Did I Just Solve The "Tanking" Problem?

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Just make the draft lottery a true lottery for all non-playoff teams. Eliminate or greatly reduce the odds of the bottom 3 winning it. There is zero evidence that the weighted lottery promotes parity.

Problem solved.

The only problem with this would be the amount of complaining from the oilers and their fans. I think the league isn't doing this just so they don't have to talk to the oilers every day.

I do think this is the best option though and I think they're going that way...just gradually. I think that is the only real way to keep teams from tanking. It would be nice for a team to miss the playoffs by a point and be rewarded by getting the first overall pick. That way teams are always striving to be the best they can and GM's won't become so complacent. There would be a lot of other side affects though as teams wouldn't trade "rental" players because they want to stay competitive....

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Poe969

The only problem with this would be the amount of complaining from the oilers and their fans. I think the league isn't doing this just so they don't have to talk to the oilers every day.

I do think this is the best option though and I think they're going that way...just gradually. I think that is the only real way to keep teams from tanking. It would be nice for a team to miss the playoffs by a point and be rewarded by getting the first overall pick. That way teams are always striving to be the best they can and GM's won't become so complacent. There would be a lot of other side affects though as teams wouldn't trade "rental" players because they want to stay competitive....

That is why I think the new system that will be in place next year will be enough. Finishing out of the top 10 in the draft, the teams will still get at least a collective 8.5% chance in three draws each year to get a top 3 pick (increasing for the 2nd and 3rd draw based on who won). The whole incentive to tank is you were guaranteed top two regardless. That goes out the window and they could fall to 4th. The reward for tanking has been diminished significantly.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I can tell you right now, I would not waste the time or money to attend this so-called "draft playoff" if the Flames were part of it.

Can you explain why? You have great disdain for teams "tanking", and a system like these go a long way to fixing that.

I can see owners being in favor of it - extra gates, and like playoffs, the players are not paid past the regular season.

If your team has nothing to play for since January, at least you have some kind of meaningful games to look forward to. A little something for fans of struggling teams. Speaking only for myself, I am excited about this concept.

I suspect your opinion has something to do with honor or tradition or concern about cost?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

You can't allow a team like Edmonton or Colorado to make it difficult for the bad teams to get better. All that will result in is an even distribution of talent in a draft, which would then result in the destruction of parity in the league. The draft's essence is to make the bad teams good in time by giving them the best players.

This. The point of the draft is to distribute the best young players to the worst teams. It isn't a regrettable side-effect. Or a mistake. It's the whole point.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This. The point of the draft is to distribute the best young players to the worst teams. It isn't a regrettable side-effect. Or a mistake. It's the whole point.

What they want the draft to do:

• Distribute the best young talent to the worst teams.
• Create parity.

What the draft does not do:

• Create parity.

What the draft actually does:

• Rewards failure and promotes tanking.
• Burdens the best young talent by confining them to teams the fail to help them grow.
• Keeps mediocre teams mediocre.
• Prevents good teams from drafting the best players, promoting a decline.

The way I see it, there are way fewer pros than cons with the current (and proposed) system. The only real benefit is that it gives fans of bad teams a silver lining, but this is probably outweighed by the frustration of other fans whose teams have good enough management to stay somewhat competitive, but never get the same benefit from the draft.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by troutman

Can you explain why? You have great disdain for teams "tanking", and a system like these go a long way to fixing that.

Because watching a bunch of also-rans play a glorified exhibition schedule under the shadow of the Stanley Cup Playoffs is not remotely compelling. Nobody - except possibly for Buffalo and Edmonton - actually plays to draft first overall.

People get mad at paying regular price for pre-season games. I don't see this as being any different.

I can see owners being in favor of it - extra gates, and like playoffs, the players are not paid past the regular season.

While the players get their cut through the CBA's revenue system anyway, I can see the NHLPA strongly opposing this unless they do get paid for these games - and that would open the door to demanding pay for playoff games too. But yes, the owners would certainly support nearly anything that drives up revenue.

If your team has nothing to play for since January, at least you have some kind of meaningful games to look forward to. A little something for fans of struggling teams. Speaking only for myself, I am excited about this concept.

