Proposed Overhaul Of The NBA Draft Would Eliminate Tanking. Should NHL consider?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Matty81

I think the old territorial model where each team had their territory including their own city and had to develop their own players through an academy system was way better, your team ends up made up of locals and excellence is rewarded.

Academy systems belong in Europe with other competition-hostile policies such as promotion and relegation.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

Was there ever a system where teams homegrew their teams locally?

Kind of, but not really. Before 1969, NHL teams sponsored junior clubs, and so they often had a good idea of what talent was available in those regions. Teams would list a kid at 14 or 15, and he'd go up through their junior system into the minors into the NHL. Thus teams with names like the Kitchener Rangers and the old Estevan Bruins.

(This led to an amusing Memorial Cup final in 1968 where the Estevan Bruins and Niagara Falls Flyers - both Bruins affiliates - came out wearing the same uniform.)

But there was no outright territorial control. The Bruins, for instance, signed the Kraut Line of Milt Schmidt, Woody Dumart and Bobby Bauer (all HHOFers) right out from under Toronto's nose.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

How did any of these teams try to tank? Nashville traded Erat (who asked for a trade), the Hurricanes and Avalanche made only minor trades. The only trade that qualifies as a potential tanking trade is the Flames with Bouwmeester. The Iginla trade was moving a free agent who may have left for nothing.

I don't think they made trades for the purpose of sucking, but Colorado was trying to lose games. I remember the Avalanche announcers saying during one of our games that they'd told Giguere that he wouldn't be playing before the gameday practice, then he did an intense workout, then they told him they decided to start him. It wasn't like there was an injury or changed circumstances or anything else other than a coach trying to wear out his goalie so that they wouldn't beat the Flames.

Originally Posted by Skaloper

How does this eliminate tanking? A team could still trade away all their players at the trade deadline to get more draft picks.

That's just good asset management and isn't a problem. "Tanking" is when teams are purposely bad for the purpose of improving their draft position.

I think the current odds are fine, but they should make the lottery for each of the top 14 picks.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

I like it. 3 or 4 teams started this season with no intention of icing the best team they could. And by trade deadline day there will be 3-4 more deliberately trying to be bad. I think it's a big - and growing - problem for the nhl.

Some of the other suggestions in this thread are probably better though.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I like it. 3 or 4 teams started this season with no intention of icing the best team they could. And by trade deadline day there will be 3-4 more deliberately trying to be bad. I think it's a big - and growing - problem for the nhl.

Some of the other suggestions in this thread are probably better though.

Ever notice how Edmonton seem quite content on sucking...

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

I'm generally not one of those conspiracy theory type of guys. But the last time a generational talent was drafted (Crosby), the NHL used a pure lottery to determine draft order because of the lock out.

A lot of people speculated that it was rigged to help save the Penguins. I think that seems ridiculous. But if the NHL brings in this roulette wheel just in time for the next generational talent (McDavid) even I might be thinking that something fishy is going on.

Consider the situation in Pittsburgh was dire. The Pens, however, didn't have nearly the highest probability of getting the top pick. In fact, it was a rather remote possibility. Drafting Crosby DID literally save the franchise. Along comes a new arena and Cup. Keep in mind that hockey is very much behind football and baseball in Pittsburgh's eschelon of sports importance. These are known facts.

Also known (Don Cherry voice) "for all you kids out there" is that this was the same franchise that led to the draft lottery to prevent tanking. Another "generational talent," just happened to land in their lap with the guaranteed overall #1, Mario Lemieux. Oh, and the franchise was endangered back then, too.

Fast forward to Crosby. A series of events, leading up to that moment, has Lemieux coming out of retirement, after having battled Hodgkin's disease and severe back problems. The team owes him beaucoup bucks, so he's granted part ownership. So, he saves the franchise once again. His last year is Crosby's first year (somebody can correct that, if off by a year or two). He billeted Crosby in his home. Interesting since Mario shied away from ambassador for the sport role, which league expected for Sidney.

