GDT: 2019 Draft Lottery

[obey86]

You understand the scope of trades is significantly smaller (to put it mildly) than the counter-proposal you provided, correct?

Maybe only the leading scorer on each team over the age of 25 is distributed among the league every other year or so then. Not saying the idea can't be tweaked to perfection. This would keep the scope of the distribution draft more in line with the number of players traded league wide. 31 players redistributed every two years = 15.5/year.

Like, how great would it be if Ottawa was given Kucherov next season? That would definitely speed up their rebuild and make them more competitive league wide which is the ultimate goal we are in search of. Also, once a player is distributed, they cannot be distributed again for another 6 years or something like that. That would prevent Ottawa from just losing Kucherov after they draft him in a subsequent redistribution draft. Now everyone has a chance to build a good team.

 

[obey86]

And the teams involved mutually agree to compensation, instead of a (hypothetical) league mandate.

When did McDavid agree to be drafted by the Oilers? He was forced to play there with no mutual agreement, much like a player going to a new team in a distribution draft.

 

[jkutswings]

When did McDavid agree to be drafted by the Oilers? He was forced to play there with no mutual agreement, much like a player going to a new team in a distribution draft.

Apples to oranges. New players with no previous history have a somewhat unknown impact over time, as opposed to radically shifting the balance of the entire league overnight by rearranging known commodities all at once.

And I said the TEAMS had a mutual agreement, not the players. Players sign contracts that may or may not include no trade/movement language, which would be another sticking point entirely.

 

[obey86]

Apples to oranges. New players with no previous history have a somewhat unknown impact over time, as opposed to radically shifting the balance of the entire league overnight by rearranging known commodities all at once.

And I said the TEAMS had a mutual agreement, not the players. Players sign contracts that may or may not include no trade/movement language, which would be another sticking point entirely.

Fair points.

What if the distribution draft was limited only to drafted prospects who have not played in the NHL yet? Example: The Lightning draft a great prospect in the 2018 3rd round who (1 year later) looks like he is going to be a really good NHL player. In my redistribution draft, we allow the worst team (in this case, Ottawa) the chance to chose from drafted prospects who have not played in the NHL yet.

This type of distribution draft alleviates a few of your concerns: A) The drafted prospect will likely not have a NTC (I don't believe entry level contracts ever have these, correct me if i'm wrong) and B) *KNOWN* commodities are not being rearranged as these are still unknown quantities at the NHL level.

or idea B:

Why allow playoff teams to draft (I mean the entry level draft this time) at all? Give the worst teams/non playoff teams in the league all the draft picks and give them more swings at the piñata so to speak. Allowing Tampa Bay to continue to draft players in the entry level draft just keeps TB on top of the league longer....this is what we are trying to avoid.


I'm looking for new ideas for better league parity. Because the way the draft works now just isn't working for the 10 or so teams that seem to continually be near the bottom of the league no matter how many high picks they get.

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

This draft lottery is so dumb. NJ in the past 3 years as follows:
'17:1st overall pick,
'18:MAKES THE PLAYOFFS,
'19:1st overall pick.
The system is broken.....

 

[obey86]

This draft lottery is so dumb. NJ in the past 3 years as follows:
'17:1st overall pick,
'18:MAKES THE PLAYOFFS,
'19:1st overall pick.
The system is broken.....

This brings up another idea for me. Again, if league parity is the goal, why not take the average finish place of the previous 3 seasons (or something like that) for each team to determine draft position.

For example: Team A finishes with 15th, 28th, and 2nd worst records over the previous 3 seasons. Instead of drafting 2nd (because they were the 2nd worst team this year) why not average the previous 3 seasons? So they would draft 15th instead (15 +28 + 2 / 3)

This prevents teams from tanking in any one season (as one single season doesn't matter as much) and also prevents a team like New Jersey from getting the #1 pick the year following making the playoffs, just because their best player was injured most of the year.

 

[pz29]

This draft lottery is so dumb. NJ in the past 3 years as follows:
'17:1st overall pick,
'18:MAKES THE PLAYOFFS,
'19:1st overall pick.
The system is broken.....

to some, it may look like the system is doing exactly what it's supposed to do: ensure "competition" and unpredictability from year to year.

 

[Trapper]

This brings up another idea for me. Again, if league parity is the goal, why not take the average finish place of the previous 3 seasons (or something like that) for each team to determine draft position.

