| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 12:18:35
This is definitely TL:DR, cliffs notes at bottom. I just wanted to rant.
The problem: The draft lottery, in its current form, rewards incompetence too much.
This has bugged me for a while, and I have been thinking of different ways to offset this problem, but nonetheless the problem exists: the draft lottery creates a negative incentive for teams. Take this year, Edmonton knew it was in serious trouble fairly early on (Hemsky injury, Khabby injury, etc.) Realistically, they knew within the first couple months of the season they were toast. So what do they do? Play Deslauriers and co., don't change anything and finish dead last by a mile. The fan base naturally wasn't terribly happy with this, but what happens? They get the first overall pick, a future franchise player (they hope) and I see a bar in Edmonton cheering and clanking beers.....
Wtf? Something is wrong here. This team was nothing short of an abortion this season. I've seen underachievers, but last in the league? Seriously? And we reward this garbage with a first overall pick? There is nothing currently that stops a team from basically folding the tent at the all-star break. Possibly the only reason the leafs didn't try to beat Oilers in the losing contest is because they traded away their carrot-on a stick.
This happens all too often. Let's look at a couple of franchises who were run with horrid incompetence and finished in the bottom rungs of the league consistently for over half a decade.
1) Pittsburgh Penguins- quite the model franchise now, aren't they? Stanley cup champions, sell-out crowds, etc. etc. Except everyone forgets when the team was completely bankrupt and shedding salary like it was their job only 8 years ago. What happened? They made some of the worst teams ever, then (with a bit of luck), drafted Fleury, Malkin, Crosby Staal. (All top 2 overall picks).
2) Washington Capitals- Capitals fans will recall the season before Ovechkin came to town. Oh, except they won't, because it's not clear they had fans back then. They were among the lowest in league attendance, and unsurprisingly finished dead last in the league. Near the end of the season, Olaf Kolzig basically stopped starting games. Not because he was hurt, but because Washington wanted to finish last for a better shot at #8. What happens? The franchise is re-invigorated, they add Ovechkin, Backstrom Semin and Varlamov through the draft, and now they sell out every game.
3) Chicago Blackhawks- people forget how brutal the Blackhawks were after the Roenick and Belfour days were over. I think at one stretch they made the playoffs like once in an 8 year span or something. Regardless, years of ineptitude resulted in their young core of superstars (Toews, Kane, etc.) and a stanley cup champion.
Anyone see the problem here? Franchises that are consistent and successful in running their franchise (Detroit, New Jersey) are penalized for being successful over the years.
Solution: The league has to take away incentives for losing, period. Any economics 1000 class will teach you that people respond to incentives. Right now it's clear that the best way to contend for a cup in the salary-cap era is to basically tank three or four season in a row. Finish dead-last if possible. Draft well, and baam, contender. What is the solution? I'm not sure. The league is still committed to parity, I get that.
One possible idea is to extend the draft lottery to give all non-playoff teams an equal shot at the top-ten picks. So the flames would have had the same chance as Edmonton. Calgary is a team that tried to make the playoffs and failed. Edmonton is a team that just failed. At least give them the same chance at Taylor/Tyler. Not a perfect solution but I'd like to hear other opinions.
Cliffs:
Draft Lottery favours tanking seasons and incompetent team management.
Best way to build contender in current system is to suck alot for a long time.
Possible solutions?
|
| 37 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| 99pickles |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 23:07:04
quote:
Originally posted by irvine
So let us say Edmonton finish dead last, rather 48.2% (whatever it is) chance they get the 1st Overall pick (if not first, 2nd overall is guarunteed), they are weighted less.
Without a guaruntee or near one, of a top two picks... teams may think twice about tanking. You mideswell give the push for the playoffs as hard as you can, and if you just miss... you have near an equal chance of the guy finishing last, to draft 1st overall.
Irvine/prez.
Excellent observation! I am liking the thinking here! |
| 99pickles |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 23:02:23
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
it's hardly justifiable to have a one or two game tournament decide your draft fate.