Considering that rather incredible series of events, from over the last quarter century, it's not so ridiculous. Not going to go to the mat to say that it definitely was rigged, BUT the NHL certainly had the motive to do so. Plus, it's not as if casino games, beauty contests, Academy Awards and state lotteries aren't ever rigged, right?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Academy systems belong in Europe with other competition-hostile policies such as promotion and relegation.

I cannot think of anything more competative than relegation, you want to stop tanking for a pick? kick the bottom 2 or 3 teams out of the league and promote from the major jnrs. I give you that it isn't really practical in hockey but it would fix that aspect.

The only thing relegation and promotion is hostile to is big business sport, it is an ultra competative system though that ensures bitter death struggles at both end of the league.

[GirlySports]

lotteries are not rigged, I see those balls get mixed up and spit out!

[The Swedish Flame]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I cannot think of anything more competative than relegation, you want to stop tanking for a pick? kick the bottom 2 or 3 teams out of the league and promote from the major jnrs. I give you that it isn't really practical in hockey but it would fix that aspect.

The only thing relegation and promotion is hostile to is big business sport, it is an ultra competative system though that ensures bitter death struggles at both end of the league.

Promotion and relegation is not unheard of in hockey. And unlike some people here have argued, it does make the league more exciting/competitive for the reasons you stated. Promotion and relegation is an integral part of, for example, Swedish hockey culture. A few weeks ago SHL floated a proposal that would essentially close the league and allow them to choose who they wanted to include in the league based on, in part, financial criteria and location. The fans revolted and the SHL backed down.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

Bob Mccown proposed this format a couple of years ago and I am actually kind of curious as to how it would work out. It would logistically work better in a 32 team league though.

All 30 teams make the playoffs.

The 2 conference winners get a bye for round 1. Leaving 28 teams. 1 plays 28, 2 plays 27 etc. Round 1 is a best of 3 with the top seeded team getting ALL 3 GAMES AT HOME.

14 teams are then re seeded into the Stanley Cup Playoffs with the 2 regular season conference champions. Those 16 teams would play four 7 game rounds of playoffs for the Stanley cup.

The 14 round 1 losers then play for the 1st overall pick. Not sure what the format should be but I would suggest a round robin with only the top 4 advancing.

Disadvantages

- Kind of makes the regular season a farce (but if the Flames are going to pitch slogans like Every Game Matters it sorta works)
- You could not make this drastic of a change until at least the 2020 CBA

Advantages

- Perhaps the most interesting playoff format in all of sports
- Expanded playoffs means more teams involved, and more great memories for the fans
- Comepletely changes the dynamics of the trade deadline
- Big cash grab for the players and owners (and if the last two lock out have taught us anything, that is really what they are all about)

What a terrible scheme.

The consolation tournament for the draft would be awful. It would be pre-season quality hockey. Who would bust their nuts playing for a draft pick that half of the guys on the roster would never even play with? Who would watch? Can you imagine the hockey highlights: "What a game! Looks like the Hawks and the Ducks are going to a deciding seventh game in Chicago to see who goes to the Stanley Cup. This series has been a real war... and over on the consolation tournament, the Panthers beat the Oilers to take their series 4-2 and set up a match up against the Devils for the first overall draft pick [camera pans stadium with 4,000 listless fans in it]."

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I cannot think of anything more competative than relegation, you want to stop tanking for a pick? kick the bottom 2 or 3 teams out of the league and promote from the major jnrs. I give you that it isn't really practical in hockey but it would fix that aspect.

The only thing relegation and promotion is hostile to is big business sport, it is an ultra competative system though that ensures bitter death struggles at both end of the league.

Yes, I am aware that the relegation system creates an artificial competition at the bottom of the ladder, but it is a smoke and mirrors game designed to fool the fans caught in the promotion/relegation death wheel that any of their team's games matter. The system itself is hostile to teams trapped in it because they are never given time to grow and improve into a potential contender. Instead, most get relegated quickly after promotion, sell off their best talent they can no longer afford, and start the cycle all over again. Meanwhile, the big dogs get fatter off the guaranteed revenues of being guaranteed of their stay at the top and their ever increasing ability to buy whatever talent they want.

[dino7c]

I am all for change, hate rewarding failure...fans paying $100s to watch games where the team is better of losing really rubs me the wrong way.

