GDT: 2019 Draft Lottery

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

The funny thing. Is im watching this "debate"... But its not much of a debate.

We sucked this year, I was "happy" most the year since we were losing, I wanted a Good Pick.

I was also really happy to see Bertuzzi, Mantha, Larkin and AA play well. I am glad they did well. And yes, i did secretly (not so secretly) hope they would lose the last game so Buffalo picks 7 and not us.

Overall I am fine with how things turned out. Our players developed. Our team is "improving" even if it doesnt look like it.
Also we should be adding a good player this year. That is also good.

Our GM is moving valuable pieces for more draft picks Nyquist and Tatar.
And he's waiting out the unmovable contracts because (he has no choice here).

It is as it is guys.
If our team becomes good in the next 5 years. The current players we have will have to be a part of that. It looks like there is some promise there.
We are also going to need help... we have some promising prospects as well.

Overall this result is MUCH better than us finishing 13th or 15th OA.

Things are entertaining. I like seeing how our team will rebuild. We all argue here (maybe too strongly) over what we think is the right way to do it. But there is no right way. I think the last 2.5 years of rebuilding has been working ok so far. I like the future of our team. Lets hope our scouts do better than average, because we will need them to.

P.S. stop talking about "winning cups" as though you have a solution about how to do that. the ODDS are we will not (nor any team) will win a cup in the next 20 years. Odds are against you. We may have forgotten that being spoiled with all our wins. TB is the best team in hockey right now by a mile.... Who wants to give me 5:1 odds on betting against them winning the cup this year?

If someone gives you 10,000:1 odds on anything, you take the bet. If John Cougar Mellencamp wins an Oscar, I'm going to be a very rich man.

 

[Red Stanley]

Lots of revisionist history going on.

The draft lottery was not instituted to prevent the lowest team in the standings from getting the top pick. Not was it started to guard against teams selling at the deadline. Those things are not, nor have they ever been part of what tanking really is. (Tanking is now just largely a misnomer that many people use for any vague association with fans of bad teams hoping to end up with a very high draft pick.)

The lottery was started to prevent things like:
* Benching players for playing well;
* Trading players at the first sign of playing well;
* Deliberately instructing players to throw a game(s); and
* Any other actions of overtly (and sometimes even publicly) attempting to lose games.

There was not a single team this year who tanked (in the sense of why there's a draft lottery). Any notion that Detroit "gave it their all", while one or more of OTT/LA/NJ/BUFF/NYR "gave up" is nonsense and even a bit egocentric. All of the above teams are at or near the bottom of the league for overall talent, and finished accordingly, with the extra hot or cold streak here and there as variation.

The least talented teams SHOULD get the best draft picks. Honestly, if the NHL was really doing their job, there would be zero need for a lottery in the first place, because the league established a Competition Committee back in 2005, WHOSE SOLE FOCUS IS ENACTING RULES IN THE NAME OF COMPETITIVE BALANCE! So just draft in reverse order of the standings with no lottery, and have the committee actually commit to de-incentivizing any lack of effort in other ways, whether via fines or even outright loss of draft picks altogether.

Yes and it makes even less sense to freak out and call out players/coaches when we do go on those mini winning streaks. If nobody is tanking on purpose, what is the point of getting angry about where we finish in the standings?

 

[izlez]

Honestly, if the NHL was really doing their job, there would be zero need for a lottery in the first place, because the league established a Competition Committee back in 2005, WHOSE SOLE FOCUS IS ENACTING RULES IN THE NAME OF COMPETITIVE BALANCE! So just draft in reverse order of the standings with no lottery, and have the committee actually commit to de-incentivizing any lack of effort in other ways, whether via fines or even outright loss of draft picks altogether.

or...focus on enacting rules in the name of competitive balance...via a draft lottery.

Can you imagine the chaos if draft picks were taken away? Bringing up Jake Chelios was judged by some panel to not be in the best interest of winning games, so we lose a 1st round draft pick? Meanwhile Buffalo plays some scrub and the same panel judges it to be fair and aren't penalized?

Anything along those lines would be terrible. The draft lottery is a great, objective, preventative measure

 

[Retire91]

Just a random statistic for fun. In the 56 years in the history of the draft, including 4 years of original 6 drafts, the red wings have only picked in the top five 11 times. We have picked first overall 3 times. Hope we can get some better luck in the coming years.

 

[BinCookin]

Lots of revisionist history going on.