Less justifiable then, say, the random drawing of a ping pong ball?
I think the single game knock-out mini-tourney isn't that bad of an idea when compared to the current table-tennis system.  |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/21/2010 : 07:51:19
I still think the system is fine as it is as well. Keep in mind, teams need to suck really bad for years on end to stockpile talent the way Pittsburgh did, as well as needing a little luck such as the way they landed Malkin without even having top pick!
Look at other teams who've been bad for a number of years. Teams like Columbus and Atlanta have had high(er) draft picks and not been able to build a very successful team. You still need to scout, develop and sign players. There's still a ton of work to do to "build" a team and there's only a handful of Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin type players out there. |
| shazariahl |
Posted - 04/20/2010 : 21:58:50
I don't see a problem with things the way they are now. The fact is, the worst teams need the better draft picks. Its the only way for them to try to improve, especially in an era dominated by the salary cap.
I understand your point about rewarding incompetence, because I used to feel the same way. But using your example of the Oilers, this team has been a "bubble" team for quite some time. And guess what? Other than when they had Pronger for a season and some amazing goal tending in the playoffs, they haven't done anything in 15 years. Teams NEED to suck sometimes before they can improve. Being on the bubble every year may make things exciting for the fans, but it doesn't make the team better. Those teams just end up on the bubble year after year after year.
Teams like the Penguins, on the other hand, get better. They suck for a while, and then they get MAF, Crosby, Malkin, and Staal, and now they're a powerhouse. And what's wrong with that? They team was terrible for a long time, and now their fans finally have something to cheer about.
Maybe Edmonton needs to "tank" for a few more years and collect some more draft picks. Honestly, I know it sounds terrible, but that's the best way to improve your team.
BTW, I'm not saying a team should intentionally tank. I find that despicable. But that's not, IMO, what Edmonton did this year. They had more man-games lost to injury than any other team in the league. It shouldn't be too surprising that we were dead last.
And not just bench players either - our best forward, best D-man, and starting goaltender were all out for 1/2 the season or more (forward and goalie being almost the entire season). When you're not a great team to begin with, that's a tough thing to overcome. Then many of the people who are really only 3rd or 4th liners got hurt. Its easy to say "who cares, those guys suck anyways", but we had to replace them with people who suck even more. So instead of a 3rd and 4th line, you really have what amounts to a 5th and 6th line quality player vs other teams who have their normal players in.
As an Oiler fan, of course I was disappointed by the way our season went. But if, on top of all our injuries and basically an entire wasted season, we were forbidden from getting a decent draft pick... what would we have? I understand your point about rewarding teams for bad play, but what is the alternative? Beating them when they're already down? Giving teams that just missed the playoffs top picks while the teams that honestly just suck continue to suck even more? The system isn't perfect the way it is, but at least its on the right path. Bad teams need the opportunity to get better. Draft picks don't guarantee success, but at least it gives the team a chance.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/20/2010 : 07:54:53
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4177
basically it comes down to how well the team scouts the player, then develops them whether it be in junior or the minors, the team has to give the player time. also the player himself has to have the smarts to make all the quick decisions on the ice. if he can't think fast and make the right decisions on the ice then he will be a career minor leaguer or worse, just ask alex daigle. isn't he acting somewhere ?
It comes down to scouting and development with many picks, true, absolutely true. However, it doesn't come down to that on certain sure fire picks like the Lemieux's, Crosby's, Ovechkin's, Malkin's, etc, etc. The thought is, why let a team have the option to "tank" to get one of these sure fire guys?
quote:
my thought is why should a team that ended up 3rd to last be able to get top pick. 15pt difference between fla and edm this year. that's a big pt difference if you ask me. why should a team have a chance to get a top pick that doesn't end up dead last ??
