuses to partake in the best way for them to become a contender, shouldn’t mean we need to change the rules to favour them.

It will never change that the worse teams have the best odds of the best picks.

Nor should it.

Except in recent years the draft lottery has favoured big market teams like the Rangers, Leafs, Canadiens, and Blackhawks.

I think there's more of an argument to be made in favour of preventing teams from picking #1 in back to back years or multiple times within a short number of years. This would prevent teams from monopolizing the draft lottery. We probably do not want to see a repeat of the Oilers, Penguins, Capitals, Panthers, or Blackhawks (argument to be made for Buffalo but they haven't capitalized on their draft lottery success) monopolizing the draft lottery essentially shutting out other teams from.having their chance.

It's an imperfect system. I think the current format is okay even if it is not perfect.

We've even seen these playoffs that successful franchises can be built in many different ways (see Dallas and Carolina), and just having a bunch of high picks does not always guarantee a rapid turnaround (see Buffalo). Even Edmonton took more than 8 years since McDavid was drafted to finally become contenders. In comparison, the Penguins and Blackhawks won their cups when their franchise players were under 23 years old.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The best destinations would attract the best players, without having to overpay for them.

Lesser destinations would have to overpay, and would be left fighting for lesser players.

This system would kill smaller market teams, and would not create the level playing field you are hoping for.

The most level playing field possible, is a draft that continually redistributes assets among all the teams. Turning it into a popularity contest is beyond stupid.

You really think 18 years olds are signing with the Rangers or LV to sit in the minors for less then Calgary because it’s a desirable destination ?

And let’s say the rookies wanted to sign with NYR and LV , then they don’t have $$ for FAs or trading for players . It’s a capped world

The good teams (usually) don’t have cap room . The bad team (usually) do . Free bidding on rookies elimated any tanking and gives an actual rebuild strategy other then “tank and pray for lottery luck “

There’s only so many roster spots and cap money available for rookies . Imagine if the Flames , SJ , Chicago could sign 3 of the top 15 draft eligible players each this year and offer them NHL spots ? It would accelerate their rebuilds , brings toms of league and local excitement , and pay the players earlier .

And if LV and NYR want to sign top 15 guys they either aren’t signing their own guys or trading quality players to get cap room

Now if we kept the rookie salary rules in place sure - but if it was free market these rookies are usually picking whoever pays them the most (IMO)

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

You really think 18 years olds are signing with the Rangers or LV to sit in the minors for less then Calgary because it’s a desirable destination ?

And let’s say the rookies wanted to sign with NYR and LV , then they don’t have $$ for FAs or trading for players . It’s a capped world

The good teams (usually) don’t have cap room . The bad team (usually) do . Free bidding on rookies elimated any tanking and gives an actual rebuild strategy other then “tank and pray for lottery luck “

There’s only so many roster spots and cap money available for rookies . Imagine if the Flames , SJ , Chicago could sign 3 of the top 15 draft eligible players each this year and offer them NHL spots ? It would accelerate their rebuilds , brings toms of league and local excitement , and pay the players earlier .

And if LV and NYR want to sign top 15 guys they either aren’t signing their own guys or trading quality players to get cap room

Now if we kept the rookie salary rules in place sure - but if it was free market these rookies are usually picking whoever pays them the most (IMO)

It would radically change how teams spend their cap. You are assuming that teams would continue to load up on older players and be capped out that way but that wouldn’t be the case especially if the buyout rules remained the same.
I don’t really see an advantage other than trying to find a weird fit for the Flames that would ultimately end up hurting them.

[Jason14h]

Eliminate tanking , eliminate luck , bring way more strategy into team building . Truely rewarding well managed teams .

Yes teams would drastically change how they approach team building . It would actually value players properly

Right now winning a ball draw or sucking at the right time (Crosby, McKinnon , McDavid) sets you up for a decade

At least the team getting those guys would be paying 10 million a year right away instead of 3 million and having an exponential advance in their team building

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Eliminate tanking , eliminate luck , bring way more strategy into team building . Truely rewarding well managed teams .

Yes teams would drastically change how they approach team building . It would actually value players properly

Right now winning a ball draw or sucking at the right time (Crosby, McKinnon , McDavid) sets you up for a decade

At least the team getting those guys would be paying 10 million a year right away instead of 3 million and having an exponential advance in their team building

Spending gobs of money on unproven 18 year olds seems like a really bad idea.

[This post is terrible]

Since the winner of the lottery only moves up 10 spots in the draft, why not reward the teams that can’t get the first overall pick, 16th overall could have like a 10% chance of winning the lottery. That way the teams playing to end get rewarded with a better chance of getting a good pick and the teams that suck will still likely get a high pick.

Was I trying to think of ways to increase the Flames chances?…yes, yes I was.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Eliminate tanking , eliminate luck , bring way more strategy into team building . Truely rewarding well managed teams .

Yes teams would drastically change how they approach team building . It would actually value players properly

Right now winning a ball draw or sucking at the right time (Crosby, McKinnon , McDavid) sets you up for a decade

At least the team getting those guys would be paying 10 million a year right away instead of 3 million and having an exponential advance in their team building

And the Flames still don’t get those guys. I don’t think it would change the distribution of top prospects to be even. It would be detrimental to a lot of teams. Also how would it even play besides the top 5 each year. It would almost be impossible to develop any prospects.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Problem is most teams aren't eliminated until the last week or so these days.

I would say even lottery odds for all non playoff teams for all draft positions and the only weighting is on recent lottery wins. With the cap the there is no reason to suck for years, if your team is poorly managed find an new manager.

So no more cries for blowing it up?

[dino7c]

You should never pay $200 to go to a hockey game and want your team to lose...in fact you should never want your team to lose and a manager should never want their team to lose...it goes against everything that sports and competition are about

Like take a 10 year old kid to their first game and explain to them why you want the team you love to lose...its stupid. You may notice its 1000 times easier to tank in markets where hockey is the 3rd or 4th game in town.