The draft lottery was not instituted to prevent the lowest team in the standings from getting the top pick. Not was it started to guard against teams selling at the deadline. Those things are not, nor have they ever been part of what tanking really is. (Tanking is now just largely a misnomer that many people use for any vague association with fans of bad teams hoping to end up with a very high draft pick.)

The lottery was started to prevent things like:
* Benching players for playing well;
* Trading players at the first sign of playing well;
* Deliberately instructing players to throw a game(s); and
* Any other actions of overtly (and sometimes even publicly) attempting to lose games.

There was not a single team this year who tanked (in the sense of why there's a draft lottery). Any notion that Detroit "gave it their all", while one or more of OTT/LA/NJ/BUFF/NYR "gave up" is nonsense and even a bit egocentric. All of the above teams are at or near the bottom of the league for overall talent, and finished accordingly, with the extra hot or cold streak here and there as variation.

The least talented teams SHOULD get the best draft picks. Honestly, if the NHL was really doing their job, there would be zero need for a lottery in the first place, because the league established a Competition Committee back in 2005, WHOSE SOLE FOCUS IS ENACTING RULES IN THE NAME OF COMPETITIVE BALANCE! So just draft in reverse order of the standings with no lottery, and have the committee actually commit to de-incentivizing any lack of effort in other ways, whether via fines or even outright loss of draft picks altogether.

You are missing 1 key point here. No one tanks (on purpose) BECAUSE of the existence of the Lottery. Because they know they cannot actually get the exact player they want by positioning themselves to lose a specific game. If Detroit KNEW dead last gets them Hughes 100%... you would see a few teams INTENTIONALLY Tank. Under the current system, no, no one will do it.

 

[The Zermanator]

Yes and it makes even less sense to freak out and call out players/coaches when we do go on those mini winning streaks. If nobody is tanking on purpose, what is the point of getting angry about where we finish in the standings?

I was one of the people freaking out over the winning streak, however I wasn't directing anger at anyone in particular. But the reason I was angry is the same reason you'd be angry if your team lost in the Cup final, it's a result you didn't want.

I don't understand this criticism of people who wanted the team to continue losing at the end of the season. The teams that finished below us are picking #1, #4, and #5. What did those extra wins gain us?

You are missing 1 key point here. No one tanks (on purpose) BECAUSE of the existence of the Lottery. Because they know they cannot actually get the exact player they want by positioning themselves to lose a specific game. If Detroit KNEW dead last gets them Hughes 100%... you would see a few teams INTENTIONALLY Tank. Under the current system, no, no one will do it.

What was the problem with ordering draft picks in reverse of standings? I don't recall outright tanking ever being a big problem, especially since it only happens near the end of the season with the absolute worst teams who have nothing to play for anymore. I would love to see an example of an outright tank where the team performed significantly worse than they did before they started, because I don't think it exists. Take Buffalo and Edmonton tanking in the McDavid year. What was their win% pre-tank and post-tank? I seriously doubt it's all that different. Treating that strategy as if teams are literally throwing games is just embellishment.

 

[Shaman464]

You are missing 1 key point here. No one tanks (on purpose) BECAUSE of the existence of the Lottery. Because they know they cannot actually get the exact player they want by positioning themselves to lose a specific game. If Detroit KNEW dead last gets them Hughes 100%... you would see a few teams INTENTIONALLY Tank. Under the current system, no, no one will do it.

Want to end tanking? The bottom 5 teams each have a 20% chance of drafting first. Then reverse standings draft order. Easy. If a team wins the first overall the year before reduce their odds and give the difference to the other 4 teams.

 

[SimonEdvinssonAtSix]

I don't understand this criticism of people who wanted the team to continue losing at the end of the season. The teams that finished below us are picking #1, #4, and #5. What did those extra wins gain us?

Want the team to continue losing. Not a problem.

Calling for Larkin to get a magic case of the flu to be benched, starting a rookie in net, doing everything and anything to lose... that's where the problem rests. That's where the criticism comes from. Tanking.

Being bad and continued losses is not tanking... but that's not what most on the board were calling for.

So to clear this up.
Being bad = losses. Cheering to be bad, sure that's ok if it's your thing.

Tanking = losing on purpose. Benching our best players, playing sub par players when a better option is available, ect.... not ok. And it deserves full criticism every time it's brought up.