See above. It's all about making sure a team doesn't play it's way down to the first overall selection to get a sure fire bonafide franchise player! |
| Guest4177 |
Posted - 04/20/2010 : 06:18:54
why even do the lottery, why not just go back to the old way with the last place team getting the 1st pick. they finished dead last either because they suck or they tanked, but who cares they are last for a reason. what's wrong with you finish last you get 1st pick and so on and so on.
basically it comes down to how well the team scouts the player, then develops them whether it be in junior or the minors, the team has to give the player time. also the player himself has to have the smarts to make all the quick decisions on the ice. if he can't think fast and make the right decisions on the ice then he will be a career minor leaguer or worse, just ask alex daigle. isn't he acting somewhere ?
my thought is why should a team that ended up 3rd to last be able to get top pick. 15pt difference between fla and edm this year. that's a big pt difference if you ask me. why should a team have a chance to get a top pick that doesn't end up dead last ?? |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 04/18/2010 : 22:37:41
Guest 2164 I basically suggested the same thing you did, without the drafting thing, because it doesn't make sense. How would the AHL teams get players? The draft would have to apply to all teams in the NHL and AHL if you had a merger between the leagues to introduce a relegation/promotion system, then you would have to give the first pick to the last team in the AHL, and you're back to square one.
The point is: with a relegation/promotion system, you would have no "draft". Teams would sign players as they see fit, when they see fit, a first come first served kind of idea. The problem is that then, leagues like the OHL, QMJHL etc would have to have affiliations with teams in either an AHL or NHL team.
The North American system works for the demographics and geography of North America. Leave it alone. Small adjustments to the drafting will do just fine. |
| Guest2199 |
Posted - 04/18/2010 : 20:28:15
Oh yeah, sweet, regulation. Then we can have 4 top tier teams win the league every year and no one will ever come close or bother hoping to.
I have no idea how Middleton fans get excited for each season. Oh yay, maybe we'll finish 7th this year and not 8th? |
| Guest2164 |
Posted - 04/18/2010 : 18:32:19
Simple solution here boys, join the AHL with the NHL and set up a relegation and promotion system between the leagues similar to Soccer systems. Incoperate a graduated salary caps system that allows NHL teams a higher cap than AHL teams, and you pretty much stop all thoughts and hearsay of a team dropping games for a better draft pick. In this system last place doesnt get a pick they get moved down, and the guys moved up get first pick: Perfect way to start a new franchise in the upper league with new young talent, no?
Only one problem with this, to many AHL teams are in the same cities as popular NHL markets, that is to say hockey isnt a BIG enough market to support such a widespread system of relegation and promotion across 60 some cities in North America, Or maybe it is..... Lets see!
Forget giving more balls to weaker teams, give them reasons to get more balls. |
| Guest2140 |
Posted - 04/17/2010 : 00:30:54
i can understand the logic of tanking for a high pick from a management perspective but how do you get the players to actual go along with it
"sorry but we think you guys are all pieces of crap who are going nowhere so we want you to lose every game so we can replace you with decent players"
that type of thing just wouldn't sit with most players in a pro (or even amateur) sport.
the teams at the bottom are there because they are the worst teams statistically and need the most help statistically though still first overall pick doesn't guarantee your even gonna get a decent player 2 8th round picks zetterberg and datsyuk
than 1 overall pick patrick steffan alex diagle
for everyone 1 jonathan toews there is 9 Rostislav Klesla's or brett lindros'
|
| Guest4647 |
Posted - 04/16/2010 : 11:25:36
Going back to what I suggested that should be just the first round only. Every round after that will go to the way that they finished.
so last place team gets first pick in the second round and so on. So this way if a team moves up or down they are not punished/rewarded for all 7 rounds.