For example: Team A finishes with 15th, 28th, and 2nd worst records over the previous 3 seasons. Instead of drafting 2nd (because they were the 2nd worst team this year) why not average the previous 3 seasons? So they would draft 15th instead (15 +28 + 2 / 3)

This prevents teams from tanking in any one season (as one single season doesn't matter as much) and also prevents a team like New Jersey from getting the #1 pick the year following making the playoffs, just because their best player was injured most of the year.

Just keep it simple.
Every non-playoff team gets 1 ball in the machine.
Start picking and that’s the order.

 

[pz29]

Just keep it simple.
Every non-playoff team gets 1 ball in the machine.
Start picking and that’s the order.

or dump the whole lottery nonsense completely and pick according to standings, but that would be too radical, I guess.

 

[izlez]

I'm loving how people all over the internet (especially the pro-tankers) are acting shocked that the lottery acts like a lottery. It's designed to prevent teams from tanking. Because your team tanked (or was just terrible) and didn't get a top pick doesn't mean the system is broken. The system is there for a reason and is doing exactly what it's supposed to do

 

[Trapper]

or dump the whole lottery nonsense completely and pick according to standings, but that would be too radical, I guess.

Edmonton (and to some extent Buffalo) really set the bar for what the draft was going to be.

The worst thing to be in the NHL is mediocre. Trying to build a team through the draft and compete at the sane time. You shouldn’t be punished for that vs. a team that pulls the chute and discards everyone.

Why should a team like Carolina that finished middle of the pack, non playoff team get punished more than a team that had 4 1st overalls.

16 teams make it, 15 don’t. Soon to be 16.
Why should a team that finishes 12-14th every year get punished more. Give them all the same odds.

 

[Cyborg Yzerberg]

I'm loving how people all over the internet (especially the pro-tankers) are acting shocked that the lottery acts like a lottery. It's designed to prevent teams from tanking. Because your team tanked (or was just terrible) and didn't get a top pick doesn't mean the system is broken. The system is there for a reason and is doing exactly what it's supposed to do

This is why the new lottery system is bad and its implementation was always extremely misguided.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I'm loving how people all over the internet (especially the pro-tankers) are acting shocked that the lottery acts like a lottery. It's designed to prevent teams from tanking. Because your team tanked (or was just terrible) and didn't get a top pick doesn't mean the system is broken. The system is there for a reason and is doing exactly what it's supposed to do

I mean the system being this way now isn't an argument in favor of it remaining that way.

I was never a fan of them making the change to the lottery in the first place.

 

[Winger98]

Edmonton (and to some extent Buffalo) really set the bar for what the draft was going to be.

The worst thing to be in the NHL is mediocre. Trying to build a team through the draft and compete at the sane time. You shouldn’t be punished for that vs. a team that pulls the chute and discards everyone.

Why should a team like Carolina that finished middle of the pack, non playoff team get punished more than a team that had 4 1st overalls.

16 teams make it, 15 don’t. Soon to be 16.
Why should a team that finishes 12-14th every year get punished more. Give them all the same odds.

They're not being punished. They've built a better team than those below them, they move down the draft. Even if the same team picks first ten years in a row, that's not a reward if they continue to be crap. If anything, Edmonton should be a massive warning to teams thinking that tanking will solve their ills. Their continued failure should be a clue that draft position isn't the end all and be all. Let teams "pull the chute" and suck. They are likely just dumping themselves into the abyss of awfulness by it.

 

[izlez]

This is why the new lottery system is bad and its implementation was always extremely misguided.

We had people rooting all season for the team to intentionally lose games. You do not get rewarded for that. That is a good thing.

And this "parity" argument is funny. Parity is at an all time high.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

We had people rooting all season for the team to intentionally lose games. You do not get rewarded for that. That is a good thing.

And this "parity" argument is funny. Parity is at an all time high.

Who was looking for the players to throw in the towel and not play hard?

 

[raymond23]

The argument changes every single post lol.

 

[izlez]

Who was looking for the players to throw in the towel and not play hard?

There certainly was people toward the end. But that's also not what I just said.
Benching players, calling up bad AHL players, rooting for players to sit out due to minor injuries, etc. is all part of the team losing on purpose. The league (rightfully) does not want to reward that behavior

 

[ArGarBarGar]

There certainly was people toward the end. But that's also not what I just said.
Benching players, calling up bad AHL players, rooting for players to sit out due to minor injuries, etc. is all part of the team losing on purpose. The league (rightfully) does not want to reward that behavior

You could also call it preserving your valuable assets so they aren't injured long-term in meaningless games.