 

[The Zermanator]

There's this attitude throughout this thread from certain people that takes the view of bad teams that they are reaping what they've sown, and that more virtuous teams should be rewarded. But this is based on the fallacious assumption that all bad teams are bad because of incompetence. Edmonton gets dragged in as the same tired example every time. But where was Detroit incompetent? How would a competent team have handled the departure of Lidstrom, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg to not end up exactly where we are now eventually?

As long as we're throwing out outlandish proposals to address the draft system, rather than make it standings-based, why not cap-based?

Assign a $ value to each top 3 pick. Say, $10M for a 1st OA, $8M for a 2nd, etc. Then, once the season is over, every team that has the left over cap space can bid on these top picks. Since several teams would be bidding every year, the tiebreaker can be the standings. So for example if it comes to the 29th team and the 14th team both bidding, the 29th team would get the pick. Then once the top 3 auction is done, the remainder of the picks would be distributed from worst to best in the standings.

This would accomplish several things:
1. It would virtually eliminate tanking since a top 3 pick is not performance-based. Or at least make tanking much more complicated since you would need to lose at that level as well as have the cap space available.
2. It would still be weighted towards teams at the bottom since:
a. The better the team, the more likely they have more money tied up in players.
b. The worst teams get the tiebreaker.
3. Teams would be forced to be more responsible in how they spend their money.
4. The trade deadline would be unaffected, since top teams will still be looking to take on salary to improve their lineups, and worse teams will be trading for both picks and cap space.

Thoughts?

 

[Pavels Dog]

What did those extra wins gain us?

You may as well ask what an extra win in 09 would have gained us. What good drafting gains us.

Wins are a symptom, an effect. Just like losing is. Better drafting, better development=more wins. At the bottom of the standings as it is at the top of the standings.

If your young players can't win meaningless games how would you ever expect them to win meaningful ones?

 

[The Zermanator]

Want the team to continue losing. Not a problem.

Calling for Larkin to get a magic case of the flu to be benched, starting a rookie in net, doing everything and anything to lose... that's where the problem rests. That's where the criticism comes from. Tanking.

Being bad and continued losses is not tanking... but that's not what most on the board were calling for.

So to clear this up.
Being bad = losses. Cheering to be bad, sure that's ok if it's your thing.

Tanking = losing on purpose. Benching our best players, playing sub par players when a better option is available, ect.... not ok. And it deserves full criticism every time it's brought up.

You're taking a lot of liberties in criticizing certain things as if the only possible reason to do it is to try to lose.

Why not play a rookie goalie? Isn't the end of a losing season (where you have nothing to play for and losses would actually help) the perfect time to give a rookie goalie some experience? Should you take a gamble like that when the team is still in the running for a playoff spot?

As far as sitting certain players, I don't think you'd have a hard time finding a legitimate medical reason to sit anyone at the end of an NHL season grind. Contenders can give their best players days off near the end of the season, but the worst teams can't? In both scenarios, the team is doing something that helps the team.

So apart from those 2 examples, what is 'doing everything and anything to lose'?

 

[The Zermanator]

You may as well ask what an extra win in 09 would have gained us. What good drafting gains us.

Wins are a symptom, an effect. Just like losing is. Better drafting, better development=more wins. At the bottom of the standings as it is at the top of the standings.

If your young players can't win meaningless games how would you ever expect them to win meaningful ones?

So you think this team going 9-2 to finish the season is more reflective of the quality of the team than the first 70 games of the season?

Why is this such a controversial thing for some people to understand? That win streak was an anomaly that completely f***ed us. If we had gone 8-3, we would be drafting Jack Hughes this summer. If we went 7-4, we would be drafting at #5 this summer. There is no scenario in which those anomalous wins helped us.

The difference between us and LA/NJ? Those two teams didn't completely f*** their season right at the finish line.

 

[SimonEdvinssonAtSix]

You're taking a lot of liberties in criticizing certain things as if the only possible reason to do it is to try to lose.

Why not play a rookie goalie? Isn't the end of a losing season (where you have nothing to play for and losses would actually help) the perfect time to give a rookie goalie some experience? Should you take a gamble like that when the team is still in the running for a playoff spot?

As far as sitting certain players, I don't think you'd have a hard time finding a legitimate medical reason to sit anyone at the end of an NHL season grind. Contenders can give their best players days off near the end of the season but the worst teams can't? In both scenarios, the team is doing something that helps the team.

So apart from those 2 examples, what is 'doing everything and anything to lose'?

It's not taking liberties when the reason posters were calling for these events to happen was to ensure a loss.
Move whatever goal post you have to to justify a means to and end if you have to, I'm not willing to let it go unchecked.