Teams are not going to tank for the first pick in the second round etc
This would be much better
so first round do the lottery with the ball system, every round thereafter do it on how they finished! |
| Guest4647 |
Posted - 04/16/2010 : 11:08:54
The current draft lottery format is kind of stupid. The idea itself is good, just the weighting and the stipulations of not being able to move down doesn't make much sense. It would make more sense to have all 14 non playoff teams involved and give them an amount of lottery balls and do all of the 14 picks that way.
ie
30th place - 14 balls
29th place - 13 balls
28th place- 12 balls
27th place - 11 balls
26th place - 10 balls
25th place - 9 balls
24th place - 8 balls
23rd place - 7 balls
22nd place - 6 balls
21st place - 5 balls
20th place - 4 balls
19th place - 3 balls
18th place - 2 balls
17th place - 1 ball
Se essentially every team has a chance to move up, you would keep on drawing balls until all draft positions are filled. The worse you are the better chances you are to get a higher pick. This will eliminate tanking because any team in the lower end all have realistic chances of getting that first pick. And the teams that don't need as much help that are at the upper end may move up too but have a much less of a chance! So the last place team would have a 13.33 % chance of getting the first overall pick, but there chances of getting a high pick in the top 5 are still very good.
This makes more sense and it would be very entertaining to watch the whole lottery unfold. This way we won't see teams tanking and it is still favoring the lower seeded teams.
|
| n/a |
Posted - 04/16/2010 : 10:23:10
I agree, Hugh, on almost all counts - we see the problem with "tanking" only when there is a really prized possession like an Ovechkin or Crosby coming along . . . then the real incentive is there. This year, between Hall and Seguin, there are no such players, not even a player such as Malkin. Not to say that these kids couldn't become great stars, but they certainly don't have the hype of a top franchise player.
The thing I'd change from your last suggestion is the weighting . . . I'd make it closer to this, in order of finish last-first:
1. 20% chance
2. 18% chance
3. 16% chance
4. 14% chance
5. 12% chance
Then a sharp drop-off in percentage to just a couple for each of the remaining non-playoff teams
All those guys would get a crack at the top 5 draft picks; after that, it'd go in order of finish. I'd also add the rule that if a team that wasn't bottom 5 won a top 5 pick, they lose their second round pick and it goes to the lowest ranking team that didn't get to pick top 5.
This way, the bottom 5 have an 80% chance to get a pick somewhere there, but there are no 'near guarantees' as the situation currently stands.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 04/16/2010 : 09:30:53
I have no doubt that the prospect of a top pick may make coaches and GM's less keen on giving huge icetime to their star players, but Hugh, I'm sure you've though of this point:
It's the end of the season, there is no way you're team is going to make the playoffs, are you going to give huge icetime to your top player, no! You don't want to risk injury to players by playing them 20-25+ minutes. You want to see which young players will be able to play next year.
For example, Deslauriers got most of the starts after Khabi got injured, but near the end of the season, Dubnyk got more starts so he could show his stuff too. They called up young defenders: Arsene, Chorney so they could get some NHL experience: don't tell me the coach said: "ok guys show me what you've got but lose the game so we get the 1st round pick..."
I don't think so. Teams don't tank on purpose, but because NHL teams cannot get relegated to a lower league(like in soccer), you would have to be an idiot to field a team of your best players and give them lots of minutes.
Although the Oilers didn't have anybody in the lineup that was an asset they wanted to protect, but if they had a player like Crosby, Ovechkin etc. they wouldn't have been playing him too much so the player could avoid injury.
No coach or GM would pass up an opportunity to have younger players get NHL experience without pressure. So teams using a wasted season to train players and rest high valued assets could make a team look like they were tanking.
I reiterate: Hugh, want to get rid of "tanking", whether purposeful or not, implement relagation, then teams fight to the bitter end not to fall into a lower league. That's the only solution, not changing the drafting system, because there will always be somebody as a bad as the Oilers this year. |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 04/16/2010 : 08:41:16
Washington 100% tanked their season to get Ovechkin. Tell me how many games Kolzig (their franchise goalie at the time) started in the last 1/3 of the season. Barely any. I can't recall their backup, but he was awful and still started almost every game.
