News Article: A smart way to keep NHL teams from tanking for the draft
- Thread starter HumBucker
- Start date
Scotto74
taking a break
thats a really interesting idea.
Going to have to think about it a bit because I can't really see a downside to this.
NinthSpoke06
Registered User
It's been talked about for years on these and many other dark areas of the web.
It's the most logical solution, but these professional leagues aren't very logical.
It's the most logical solution, but these professional leagues aren't very logical.
PatriceBergeronFan
Registered User
I like this but aren't there some years where some lower down teams aren't mathematically eliminated until right at the end and for those cases it might not be fair to determine such valuable picks by points obtained in a 3 game stretch at the end of the year (or however few games it is if the mathematics run on way long).
Lobster57
Registered User
I could see teams reverse-tanking with this system: suck hard for the first 50-60 games then turn it on after being eliminated 10 games earlier than anyone else.
I heard this discussed on MvsW yesterday. W identified the downside like this: you've got a really crappy team, so you bottom out in Feb then you're told you can get the best draft pick by playing well - which is what you can't do, because you're a really crappy team. And it's kind of a downward spiral. 
Lobster57
Registered User
I heard this discussed on MvsW yesterday. W identified the downside like this: you've got a really crappy team, so you bottom out in Feb then you're told you can get the best draft pick by playing well - which is what you can't do, because you're a really crappy team. And it's kind of a downward spiral.
but if you're only marginally worse than #29 and you get a bunch of games as a headstart
BrunzFan
Registered User
There's another aspect of this that I really like... Teams that have been eliminated from the playoffs won't be as much of a walkover for teams fighting for playoff position.
Headshot77
Bad Photoshopper
- Feb 15, 2015
- 3,940
- 1,938
It sounds pretty good to me. I wonder what the draft order would look like this season if this system were implemented. I have a feeling that the results would be mostly similar since the bottom-rung teams have been mathematically eliminated for a while. However, it still encourages competition from all teams, AND it is more fair than a lottery system, where a good team that just barely misses the playoffs (Boston/Ottawa/LA) could get the first overall pick.
Another disadvantage: the quality of your division and/or conference could affect how quickly a team gets eliminated from the playoffs, and thereby indirectly influences draft picks.
Rumpy
Registered User
Rubber Biscuit
Registered User
I like this idea for the most part as opposed to the current system.
It would pretty much ruin what's left of the trade deadline as nobody would be selling
It would pretty much ruin what's left of the trade deadline as nobody would be selling
Montecristo
Registered User
- Jul 29, 2012
- 6,921
- 2,146
Players don't tank. Management tanks, they can't just tell their bad team to start playing better
KrejciMVP
Registered User
Lobster57
Registered User
Starting goalie plays more, better line combos, promising farmhands get a call up. its chancy but doable
Danton Heineken
Howard Potts
This idea has been thrown around a few times. It's far too complicated and really wouldn't be any more effective than just having every non-playoff team eligible for the lottery.
Jean_Jacket41
Neely = HOF
Or instead of picking just one team in the lottery like this year or 3 teams like starting next year, why not pick all first 14 picks with the lottery? The worst teams would still have more chances but could end up failing several spots, not getting rewarded for sucking. And the good teams missing the playoffs by a air would get the chance to get rewarded with a top-10 pick.
FrankBruins
Registered User
Well starting next year 30th overall will have a slim chance of picking fourth overall as the top 3 selections will be selected with a lottery so there's that.
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 24,441
- 22,009
Tanking doesn't bother me in the least.
Trades are hard enough to make in today's NHL as it is. Why take away the incentive for the bottom-feeding teams to sell of their player assets by the trade deadline.
Trade's, rumours, and trade speculation are a good thing for the game. 2 Canadian networks devote hours upon hours of TV and radio time discussing trades, whose available, and potential deals.
Fans of contending teams like how there are always 4-5 teams who are sellers each year and the potential opportunity to acquire these teams assets.
Fans of bottom-feeder teams like to see aging assets and UFAs sold off for prospects and picks offering hope for the future.
This guy's suggestion negates all of that.
Tanking is not some epidemic problem the league needs to fix.
missingchicklet
Registered User
- Jan 24, 2010
- 36,589
- 34,464
I don't like the idea because I don't think tanking is a problem. Let's take a look at the bottom teams in the league right now and how they've done in their past 10 games:
Edmonton 5-3-2
Arizona 2-8-0
Carolina 3-4-3
Buffalo 3-5-2
Toronto 2-8-0
Then you can look at the next tier of teams and some of them are doing really well. Bad teams are obviously going to have bad records near the end of the season because they are bad and playoff teams are going to be fighting even harder since many are trying to make the playoffs or better their seed, so it makes it even harder for lower tier teams to win. And just look at Edm, Buf, and Car. Those are not records of poor teams trying to tank. Ari and Tor just suck and are in shambles, so them having 2 wins a piece is pretty much expected. So there's no need to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Edmonton 5-3-2
Arizona 2-8-0
Carolina 3-4-3
Buffalo 3-5-2
Toronto 2-8-0
Then you can look at the next tier of teams and some of them are doing really well. Bad teams are obviously going to have bad records near the end of the season because they are bad and playoff teams are going to be fighting even harder since many are trying to make the playoffs or better their seed, so it makes it even harder for lower tier teams to win. And just look at Edm, Buf, and Car. Those are not records of poor teams trying to tank. Ari and Tor just suck and are in shambles, so them having 2 wins a piece is pretty much expected. So there's no need to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
WhalerTurnedBruin55
Fading out, thanks for the times.
- Oct 31, 2008
- 11,346
- 6,708
Current system isn't that bad.
Wouldn't mind a lottery for the 1st 3 picks. Perhaps lottery winners are not eligible for the lottery if they've won in previous years.
1st overall cannot win a lotto pick for 3 years, 2nd overall cannot win for 2 years, 3rd cannot win for 1, and so on. More incentive for a team to improve the following years.
Wouldn't mind a lottery for the 1st 3 picks. Perhaps lottery winners are not eligible for the lottery if they've won in previous years.
1st overall cannot win a lotto pick for 3 years, 2nd overall cannot win for 2 years, 3rd cannot win for 1, and so on. More incentive for a team to improve the following years.
Lobster57
Registered User
I've been mulling over a similar idea, a teams draft picks over a 3 year period have to add to a certain number (15? i dunno) so if you picked 4th in year one and 1st in year two you could pick no earlier than 10th in year three
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Confirmed Trade: [COL/BUF] Casey Mittelstadt for Bowen Byram- Latest: Sergei Shirokov
-