I suspect your opinion has something to do with honor or tradition or concern about cost?

No, it has to do with the fact that the games are still largely meaningless. Also, much like the wheel system, the fake playoff system punishes the teams the draft is meant to help. The 17th, 18th, 19th best teams are more likely to win these playoffs than 30th, 29th, 28th, teams.

We all want to eliminate things like what the Oilers have done, but systems like this only perpetuate scenarios where teams like them rarely get top picks, which therefore cripples their ability to get better through the draft.

I don't like tanking, but I think the league has taken reasonable steps to mitigate it - the odds of the worst team drafting first overall is now barely 40% what it used to be, and with the top three picks being chosen by lottery starting next year, the usefulness of tanking will be seriously degraded without crippling the worst teams' chances of improving via the draft since they will generally be picking top 5.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by codynw

The GMs of the 14 teams that miss the playoffs should all have a big brawl in a barn to decide the draft order.

Brian McGrattan for GM.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Brian McGrattan for GM.

Treliving and Burke got this, they'll just spit tobacco on everyone.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

We all want to eliminate things like what the Oilers have done, but systems like this only perpetuate scenarios where teams like them rarely get top picks, which therefore cripples their ability to get better through the draft.

I think that is a good point. Possibly though, a draft position tournament puts more pressure on owners to remove incompetent GMs sooner. Would the Oilers have kept Lowe and Company so long if top picks are "earned, never given"?

[Burke Salad]

Originally Posted by troutman

I think that is a good point. Possibly though, a draft position tournament puts more pressure on owners to remove incompetent GMs sooner. Would the Oilers have kept Lowe and Company so long if top picks are "earned, never given"?

The answer is YES they would keep the old boy's club around. The 80's will never die in Edmonton!

[SuperMatt18]

Just fix the weighting even more, and every position is determined via the lottery.

30: 12%
29: 12%
28: 12%
27: 12%
26: 8%
25: 8%
24: 6%
23: 6%
22: 6%
21: 4%
20: 4%
19: 4%
18: 2%
17: 2%

Bottom 4 is the worst team in each division, then the rest is by points. You still get the best chance if you suck but it is minimal, and you could still end up picking out of the top 5 since you are not guaranteed to only fall one spot.

No team is going to really tank for only a 12% chance of the best player.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Just fix the weighting even more, and every position is determined via the lottery.

30: 12%
29: 12%
28: 12%
27: 12%
26: 8%
25: 8%
24: 6%
23: 6%
22: 6%
21: 4%
20: 4%
19: 4%
18: 2%
17: 2%

Bottom 4 is the worst team in each division, then the rest is by points. You still get the best chance if you suck but it is minimal, and you could still end up picking out of the top 5 since you are not guaranteed to only fall one spot.

No team is going to really tank for only a 12% chance of the best player.

I would be behind that.

Right now with the salary cap and UFA system in place, there is already a balanced playing field for all 30 teams. Just handing over generational talent to teams being managed poorly or simply already loaded with young talent and lagging for other reasons, is a huge over-correction in my opinion.

Especially once you get away from the bottom 3, there is literally little difference in talent between teams that miss the playoffs and teams that make it. It is often a case of a few 3 point games affecting the standings, or maybe some bad luck.

The talent gradient in the 1st round of the draft is a lot steeper than the talent gradient between most non-playoff teams and teams that just make the playoffs. The draft odds should try to reflect this better. Even with the current changes coming into effect, I don't think we will be quite there yet.

[Jason14h]

Here are the NBA odds which I believe is the modal the NHL is moving towards

1. 250 combinations, 25.0% chance of receiving the #1 pick
2. 199 combinations, 19.9% chance
3. 156 combinations, 15.6% chance
4. 119 combinations, 11.9% chance
5. 88 combinations, 8.8% chance
6. 63 combinations, 6.3% chance
7. 43 combinations, 4.3% chance
8. 28 combinations, 2.8% chance
9. 17 combinations, 1.7% chance
10. 11 combinations, 1.1% chance
11. 8 combinations, 0.8% chance
12. 7 combinations, 0.7% chance
13. 6 combinations, 0.6% chance
14. 5 combinations, 0.5% chance

[Robbob]

These are the odds the NHL will have going forward:

1. 20%
2. 13.5%
3. 11.5%
4. 9.5%
5. 8.5%
6. 7.5%
7. 6.5%
8. 6.0%
9. 5.0%
10. 3.5%
11. 3.0%
12. 2.5%
13. 2.0%
14. 1.0%

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by troutman

I think that is a good point. Possibly though, a draft position tournament puts more pressure on owners to remove incompetent GMs sooner. Would the Oilers have kept Lowe and Company so long if top picks are "earned, never given"?