Obviously the Crosby year was different, but I can almost guarantee if it was close between the last place couple teams, they would have made some interesting decisions. Teams don't tank on purpose, but they do things like call up a bunch of young guys, dress backup goalies, give the fourth lines equal ice time, etc.
It's not as obvious as the NBA, but there is still incentive to bomb out the last bit of a season if you're way out of the playoffs anyways, to get a better shot at a potential franchise building block. I would say the best compromise is to open up the existing lottery to include more teams. I agree bad teams need some sort of way to get better, but they still can't have that much of an incentive to be bad.
Open it up so every non-playoff team has a shot at #1-5. Lets say the last place team gets a 12% shot, second last 10% and the Calgary flames type teams get like a 2% shot. Do this for every lottery pick. Finishing last shouldn't be a guaranteed #1 or 2 overall. Even if teams aren't tanking on purpose the idea is that it would be too effective a strategy if they were. |
| Iceman778 |
Posted - 04/16/2010 : 01:16:29
i think your are right |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/15/2010 : 23:14:44
Irv, i like what you're getting at but i still don't think teams are tanking and taking the chance (pretty much 50/50) that they get the top pick. Yes, this year there're two supposed franchise players available, but i just don't see teams intentionally losing or playing soft or dressing weaker lineups, etc, etc, in an effort to get a better pick. |
| irvine |
Posted - 04/15/2010 : 17:33:55
Things will never be perfect, and everyone will never be happy with any aspect of the game. There will always be those who dislike something, no matter what.
With that being said... I believe this is the most 'fair' way doing things. The only thing I could possibly suggest, is making the weighted lottery somewhat more even for all teams missing the playoffs, and those making the playoffs, equally weighted no matter when they exit the playoff rounds.
So let us say Edmonton finish dead last, rather 48.2% (whatever it is) chance they get the 1st Overall pick (if not first, 2nd overall is guarunteed), they are weighted less.
Without a guaruntee or near one, of a top two picks... teams may think twice about tanking. You mideswell give the push for the playoffs as hard as you can, and if you just miss... you have near an equal chance of the guy finishing last, to draft 1st overall.
Those who made playoffs, get the added income and chance for the Cup. So they win in that sense, and will have to settle for a chance at drafting 15th or higher. Still, with an equal chance as the guy who wins the Cup.
Irvine/prez. |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 04/15/2010 : 15:48:33
I've decided to live with the way things are, because I can't think of any better ideas.
I personally hate the drafting system in general, and would rather that crappy teams be relegated to lower leagues (ie. finish first in AHL, get promoted to NHL, finish last in NHL get demoted to NHL). I wish that NHL teams would cut off affiliations with AHL teams, and join the leagues through the promotion/demotion system.
Wouldn't that be incentive for a team to play? You have to win not just to make the playoffs, but if you're out of the playoff picture, you don't want to be playing in the AHL!
Hey, I know its not possible on the financial side of things, most AHL teams don't have enough support for NHL play, and some NHL teams wouldn't survive if they were demoted, but it sure would make things more interesting. |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 04/15/2010 : 15:45:31
In my opinion, you either leave the system the way it is - "reward the losers" or go to the football(soccer) system which is in place everywhere except North America.
You wanted change Hugh, here: Get rid of the CBA. Get rid of the drafting system. Make teams sign prospects. Then you can forget about every have anything close to parity. It works "great" in the English Premier League, for years a handful of elite teams have been dominating, because they have lots of money, and they have excellent development schools.
Teams like Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool etc. don't draft players, they buy them. Their "farm system" consists of signing players when they are teens, and developing them in their affiliate teams until they are good enough to join the team.
You know what, I don't like either system(European buy and sign vs. North American draft), because one cause huge disparity, and the other somewhat punishes better teams. |
| Guest8871 |
Posted - 04/15/2010 : 10:36:41
I agree that the current system sucks. Rewarding the worst teams is counter-productive as it forces managment to make a decision between playoffs and draft picks. whatever. It's the fans that lose out when management rolls out these crap teams.
