Proposed NHL draft lottery changes

[ben voyonsdonc]

My proposed rule #4:
- The Edmonton Oilers are banned from first overall picks until five years after Connor McDavid retires.

[Stud_McCool]

If they don't want teams to tank, they should have a rule where the team that finishes last has to pay $1M or something.

[Nsd1]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1369029139210981378

https://twitter.com/user/status/1369029643118907394

[shadowlord]

My proposal for a no-tanking rule:

No single team can win the #1 overall pick [more than once] within a 5-year period, and up to a maximum of 2 in a 10-year period.

Correction in brackets, thanks to Textcritic!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by shadowlord

...No single team can win the #1 overall pick [more than once] within a 5-year period, and up to a maximum of 2 in a 10-year period.

I think I understand what you are saying, but your first clause did not accurately do so.

[shadowlord]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think I understand what you are saying, but your first clause did not accurately do so.

Thanks! Textcritic to the rescue. You really live up to your username

[dino7c]

one first overall per decade...if you already had one it goes to the next team. There is a hard cap FFS if you can't build a good team you don't deserve one.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I don't think this does much.


Edmonton just beat incredible odds to win 4 lotteries. New Jersey has won twice recently. I am assuming that they are going to count #1 and #2 overall as 'lottery wins'.


I think this is years overdue, but it doesn't matter. Edmonton already beat the odds, and the odds were minuscule for them having done so. Will teams like Colorado and Buffalo stop intentionally tanking? Absolutely not. So what is the point of this? The odds of a single team winning 2 consecutive lotteries is still going to be rather low. Heck, there might be years like last year where the team who win just missed the playoffs, so now it provides the 'tankers' with a possible 'gimmie' in which they can have multiple #1 overalls. In fact, it increased the likelihood of this happening, no? As it is stated, it says "only 2 lottery wins in 5 years", not "only picking 1st or 2nd overall twice in 5 years". So the odds that a tanking team will continue tanking and being rewarded for it is greater.


Teams that are intentionally tanking also have one less spot to fall down from. Instead of finishing last and end up picking 4th overall because you have been leapfrogged 3x, now you are guaranteed 3rd. That's a positive difference.


I don't see this as dissuading any team from intentionally tanking. In fact, I actually see it as providing more incentive to tank, even if you already won 2 lotteries. Your odds are better at top draft pick, even if you are disqualified from selecting 1st or 2nd.


I guess the NHL didn't like to see teams just out of the playoffs get top picks. That's who gets hurt the most I think - the medicore teams on their way up, or on their way down, or teams like the Flames for most of their history being just outside the playoffs.


Here is a novel idea that fixes the draft lottery. I like the idea of only two top 3 picks (picks, not 'lotto wins) in a 5 year period. After that, you are automatically drafting 7th overall until one of those top 3 picks is beyond the 5 year window.


Top 4 worst teams in the NHL - whichever has the best record in the last 10 or 15 games is awarded the top pick, and who is not disqualified from the '5 year rule', and go down the list. This gives them something to play for, and teams who intentionally tanked might not be as willing to 'sell' to make sure they hit rock bottom at the trade deadline. They will sell, but maybe they will have to ensure that they still remain competitive.


The top team from each conference that failed to make the playoffs, they get picks 5 and 6.


Make it interesting for teams to play for something. Encourage teams to be competitive right until the end of the season, and encourage the fans in having something to cheer for. I don't know. I am sure my idea isn't going to be very popular - and I am not necessarily saying that this is exactly what should happen. My idea is simply an example, and it may be totally wrong of what I want to accomplish.


My goal is to get rid of 'intentional tanking'. Bad teams should still get the best players to help make them better and get competitive again. Make this league competitive and interesting right until the last game of the season (sometimes it is not, with too many games that don't matter any longer).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

The NHL is proposing changes to the draft lottery that would see:

* teams limited to no more than two lottery wins in a five-year period
* teams only allowed to jump 10 spots with a lottery win
* a reduction in the number of picks decided by lottery from three to two

Third point guarantees a top-three pick for the worst team in the league, and second point increases the odds that the worst teams won't get bumped. That's increasing the tank incentives, which I think make this proposal a step backwards overall, even though I'm okay with the first point.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

This is kind of bull#### considering the Oilers already benefitted from this.

How much they have benefited is arguable. They are saddled with some huge contracts with no room to add depth.

E=NG

[Itse]

The draft rules are becoming an increasingly obvious proof that the NHL doesn't know what exactly it wants, and that they don't really understand how probabilities work.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I don't see why they couldn't now count prior years in determining the 2 in 5 year thing, in anticipation of the 2022 draft. I don't think teams are currently operating with a view to maximize #1 picks, and if they are, that is called tanking which is what these rules are supposed to prevent.

[badradio]

Can you imagine having a horrific season and in the bottom of the standings and losing the first overall pick? Or top 3 for that matter... I agree they need to protect it from tanking teams, but the fact a bubble team could win is silly. I like the new rules, but not sure if they go far enough. Would rather have a 5 spot jump limit and a ban on teams selecting in the top 3 two years in a row or something to that effect. You don’t want to reward tanking, but you don’t want to reward teams that don’t need that help either.

[bizaro86]

I read a proposal on cp once in the past that I really liked. Rank the non-playoff teams by the number of points they earn after being mathematically eliminated.

So the worst teams (which will be eliminated sooner) have a chance to earn more points by playing more games after elimination. It gives truly bad teams a leg up, but provides an incentive for bad teams to play hard at the end and keeps those games meaningful.

[dammage79]

Friedman also said on 960 today that the 21 draft will go as scheduled and not be held back a year. (Correction: he expects the league to make that announcement this week)

Apparently the main factor is the extremely lengthy negotiations to sort out age eligibility and minor league drafts. Essentially it's too much work to iron out the endless moving parts for the minor leagues drafts and requirements etc etc.

I honestly never considered how canceling this years draft would affect the minor leagues. It's a pretty substantial effect.

[Cappy]

Teams clearly tank to gain draft advantage.

League changes rules to make it less probable that a tanking team wins the lottery.

Tanking team doesn't win the lottery and complains

League changes rules to make it more probable that a tanking team wins the lottery.

Rinse. Repeat.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

I love this part of it.

Basically an anti-Oiler rule.

Now if only they can reward teams who have never won a lottery.

That's a great idea, should be weighted towards teams that have never won a lottery.