Draft lottery changes coming: 2015 odds tweaked, 2016 top three spots drawn

[Bps21*]

To paraphrase what someone said months ago...

This isn't about hurting Buffalo...this is about helping big market teams that already have other advantages that aren't Buffalo.

No trade clauses that players waive to go to teams that are already good.
Free agents who won't pick up the phone for a rebuilding franchise.
Free agents taking less than market value to play for an already contender.

What really needs to happen is that we find a way to get the better teams to pick higher. It isn't fair that they don't get to have a shot at the top unproven players when all they can do is fill up on proven players that won't give Edmonton, Winnipeg, Calgary, Florida and Buffalo the time of day.

They want to go to great franchises like Pittsburgh and Chicago...and soon tampa and Colorado. ...hey how'd all those teams go from jokes to destinations anyway? I can't remember...

All any of this does is force teams to be at the bottom for longer.

Until they limit the number of no movement clauses, make it illegal for teams to sign proven vets who out score every player on our team for 2 million dollars a year, and limit the number of high end and middle tier free agent signings per team...

All this does is further a competitive UNBALANCE.

They're pushing a system where great players don't hit free agency, good players that do get overpaid and won't talk to the teams that need the talent...or maybe worse the good players who take less to go to Pitt or Chicago...even average players get no trade clauses and guess who is on all the lists...you aren't even allowed to give up things to get a player. So what do you do? Draft at the top. And of all those things...what is the one they change?

They should consider that maybe teams aren't tanking...and they're trying to solve the opposite of what the problem is. They treat the illness not the disease. This team has been bad too long...make them want to be good! Hey dummies they aren't good because the only way they can get good talent is to draft right where their talentless team keeps finishing.

Like how everyone says we are tanking. They can't explain what we were supposed to do with vanek and miller not wanting to stay. Doan wouldn't take the money. Parise and Suter wouldn't take the call. Richards wouldn't either and then after out scoring out whole team last year took TWO MILLION to play in Chicago. That's tanking? Not being able to overpay players because they won't let you? Then yes...we totally are tanking. Good that you put a stop to it.

 

[MayDay]

They should consider that maybe teams aren't tanking...and they're trying to solve the opposite of what the problem is. They treat the illness not the disease. This team has been bad too long...make them want to be good! Hey dummies they aren't good because the only way they can get good talent is to draft right where their talentless team keeps finishing.

Like how everyone says we are tanking. They can't explain what we were supposed to do with vanek and miller not wanting to stay. Doan wouldn't take the money. Parise and Suter wouldn't take the call. Richards wouldn't either and then after out scoring out whole team last year took TWO MILLION to play in Chicago. That's tanking? Not being able to overpay players because they won't let you? Then yes...we totally are tanking. Good that you put a stop to it.

My favorite is when fans of good teams that got good because they had multiple top 3 picks in the last decade, get all sanctimonious and accuse the Sabres (who had only two top 3 picks in four decades+ before last season) of tanking.

The Sabres are Exhibit A in how merely trying your best to be competitive year-in and year-out simply doesn't make you a contender in the long-run. You can work hard to be on the playoff bubble every year, but all you're going to have to show for it at most is a first- or second-round exit and a draft pick in the 10-20 range.

 

[SiDC1]

My favorite is when fans of good teams that got good because they had multiple top 3 picks in the last decade, get all sanctimonious and accuse the Sabres (who had only two top 3 picks in four decades+ before last season) of tanking.

I think the main reason why they get that way is because their GM never held a presser and basically said that they were tanking. Also, some of those teams didn't purposely do obvious moves to prove that they were trying to lose. Like the Sabres did at the beginning of last season.

I definitely agree that the NHL is treating the illness and not curing the disease with these steps.

 

[Zip15]

I'm fine with it. Perfectly fair, IMO.

 

[Paxon]

I think the main reason why they get that way is because their GM never held a presser and basically said that they were tanking. Also, some of those teams didn't purposely do obvious moves to prove that they were trying to lose. Like the Sabres did at the beginning of last season.

I definitely agree that the NHL is treating the illness and not curing the disease with these steps.

Our GM's never basically said we were tanking either. Darcy said the obvious, that we were going through a rebuild and that there would be "suffering" as a consequence. The Sabres made moves at the beginning of last season that meant they were purposefully trying to lose? Like trading the expiring Thomas Vanek for a similarly productive player in Matt Moulson + other assets?

 

[MayDay]

Also, some of those teams didn't purposely do obvious moves to prove that they were trying to lose.

What moves?

It seems to me that none of the moves that the Sabres have made, were made to make them lose.

Pending UFAs were traded for picks and prospects in order to help the rebuild. Because picks and prospects are necessary to rebuild, and it's much better than losing UFAs for nothing.

Ehrhoff was bought-out to avoid cap recapture.