The Oilers are actually a bad example in all of this because they have raised incompetence to an art form. Given Katz's hard-on for the 80s Oilers, the NHL could revoke all of their draft picks until he fires Lowe and MacTavish, and he'd probably still hold out.

For the rest of the league though, I guess one potential issue under this scenario is not removing incompetent management sooner, but removing competent management too soon. It takes time to rebuild a team and some franchises definitely would move backwards trying to rush a rebuild to the point of being mediocre enough to land that top pick.

Or, to be completely ironic, imagine if it was last year and the Flames were good enough to be a "contender" for the #1 pick but felt they needed to add a player to get there. Then, imagine we traded that undersized 4th rounder from Boston College for a pending UFA who can help the team with the immediate goal of getting the top pick. Wise move?

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

What they want the draft to do:

• Distribute the best young talent to the worst teams.
• Create parity.

What the draft does not do:

• Create parity.

What the draft actually does:

• Rewards failure and promotes tanking.
• Burdens the best young talent by confining them to teams the fail to help them grow.
• Keeps mediocre teams mediocre.
• Prevents good teams from drafting the best players, promoting a decline.

The way I see it, there are way fewer pros than cons with the current (and proposed) system. The only real benefit is that it gives fans of bad teams a silver lining, but this is probably outweighed by the frustration of other fans whose teams have good enough management to stay somewhat competitive, but never get the same benefit from the draft.

I actually disagree with your assessment here.

What the draft does not do:

• Create parity.

The NHL does achieve parity through the draft. For instance, Chicago, Detroit (remember, they sucked for a long time until they managed to turn themselves around through the draft initially), Pittsburgh, San Jose, Boston, Anaheim, Vancouver, Ottawa, LA, etc. - teams who have had top-end picks and went on to experience either short or continual success in the league. Where would these teams be without the draft (and strong management)? That is parity right there. Remember Jarome's NMC? He picked 4 teams that were widely thought of as the best 4 teams to win a championship (and oddly enough, the exact 4 teams to make it to the respective conference finals that year), and yet they all had bottom 5 finishes not that long ago in their history. If that isn't an example of parity, I don't know what is. Even a long-time NHL player can't pick the winner, even though he knows the players and actually plays games against these teams.

Rewards failure and promotes tanking.

Let me use an analogy here. You say that the NHL rewards failure. I don't look at it quite like a reward. I look it more as 'social assistance'. Think about someone who has had a run of bad luck, or some poor decision making when it comes to investments, or some other factor. Suddenly that person finds themselves out of a job and no income. Welfare or other social assistance programs helps put that person back on his feet so that person can be self-sustainable and hopefully successful. Is a welfare check a 'reward' here? I wouldn't classify it as such. Giving top picks to bottom teams is the easiest way to address parity in the league for the long term. There are many, many examples of this working extremely well in the NHL. The hope is that a team - with some help - will become a successful franchise. Without having strong picks in a draft, how do you suppose an organization can become successful in the future? What better way to help a franchise along than by providing an organization with the best of the incoming talent?

Now promoting tanking - I don't agree with it (not really anyways). Edmonton is really a standout from the list of teams that have finished in the lottery due to its' horrible mismanagement - both personnel decisions and their drafting and development program. I recall in the off-season that Edmonton made moves to actually become better - but most felt it just wasn't enough to become a playoff team. Tanking though? I don't buy it. Nobody thought Edmonton was tanking this year - at least not until they traded Perron. However, an organization comes to a point where they have to decide what it has to do. Buffalo, for instance, was labeled as the McDavid favorite. That hasn't changed much. However, did they really tank, or did they merely just make the moves that they really needed to? They moved a lot of expiring contracts last year - contracts that would have more than likely walked for nothing in the off-season. They added some surprisingly good FA in the off-season - Moulson was a coveted free-agent after-all. Would you say that they would be closer to a championship by trading their youth away for experienced NHL players and start trying to compete for the cup now? I don't think so. I think it would hurt them down the road, and they were a team that was 'gunning for it' right up until they finished near the bottom and had to make wholesale changes and enter into a rebuild.