My suggestion to fix would be to award the top pick to the non-playoff team with the BEST record and go down from there. This would ensure that intesity level and compete factor is there for every team all the way to the end of the season. Fans still have something to cheer for...I watched my last Oiler game in January and actually hoped they would lose when the standings (for the bottom spot) were a lot closer. If the team was actually fighting for a better draft pick, I can guarantee management would have put out a better product...they'd have no choice. The fact that people paid money to go to Rexall to watch sloppy disgraceful hockey is a travesty that can never be reversed. The way the system is set up, the integrity of teams are tested on a regular basis...when two teams go into a game where one team needs to lose and another needs to win...how is that good for the league.
Anyways, this issue is much more prevalent in the NBA which is terrible league anyways and should not be the model for the NHL. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/15/2010 : 07:42:19
Well, i have to say, after reading a bunch of suggestions, i'm even more happy with the way things are! The only one that even comes remotely close in my books would be the "snake draft" and even that becomes a moot point because after 30 picks, it somewhat of a crapshoot, a lot more so than a hockey pool draft in the least!
"Highest seeded non playoff team"? A team that barely misses the playoffs gets the right to draft Hall or Seguin? Crazy! Imagine that team being Detroit, which, if not for a post Olympic hot streak, might have found themselves in that spot!
99 pickles....while a "final four" style knockout tournament could be entertaining, it's hardly justifiable to have a one or two game tournament decide your draft fate. Interesting, but don't see it really working any better than the current format.
Here's the thing, this has been brought up by Hugh because he doesn't like the current format. Personally, i think it's good and the purpose is to award the higher picks to the teams who have recently struggled. It's all in the name of parity. This is to keep all teams competetive and allow for rebuilding.
I have no prob that Hugh doesn't like the way it's done now and has started a good discussion on new ways to possibly go about it, but for now, my vote is the status quo. 
|
| 99pickles |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 20:50:19
I have thought about this many times. The best solution I can come up with is this: have a single game "Final Four" amongst the bottom four teams where 4th-last plays at home against last, and 3rd-last does the same against 2nd-last in a single game elimination. Then of course the winners go the championship game.
I also considered that the highest seeded non-playoff team should simply get the #1 pick, then the next team down in the standings would get 2nd and so on.
If one were concerned about teams "tanking" then this would definitely be the solution! |
| Guest9094 |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 18:24:49
I don't think any purposely s***s the bed, the playeres are trying as hard as they can. No one wants to suck as bad as the oilers do. So yea I guess you reward the losers but they need the help. |
| Guest9103 |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 17:54:26
Somehow I'm reminded of the "Daigle Cup". The local newspaper would actually print this with the 3 bottomfeeders in the league, pitching it as a race to be the worst in order to get "the next Gretzky".
I'm glad they moved away from that system... it was horrible. Laughable too, when you consider how good Daigle turned out to be. |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 17:35:03
Ya, I guess my point is simply that the draft lottery doesn't go far enough. Edmonton had the best chance of getting #1, failing that they get the next pick anyways...
And I never suggested playoff teams had the chance to get a lottery pick, so relax under my system Washington or Chicago wouldn't have a shot at Hall or Seguin.
Oh, and yes Elvis, I am aware someone has to finish last. When the same teams are always down there, though, I don't think they deserve the consolation prize of a guaranteed high draft pick. Snake draft actually sounds interesting. Poolies everywhere have determined its definitely more equitable. The only problem is drafts tend to be top-heavy, but I like the idea. |
| Guest4958 |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 17:03:26
i think the draft lottery is ok, but i would eliminate the fact that a team cannot be pushed back for more than one rank.
For exemple. Put in a bag the 14 non-playoffs teams with the according amount of casino chip..
edm: 20
boston: 15
Florida 10
Colombus 9
nyi 8
etc
and pick a chip...the team that is taken has the number 1 draft etc |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 15:36:32
Actually, you got me thinking about what could be done different.....