Flames had an AMAZING win last night and I have already heard many around the city complain "they can't even lose right"

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I am all for change, hate rewarding failure...fans paying $100s to watch games where the team is better of losing really rubs me the wrong way.

Flames had an AMAZING win last night and I have already heard many around the city complain "they can't even lose right"

those are bandwagoners
can't imagine anyone at the Dome last night feeling bad.

"oh %^%^#%%*^ we tied it up"

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yes, I am aware that the relegation system creates an artificial competition at the bottom of the ladder, but it is a smoke and mirrors game designed to fool the fans caught in the promotion/relegation death wheel that any of their team's games matter. The system itself is hostile to teams trapped in it because they are never given time to grow and improve into a potential contender. Instead, most get relegated quickly after promotion, sell off their best talent they can no longer afford, and start the cycle all over again. Meanwhile, the big dogs get fatter off the guaranteed revenues of being guaranteed of their stay at the top and their ever increasing ability to buy whatever talent they want.

You mean its just like the NHL prior to the cap?

There are many things I don't like about the EPL but all of them would be cured by a proper cap.
And relegation doesn't create artificial competition, there is nothing artificial about it, lousy teams are punished, Kevin Lowe would be selling peanuts by now if the Oilers had to face relegation.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

those are bandwagoners
can't imagine anyone at the Dome last night feeling bad.

"oh %^%^#%%*^ we tied it up"

fact remains, those 2 points do nothing for the Flames except may cost a draft position...last year a couple points made a huge difference

now I was jumping up and down when they scored too don't get me wrong but winning should never have negative consequences. Personally I would do an even lottery for non playoff teams

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by dino7c

fact remains, those 2 points do nothing for the Flames except may cost a draft position...last year a couple points made a huge difference

now I was jumping up and down when they scored too don't get me wrong but winning should never have negative consequences. Personally I would do an even lottery for non playoff teams

meh the draft helps bad teams (and then they shoot themselves in the foot)
The Flames are not a bad team now, they are learning how to win. In the end that's much more valuable than a few draft positions in an 18-year old draft.

Seriously, who would rather have #1 MacKinnon over #6 Monahan right now?

[$ven27]

Me.

[bigpete]

All I know is that I don't like the current system. I am a die hard flames fan but this year since they basically have zero chance to make the playoffs, I have caught myself in close games hoping that they don't find a way to win. And I hate myself for thinking those things, just feels wrong.

I don't know what the solution is, but I hate feeling conflicted or apathetic when my team gets scored on. I think I would support a system where all nonplayoff teams are randomly selected for draft positions 1 to 14. And perhaps it could be weighted so that teams who have not made the playoffs for successive years in a row got slightly higher odds of getting higher picks. That way tanking is not rewarded as much but it still gives bad teams ways to improve.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

Consider the situation in Pittsburgh was dire. The Pens, however, didn't have nearly the highest probability of getting the top pick. In fact, it was a rather remote possibility. Drafting Crosby DID literally save the franchise. Along comes a new arena and Cup. Keep in mind that hockey is very much behind football and baseball in Pittsburgh's eschelon of sports importance. These are known facts.

They had as good a chance to win the lottery as 3 other teams, and a better chance than 26 other teams.

The Penguins, along with Buffalo, Columbus, and the Rangers each had 3 balls in the lottery. All other teams had either 1 or 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NH..._Draft#Lottery

There were 48 balls in total, so no team had better than a 6.25% chance to win it. Everyone's odds were remote, but, of course, someone had to win it, and one of the most likely teams to win it did.

[Itse]

One thing I have always disliked about the draft system is the way it buries talent in hopeless franchises. It's just a huge waste forcing guys like Tavares and Hall to play for hopeless loser franchises like the current Oilers and Islanders. A guy like Barkov is not going to play a meaningful game of club hockey until maybe 2016, and most likely not even then.

The draft props up loser franchises so that they don't have to actually do anything to build a product that will draw a crowd. The Oilers are the perfect example. Their players are not developing, they haven't signed anyone of note since ever, but because the draft has served them well, they're in no hurry to change anything. The money keeps rolling in and reporters are falling over each other trying to make excuses for them.