If Larkin needed to be legitimately sat due to medical reasons he would have been benched. Again the reason people were calling for him to be benched was not out of concern for his health, but for how well he is playing. They wanted losses, at any cost, tanking.

I can't spell it out any simpler.

I'm not delving deeper into this with you. You want more examples, go re-read any GDT.

 

[obey86]

There's this attitude throughout this thread from certain people that takes the view of bad teams that they are reaping what they've sown, and that more virtuous teams should be rewarded. But this is based on the fallacious assumption that all bad teams are bad because of incompetence. Edmonton gets dragged in as the same tired example every time. But where was Detroit incompetent? How would a competent team have handled the departure of Lidstrom, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg to not end up exactly where we are now eventually?

I think there is definitely a sliding scale of badness though. And while not all is due to total incompetence it's pretty easy to spot the ones that are.

For example, Buffalo and Detroit are both bad but their situations in how they got there are entirely different. Detroit has really only been truly bad (as in bottom 5-10 of the league) for 3 seasons now - as they are just now starting to feel the effects of being on top of the league for so long and are still even now working off the bad contracts from when they were competitive.

Buffalo purposely decided to be noncompetitive after being a bubble team (not saying it was or was not the right decision, i'm just saying) and just finished it's 7th straight season at the bottom of the league -- and despite top draft pick after top draft pick have been unable to really make any tangible progress.

So yeah, I don't assume all teams are bad due to total incompetence, but it's fairly easy to spot the ones that are IMO.

 

[Pavels Dog]

So you think this team going 9-2 to finish the season is more reflective of the quality of the team than the first 70 games of the season?

Why is this such a controversial thing for some people to understand? That win streak was an anomaly that completely f***ed us.

A more ”normal” 5-6 record would have given us 5th pick. I strongly disagree with the notion that 6th instead of 5th is ”f***ed”.

As for anomaly..every winning streak is I guess? Just like an anomalous losing streak that causes you to lose a playoff spot or playoff series ”f*cks” you. It’s all an anomaly unless the team plays exactly the same way the entire year..

 

[The Zermanator]

I think there is definitely a sliding scale of badness though. And while not all is due to total incompetence it's pretty easy to spot the ones that are.

For example, Buffalo and Detroit are both bad but their situations in how they got there are entirely different. Detroit has really only been truly bad (as in bottom 5-10 of the league) for 3 seasons now - as they are just now starting to feel the effects of being on top of the league for so long and are still even now working off the bad contracts from when they were competitive.

Buffalo purposely decided to be noncompetitive after being a bubble team (not saying it was or was not the right decision, i'm just saying) and just finished it's 7th straight season at the bottom of the league -- and despite top draft pick after top draft pick have been unable to really make any tangible progress.

So yeah, I don't assume all teams are bad due to total incompetence, but it's fairly easy to spot the ones that are IMO.

That's fine, but I don't think anyone goes into a rebuild looking to be Buffalo. And those teams are punished enough by the predicament they've put themselves in, without structuring the draft in a way that 'innocent' teams like Detroit get screwed. Vancouver's another example in the last few years.

It's like if you had two kids and one had bad grades because of laziness, and the other because of a disability. One is in that position due to choice, the other due to circumstance. If you had some method of helping both of them, but you couldn't pick just one, do you deny the kid who's there through no fault of his own just to deny the 'bad' kid that same advantage?

 

[Run the Jewels]

Trudat lol. Who needs top 10 picks (TB didn't, they kind of bungled all three of theirs) when you can just draft Kucherov in the 2nd round or whatever?

Draft Kucherov
Draft Point
Trade for Miller
Sign Tyler Johnson for nuthin'

Yeah, give me some of that.

 

[The Zermanator]

A more ”normal” 5-6 record would have given us 5th pick. I strongly disagree with the notion that 6th instead of 5th is ”f***ed”.

As for anomaly..every winning streak is I guess? Just like an anomalous losing streak that causes you to lose a playoff spot or playoff series ”f*cks” you. It’s all an anomaly unless the team plays exactly the same way the entire year..

We're not talking about margins here. Like a team on the bubble hitting a small rough patch that causes them to just miss the playoffs. We're talking about a team that was the 2nd worst in the league, suddenly being the best team in the league over the last ~10 games pushing us up the standings. I've repeated this point a few times already but I'll say it again. There's no scenario where losing more than we did those last 10 doesn't put us in a better position.