Also the league already rewards that behavior to an extent by giving the worst teams the best chance. They just mitigated that somewhat (which I don't think was the right call).

 

[Run the Jewels]

Edmonton (and to some extent Buffalo) really set the bar for what the draft was going to be.

The worst thing to be in the NHL is mediocre. Trying to build a team through the draft and compete at the sane time. You shouldn’t be punished for that vs. a team that pulls the chute and discards everyone.

Why should a team like Carolina that finished middle of the pack, non playoff team get punished more than a team that had 4 1st overalls.

16 teams make it, 15 don’t. Soon to be 16.
Why should a team that finishes 12-14th every year get punished more. Give them all the same odds.

The cautionary tale with Edmonton is they have awful management/ownership and have done very poorly in the draft despite routinely getting great drafting position. They are like the Detroit Lions under Matt Millen in that regard. With Ken Holland, we have relied far too much on veterans like Abby, Vanek and Neilsen and our draft picks haven't been good enough. Larkin is the first point a game player we've drafted since Zetterberg in '99 and we haven't drafted a legit top pairing d-man since Kronwall in '00.

You will get punished if you are poor at drafting. The new draft rules make it even more difficult to get a top 10 player which further punishes teams that suck at drafting and developing NHL talent.

 

[Ezekial]

The Canucks have dropped in 4 straight lotteries, that's gotta suck. 2 three times and 1 once. We're actually catching up to them, 2 in two and 1 once.

 

[obey86]

The cautionary tale with Edmonton is they have awful management/ownership and have done very poorly in the draft despite routinely getting great drafting position. They are like the Detroit Lions under Matt Millen in that regard. With Ken Holland, we have relied far too much on veterans like Abby, Vanek and Neilsen and our draft picks haven't been good enough. Larkin is the first point a game player we've drafted since Zetterberg in '99 and we haven't drafted a legit top pairing d-man since Kronwall in '00.

You will get punished if you are poor at drafting. The new draft rules make it even more difficult to get a top 10 player which further punishes teams that suck at drafting and developing NHL talent.

Is it really a punishment to not automatically hand over elite prospects to poor teams? Is "punishment" the correct word to use?

I'd say something along the lines of "The new draft rules make it even more difficult to get a top 10 player as it further reduces the quality and frequently of handouts to teams that suck at drafting and developing NHL talent" instead.

 

[Run the Jewels]

Is it really a punishment to not automatically hand over elite prospects to poor teams? Is "punishment" the correct word to use?

I'd say something along the lines of "The new draft rules make it even more difficult to get a top 10 player as it further reduces the quality and frequently of handouts to teams that suck at drafting and developing NHL talent" instead.

To a certain extent, yes. Some markets have internal caps or have trouble attracting free agent talent. So there is a case to be made that you can keep those franchises competitive during lean years by allowing them to pick at the top of the draft. Teams have obviously taken advantage of that by tanking and the new system was put in place to remove that incentive.

The difference between Tampa and Edmonton is ownership and management. One franchise is pretty much the class of the league after being total garbage and the other is in a perpetual rebuild.

 

[vladdy16]

A redistribution draft? So, who cares about all the work that gm's and scouts and coaches put in to build a winning environment? Who cares about tactics and strategy and chemistry? Who cares about players rights? How in the world would you plan to pitch that idea to the NHLPA, let alone a GM or coach who's on the hot seat every 3 years?

I'm with Izlez, the tank crowd on this board has dominated the discussion for years, and it seems like a lot of wasted breath at this point. The Wings should be commended for the foundation they've built in the mean time, so we're not going to be left hanging because of some ping pong balls.

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

This brings up another idea for me. Again, if league parity is the goal, why not take the average finish place of the previous 3 seasons (or something like that) for each team to determine draft position.

For example: Team A finishes with 15th, 28th, and 2nd worst records over the previous 3 seasons. Instead of drafting 2nd (because they were the 2nd worst team this year) why not average the previous 3 seasons? So they would draft 15th instead (15 +28 + 2 / 3)

This prevents teams from tanking in any one season (as one single season doesn't matter as much) and also prevents a team like New Jersey from getting the #1 pick the year following making the playoffs, just because their best player was injured most of the year.

In theory it could work but rosters change so much that current players could be "awarded" or "punished " from past efforts of players that might not even be on those teams anymore. I think Bryan Burke's proposal was the best one I've heard...