There is a difference between outright tanking and legitimately rebuilding. It is hard to argue that Pittsburgh didn't tank for Lemieux. It is difficult to argue that Edmonton has been tanking when they have been a salary-cap team. The Perron move was the first move I can honestly say was in the 'tanking' realm. I can't think of another tanking example - there may be more, but I really can't think of any, and I think that says a lot about how the draft is working.

Burdens the best young talent by confining them to teams the fail to help them grow.

Crosby, Toews, Stamkos, Kopitar, Doughty, Kane, Ovechkin, Malkin, Seguin, and a plethora of other top-end picks disagree with this statement.

Keeps mediocre teams mediocre

List these 'mediocre' teams. Off the top of my head, I would list Columbus, Florida, Minnesota, Toronto, Ottawa, Philadelphia, Nashville, Arizona. I will argue that these teams are a product of one or more of the following: poor management, internal caps, or teams on the rise/decline.

Now think of it this way. Break the draft into 3 segments: Bottom teams, middle teams (mediocre) and top teams. The draft provides dispersal of talent inversely for the top and bottom, but should provide the 'middling' talent to the 'middling' teams. Does this make sense? Maybe not at once, but think of it this way. Top teams SHOULD see a reduction in their talent pool over the years, so they SHOULD fall into middling territory. Bottom teams should enter into middling territory as their prospect pool fills and starts entering the NHL. The middling teams SHOULD be teams that are transitioning between the top and the bottom, right? Their "mediocre" talent that they are drafting for their "mediocre" team should be providing them with the depth they need to make a good run at the cup (provided that they are a team on the rise) or help to soften the blow and create a faster turnaround from having a 'bad' year by providing depth in the organization.

I understand what you are saying, but the mediocre teams you talk about are mediocre not because of the draft, but usually because of internal cap constraints and poor management more than mediocre draft selections.

Prevents good teams from drafting the best players, promoting a decline.

Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, San Jose, and a number of other teams *somewhat* disagree with you here. I do think that the decline is intentional, but not guaranteed. However, isn't that parity? Isn't the draft and the cap itself designed to keep the top teams from continually being the top teams? By helping the bottom teams, and by hurting the top teams (in my opinion, not hurting but rather making it more difficult), this promotes parity, no?

This point essentially argues against your other point that the draft does not create parity.

Is it a perfect system? No, absolutely not, and this is why the NHL has been tinkering with it. However, the worst possible thing to do would be to remove the high talent in the draft away from the poor performing teams and award them to the mediocre and top teams - the bottom teams would never have a chance to improve, would they?

[CliffFletcher]

The draft achieves long-term parity by fostering a cyclical model of franchise development. Think of it as a big wheel - some teams are going up and some are going down. Over time, different teams get time at the top of the wheel.

Not all teams are in a win now mode, nor should they be. And fans should be okay with that. Without the acknowledgement of buyers and sellers, there would be even fewer trades.

Some teams stick around a long time at the top because they have very good management. Some teams stick around a long time at the bottom because they have very poor management. But overall, it's a cycle.

Look at the standings right now. Tampa and the Islanders are newly arrived at the top of their conference. Not long ago they were at the bottom. But on the strength of high picks they're on the way up. Boston has been in win now for a few years and is trending down. The wheel turns. That's parity.

[Hackey]

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with the current system. The biggest reason we make a deal out of it is because of our rivalry with Edmonton combined with the fact that the team has performed much better than most expected when we started this rebuild.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

I think what we'd all really like to see is good teams tank against the tankers just enough to take each game to overtime and win there. Edmonton gets no wins and 82 points, nowhere near low enough for a high pick. And remember, you can't spell "low enough" without "Lowe."