And 6th instead of 5th very well may f*** us in the end. I don't see potential #1/2D Byram getting past LA and also have a hard time believing he isn't very high on Detroit's list given the state of our D for the last decade. Say he does become a #1D and we find out Detroit would have picked him if he was on the board. Still gonna be happy we got those wins?

 

[drw02]

The hardest part is the Wings would be picking #1 without there little streak to end the season. Were in that 3rd lottery spot damn near all year. Add in, if they had finished their strong end of season effort with a win over Buffalo they woulda had the Rangers spot and be picking #2. Just can’t catch a damn break.

Thankfully we should still have a good chance at Byram. Think blackhawks, Avs and kings will all prefer a forward.

 

[Bondurant]

Thankfully we should still have a good chance at Byram. Think blackhawks, Avs and kings will all prefer a forward.

From chatter I've read Byram seems to be the popular choice among Blackhawks fan but a belief he'll be passed on due to being heavy on blue line prospects.

It's going to be a tense 3-6.

 

[jkutswings]

One point of clarification, not aimed at any individual:

Had Detroit finished 3rd last or 6th last, there's no guarantee whatsoever that they would have received the draft slot that New Jersey or New York did (respectively).

New Jersey was assigned X number of combinations for each of the three drawings. Detroit was assigned Y combinations, and New York was assigned Z combinations. But there's no way of knowing the order those combinations were assigned in (possibly random), let alone if a given team having more or fewer combinations based on W/L record would have necessarily led to them having the specific combination chosen for a given drawing.

The "safety net" of not dropping more than 3 spots would still be there, which is why I wanted a worse record. But it's not a given that the Wings would've drafted 1st with the Devils' record, or 2nd with the Rangers'.

 

[Ezekial]

The hardest part is the Wings would be picking #1 without there little streak to end the season. Were in that 3rd lottery spot damn near all year. Add in, if they had finished their strong end of season effort with a win over Buffalo they woulda had the Rangers spot and be picking #2. Just can’t catch a damn break.

Thankfully we should still have a good chance at Byram. Think blackhawks, Avs and kings will all prefer a forward.

Or they could've lost all those games finished below LA and have been picking #5, better position sure, but I'm glad I have more hope in our current young forwards.

 

[drw02]

One point of clarification, not aimed at any individual:

Had Detroit finished 3rd last or 6th last, there's no guarantee whatsoever that they would have received the draft slot that New Jersey or New York did (respectively).

New Jersey was assigned X number of combinations for each of the three drawings. Detroit was assigned Y combinations, and New York was assigned Z combinations. But there's no way of knowing the order those combinations were assigned in (possibly random), let alone if a given team having more or fewer combinations based on W/L record would have necessarily led to them having the specific combination chosen for a given drawing.

The "safety net" of not dropping more than 3 spots would still be there, which is why I wanted a worse record. But it's not a given that the Wings would've drafted 1st with the Devils' record, or 2nd with the Rangers'.

Not positive but seems likely the winning number combinations would be assigned by draft slot and wouldn't change no matter which team occupied that slot.

 

[Gniwder]

Fact of the matter is, Holland did try to tank. He traded away Nyquist and Jensen and the team lost a bunch of games after the TDL.

You know who screwed up the tank? Ericsson, Abby, Nielsen, Vanek, Raz, and Daley. They screwed it up by getting injured and the team had to put in faster players, and won. Can't really blame Holland when he threw a bunch of college free agents and AHL players into a lineup, and they wind up winning instead of losing. The lineups in the last 10 games were designed to lose. The fact that it didn't work doesn't mean he didn't try to tank.

You can't expect the coach or the players to tank. Their job is to win. Only the GM can tank a team. Ottawa did it with their fire sale (and they didn't even have their own pick, lol), and I watched the Caps do it to get Ovechkin. It involves a complete fire sale, not fake injuries or illness. Management can't tell a player to fake an injury, bare minimum that's a league fine, if not a suspension. Not to mention who'd want to play for a manager/coach that tells you to fake injuries? I'd ask for a trade.

None of us controls what happens in a game. I enjoyed watching them win a few games, it was the most entertaining hockey I've watched all season. It is what it is, I'm not gonna get mad about stuff I can't control.

 

[Ezekial]

Not positive but seems likely the winning number combinations would be assigned by draft slot and wouldn't change no matter which team occupied that slot.

Would the numbers that were generated be the game though, we'll never know.