Maybe a draft similar to the numerous mock draft done each year by poolsters. Find a starting point, say cumulative finishes in the last 10 years to establish the drafting order. Have the determined order of 1(last) to 30(best).
pick 1 thru 30, then reverse, 30 thru 1, and so on.
Each subsequent year, maintain the order by seasonal finish. The good teams may never have a shot a the 1st pick, but building on each years' 30th and 31st or 29th and 32nd, may help as well....
Hey you never know, there was a time a draft lottery sounded whacked as well. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 15:33:22
I can see the possible logic behind a team tanking and getting the first pick, but that did not happen in this case.
To answer your question Hugh, Edmonton is a mediocre team, likely to finish 8th with luck but more than likely 9-13 in the West if they were not decimated by injuries.
That being said, for it to be called a true lottery, I would agree that the bottom 5 teams should all get their balls pulled for the top 5 picks with less of an advantage towards the worst team. Maybe a 40%, 25%, 20%, 10%, 5% chance for the 1 through 5 teams to get the first overall pick. Meaning it is more likley for any team other than the bottom team to get first pick but still the best odds overall.
But in the end, the draft is designed to help improve bad teams. So the worst teams get the first crack at the best players. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 15:26:35
Regarding suggestions for change, I think the point I am making is that there was a change to not automatically reward the worst team. therefore, it's a fair as it may get....
To maintain parity, it's okay as is. |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 15:20:25
Very good points raised, and a good response to Beans defence of the Oilers being that they were a bubble team that had bad luck and injuries. Hell, before the season I thought Edmonton and Toronto would be neck and neck, trying to make it in the playoffs . . . but in the Leafs case, an injured Komisarek and an underwhelming performance by the D and a horrific Toskala equalled a brutal first half they could not recover from.
My argument would be that both Edmonton and Toronto this year - along with Florida, TB and Columbus - were all expecting to contend for a playoff spot and just couldn't do it. There was no "tanking" per se.
But I do get what you are saying Hugh, and I think in a lot of ways your suggestion of "just out of the playoffs gets you a lottery pick" is a great one. My point about very few teams tanking (but someone's gotta lose) strengthens the point that whatever team wins the lottery outside of playoff teams needs it - whether we think so or not, the reality is there for Calgary as much as Edmonton. They did not make it.
I'd add the caveat that whoever wins one year cannot get top 5 or above, or something to that degree - again, not rewarding failure.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 15:19:18
The draft lottery was actually intended to remove any of the purported, 'folding the tent'. Prior to the lottery it was exactly as you said, finish last, guaranteed 1st pick.
I'm not sure what you feel would be more appropriate, have Washington, through a lottery equalization upgrade, get 1st pick, after being the powerhouse they are? So much for parity.
Every team, and I mean every team, in the NHL, at one time or another, has had to go through the years of hardship, required to allow a rebuild.
Detroit? Certainly good for a long time now, but in the early and mid 80's, they were brutal.
New Jersey was so mundane Gretzky went so far as to publicly call them 'Mickey Mouse'.
Is it because the Oilers had such a bad year that you decide now is the time to rant? You actually believe that they planned it as such?
I certainly hope you don't have an elderly aunt fall and hurt herself, I'd hate to hear how you kicked her in the hip to make sure it was broken..
And regarding the following;
"Wtf? Something is wrong here. This team was nothing short of an abortion this season. I've seen underachievers, but last in the league? Seriously? And we reward this garbage with a first overall pick? "
You do know someone has to finish last, right? Would it have been better if there was a tighter race for last? Would it make the fact more palatable if there was a 2 point spread instead of 12. Still means the last place team gets the best lottery odds. I don't see it as a reward for ineptitude, I see it leveling the field and trying to maintain parity, in a league trying to propsper for all.
