GMs to discuss changing Draft Lottery Odds

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by DOOM

Sure, in the 2nd/3rd/4th rounds.

Not top 5 picks.

Tell that to Edmonton.

[DOOM]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Tell that to Edmonton.

Edmonton's picks outside of the their 1st round picks have really done nothing. Which pretty much backs up my point.

[Reign of Fire]

My question is, what will be the Oilers managements reaction when this is brought up at the GM meetings?

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Reign of Fire

My question is, what will be the Oilers managements reaction when this is brought up at the GM meetings?

Letter to the fans:

"We were on the brink of something special, but the league just wasn't ready for it. Please aim any and all criticisms of our on-ice performance towards the other 29 GMs in the league.

Yours truly, MacTdaddy and Lowe-dog"

[Southside]

First round picks would never get traded if too many teams have that chance. You can't go overboard in addressing the Oiler situation. Keep the odds much as they are but implement a percentage cap on your odds over a period of a few years or something. Maybe your cumulative odds cannot exceed 45 over any three year period. 25% odds year 1, your odds can be no greater than 20% year 2 and in that case 0 year 3, putting you outside the top 10. Crazy that it's really come to this. Damn Oilers.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Southside

First round picks would never get traded if too many teams have that chance. You can't go overboard in addressing the Oiler situation. Keep the odds much as they are but implement a percentage cap on your odds over a period of a few years or something. Maybe your cumulative odds cannot exceed 45 over any three year period. 25% odds year 1, your odds an can be no greater than 20% year 2 and in that case 0 year 3, putting you outside the top 10. Crazy that it's really come to this. Damn Oilers.

How often do non-playoff 1st rounders get traded prior to knowing the actual draft position of said picks?

[Southside]

And it's time they actually show the lottery balls not just Bettman with the cards.

[dustygoon]

I am ok with a rule change as long as it becomes known as the Oil Tank Rule or similar. Not kidding either.

[bucksmasher]

Originally Posted by Southside

And it's time they actually show the lottery balls not just Bettman with the cards.

ya he had his fingers in the lottery pudding. I'm convinced

[schteve_d]

I don't care what they do so long as it becomes commonly referred to as "The Oiler Rule".

Edit: Beaten....foiled again!

[djsFlames]

It shouldn't be possible for any team to pick first overall three times in a row (even twice), but the bottom five teams should have greater than 50% chance at the top pick regardless. Because, after all, they need it most. Edmonton no doubt had a hand in this, also with McDavid upcoming. I'll be furious if he ends up going to an 18th place team in a difficult market, though. This better not be some way to make rigging it for such a team while going under the radar more possible. I'm not in favor of giving higher teams a greater chance than they have now, but I'd like to see repeat wins eliminated. Can't they just implement an "Edmonton" clause like that? We need good players in the next couple drafts, and I don't want to see something like this bumping us down in the draft order and screwing us out of someone that can help the organization.

[Jakester]

Personally, I like the idea of the top 14 picks all being decided by lottery, not just first overall. The simplest way to do this would be to randomly assign each non-playoff team a number between 1 and 14 with 1 picking first, 2 picking second, and so on. This would effectively eliminate any incentive to tank.

[Jacks]

Posted this almost a year ago, still stand by it.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...8&postcount=83

Originally Posted by Jacks

There are 14 teams that don't make the playoffs. Make the first 14 picks lottery picks with the following formula.

56 balls
29 & 30 - 7 balls = 12.5%
27 & 28 - 6 balls = 10.7%
25 & 26 - 5 balls = 8.9%
23 & 24 - 4 balls = 7.1%
21 & 22 - 3 balls = 5.4%
19 & 20 - 2 balls = 3.6%
17 & 18 - 1 ball = 1.8%

If team 27 wins the first pick then team 29 & 30's odds of getting pick 2 increase to 14% each and so on. Winning some games and moving from the 26th spot to the 23rd spot only increases your odds by 1.8%. No real reason to tank yet the worst teams are still favored to get the best picks.

You could also subtract 1 ball from the team that picked first the previous year(s). If either team 17 or 18 picked first last year then they automatically are awarded pick 18, etc.

[CliffFletcher]

* The NHL put in a salary cap to foster parity in the league.

* In a capped league, UFAs get spread out, so they cannot be the foundation of a successful team. That means drafting is going to be the key element of building a team.

* In a capped league, with a draft lottery, success tends to be cyclical. That is intentional.

* From a business point of view (and the NHL is a business), the worst thing that can happen is teams relocating and devaluing the other franchises.

These are the principles underlying the current draft system. Because a handful of NHL teams have terrible management, there may be an appetite to tweak the system in order to spread around the elite talent a little wider. But the underlying principles of the cap, draft, and lottery are not going to change any time soon. As long as they are in place, success in the NHL will be cyclical. And I remember the harsh realities of the pre-cap NHL (where a handful of teams attracted far more than their share of veteran stars) well enough that I prefer a cyclical league to the alternative.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by fleury

Wish this was in place awhile back. The Oilers shouldn't be virtually guaranteed the 1st overall this many times, through such mediocrity.

The Oilers wish that they could be mediocre.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

These are the principles underlying the current draft system. Because a handful of NHL teams have terrible management, there may be an appetite to tweak the system in order to spread around the elite talent a little wider. But the underlying principles of the cap, draft, and lottery are not going to change any time soon. As long as they are in place, success in the NHL will be cyclical. And I remember the harsh realities of the pre-cap NHL (where a handful of teams attracted far more than their share of veteran stars) well enough that I prefer a cyclical league to the alternative.

Problem is that success isn't cyclical. The teams with piss poor drafting, crappy GM's and otherwise poor organizations tend to suck no matter how many high draft picks they have. Columbus has had high draft picks since they joined the league, I know they made the playoffs a few years ago and got swept, have they ever won a playoff game? How about Atlanta, they sucked forever, I remember them making the playoffs once. The Islanders have mostly sucked since The Cars were in the Top 40.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by nik-

The funny thing is, if the Oilers had even been trying to make their team better, this likely doesn't happen ... twice.

The fact that pretty much all they did was rake these picks while making like one good trade to acquire a decent player in 4 years probably drove the GM's mad.

I couldn't help notice several times whenever the Flames lost the Oilers lost then when the Flames won it seemed like the Oilers win 1 or 2 games. It's like they are making sure they sucking more than the next team.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

You missed the point. The league has to stop giving teams high incentive to suck.

Even though the last placed team in the league currently only has a 25% shot at #1, they can not possibly draft worse than #2. In my mind, the re-tooling of the lottery odds did nothing to deter tanking.

Even if you lose the lottery, you are still pick protected. Worst case scenario, your pick drops 1 spot versus your final standing. This isn't enough to fix the issue of tanking. The potential should exist for your pick to drop from 2nd overall to 10th overall.


EDIT: my previous suggestion was random drawing the first 14 picks of the draft

Or at least you can't pick within the top 5, 2 years in a row. Most bad teams still need some ability to improve.

[Iceman90]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Easier fix.

If you finish in the bottom 5 twice in a row, you are not eligible for the top pick. That way if you perpetually suck ala Edmonton, you can't get the top pick at all.

I like this idea.

[Rifleman]

What I hated were those years the Flames made a run at the end of the year and finished just out of the playoffs became a lose-lose sort of deal. They miss the playoffs, and then end up picking 10 to 14. Efforts like those should be rewarded instead of punished.

I'd rather see teams that try to make the playoffs and get close have higher picks than those who tank, either intentionally or not. That way, at least fans will know no team is writing off the season and every team has an incentive to play in March, whether they are in the playoff hunt or not.