Beans summed up the problems with the Oil rather succinctly. It has nothing to do with tanking, there have actually been worse teams. |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 15:09:25
As I said, I'm open to suggestions, I truly don't know what would make the system better. I just know it's not perfect, and something doesn't sit right. Bean's rant about Edmonton injuries doesn't really mean anything, except that perhaps Edmonton isn't the team in most dire need of help in the league (seemed to me he was arguing they would be a bubble team otherwise). Beans, decide whether Edmonton is a good team that suffered bad luck (so they don't necessarily deserve a guaranteed #1), or they are a bad team which does, because it can't be both.
Someone claimed indignation that a team like NYR, or the Flames shouldn't get a shot at a top-2 pick. Why not? Why is the right reserved for the basement dwellers? The crappiest teams get this lucrative upside every season (or ones with lots of injuries and bad luck- right Beans?) Top draft picks doesn't necessarily mean you will do well. I listed three examples of teams who did well in the draft, but some teams, like Florida, NYI, Columbus (save last year) have been absolutely horrid throughout their existence.
Other than slam my suggestion, does anyone have anything better? Or are we generally fine with the system as is? |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 14:59:29
I agree, the current system has some flaws but overall it's as good as it could possibly be, if not, very close! Keep in mind, this year, there're two highly touted "possible franchise players" in Hall and Seguin, but in years past, sometimes there's only one (see 2002 with Rick Nash, 2005 with Crosby, 2007 Kane, etc). Now, i don't see any team intentionally tanking to have what amounts to a 50/50 chance at the first overall pick.
Edm was completely decimated by injuries and as Beans said, were only expected to be a coin flip at being a playoff team to begin with!
Hugh, i know what you mean, but i don't have a better solution and don't really like your idea of giving teams which just miss the playoffs a shot at getting the top pick(s). |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 13:53:03
As an Oilers fan my opinion might be a bit jaded, but WTF??
Seriously, take any team in the NHL and take away their best player, starting goalie, and best defensemen for 1/2 of the season or more. Then, add in the rest of your roster missing more than any other team in the NHL. Edmonton was barely a playoff team at the start of they year. Barely. They lost 531 man games to injury. 23 roster spots at 82 games is less than 1900 games. What's a borderline team in the NHL missing 25% of their roster ALL SEASON become??
Dead Last in the league.
What do you expect them to do???? How could that team improve???
As stated, the point of the draft lottery is to have weak teams eventually get better. Every NA sports league has their draft designed this way. Why would the NHL be any different.
Edmonton didn't tank, they sucked. Two totally different things. |
| Guest9947 |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 13:38:21
The current system is good for league parity and helps save dieing franchises. Thus it is good for both the league and the fans. And Detroit and New Jersey are proof positive that the system obviously doesn't penalize well managed teams that much, as they have been serious contenders FOREVER without benefit of high draft picks.
But really, do you want to go back to the days pre-salary cap when the same 3-4 teams dominated the league and won the cup every year? I'd rather see weak teams become stronger so they can compete.
However, if you did want to change the system (which I wouldn't), you'd probably want a system similar to the lock out year lottery: weak teams get a few more balls in the draw than the strong teams, but any team can end up drafting in any position. |
| Guest0920 |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 13:37:26
You raise a couple of good points, but overlook one major one.
The bottom feeder teams (Edm this year) DO in fact suck. They are awful. To a certain extent they can try to improve this season, but when Edm lost their best player, and starting netminder, we all knew they weren't going anywhere this season. Same deal with the leafs, who don't have a pick, but are a bottom feeder not for lack of trying, but for lack of skill.
This is why the draft lottery exists. To help bad teams improve.
Your solution to open it to all non playoff teams runs the risk of NYR who barely miss the action to draft 1st overall. Do they really need the help that badly? The decades spent in the basement by Chicago could still be on going were it not for the draft lottery system.
I think you see my point. It's not that the system now is perfect, it does have flaws, but it's the one that works the best.
|
|
|