If the Sabres were just buying out good players for no reason, then I would agree with you, but it seems to me that nothing they have done was done with the goal of trying to lose.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

I'm no fan of draft lotteries. Even though the 2016 changes help the Sabres more than they hurt Buffalo.

It's a team like Carolina that this change has the potential to crush. They have little NHL talent, and almost no prospect pipeline. They're going to be bouncing along the floor for several seasons. And if they get unlucky with the lottery their pain will be longer.

A team on the rise hitting miracle lottery shots is going to expose this system.

 

[Jeremy2020]

It feels like this will actually encourage tanking harder. If you're going to bad...then you need to be the worst since you may not 2 or 3 now.

 

[ZeroPT*]

To paraphrase what someone said months ago...

This isn't about hurting Buffalo...this is about helping big market teams that already have other advantages that aren't Buffalo.

No trade clauses that players waive to go to teams that are already good.
Free agents who won't pick up the phone for a rebuilding franchise.
Free agents taking less than market value to play for an already contender.

What really needs to happen is that we find a way to get the better teams to pick higher. It isn't fair that they don't get to have a shot at the top unproven players when all they can do is fill up on proven players that won't give Edmonton, Winnipeg, Calgary, Florida and Buffalo the time of day.

They want to go to great franchises like Pittsburgh and Chicago...and soon tampa and Colorado. ...hey how'd all those teams go from jokes to destinations anyway? I can't remember...

All any of this does is force teams to be at the bottom for longer.

Until they limit the number of no movement clauses, make it illegal for teams to sign proven vets who out score every player on our team for 2 million dollars a year, and limit the number of high end and middle tier free agent signings per team...

All this does is further a competitive UNBALANCE.

They're pushing a system where great players don't hit free agency, good players that do get overpaid and won't talk to the teams that need the talent...or maybe worse the good players who take less to go to Pitt or Chicago...even average players get no trade clauses and guess who is on all the lists...you aren't even allowed to give up things to get a player. So what do you do? Draft at the top. And of all those things...what is the one they change?

They should consider that maybe teams aren't tanking...and they're trying to solve the opposite of what the problem is. They treat the illness not the disease. This team has been bad too long...make them want to be good! Hey dummies they aren't good because the only way they can get good talent is to draft right where their talentless team keeps finishing.

Like how everyone says we are tanking. They can't explain what we were supposed to do with vanek and miller not wanting to stay. Doan wouldn't take the money. Parise and Suter wouldn't take the call. Richards wouldn't either and then after out scoring out whole team last year took TWO MILLION to play in Chicago. That's tanking? Not being able to overpay players because they won't let you? Then yes...we totally are tanking. Good that you put a stop to it.

This post

 

[EichHart]

It boggles my mind that the NHL is trying to follow the NBA model. I don't think they understand how parity works.

 

[Husko]

It boggles my mind that the NHL is trying to follow the NBA model. I don't think they understand how parity works.

In all fairness, the lack of turnover in the NBA has much much much much MUCH more to do with the stupidity of a soft cap than it does with their lottery. The soft cap is so stupid, it's even worse than no cap at all. While a hard cap forces dynasties to break apart, and no cap doesn't really force anything, a soft cap actually encourages players to stay with the teams they're on, because they can pay them most. It really doesn't make any sense.

 

[Sabretooth]

Starting in 2016, here is the full table of odds for where a team finishes vs. the selection they will be awarded in the draft, based on the new odds and the fact that the top 3 draft selections are assigned by lottery:

A couple things of note:

-the worst finishing team will only be awarded a top 3 pick a smidge over 50% of the time. That means, 50% of the time, the worst team will slide to the 4th overall pick.

-99.4% of the time, the draft order will be different than the standings. So, pretty much always.

-In fact, of the 7 draft selections the 4th worst team may be awarded, they would be LEAST likely to actually end up with the 4th overall pick than any other pick they could end up with. At just over 3% odds, effectively the team that finishes 4th worst should never actually own the 4th overall pick. WTF is up with that NHL?

 

[Paxon]

In all fairness, the lack of turnover in the NBA has much much much much MUCH more to do with the stupidity of a soft cap than it does with their lottery. The soft cap is so stupid, it's even worse than no cap at all. While a hard cap forces dynasties to break apart, and no cap doesn't really force anything, a soft cap actually encourages players to stay with the teams they're on, because they can pay them most. It really doesn't make any sense.

The lottery still causes a lot of problems in the NBA imo, even if it is a fundamentally different league and sport where parity is concerned. Missing the playoffs in the NBA becomes better than making the playoffs as a #8 seed, because those #8 seeds have simply no shot against the real contenders. If you miss the playoffs as one of the final couple lottery slots, you have a very small chance at #1, but a combined non-negligible shot at moving into the top few spots, while you can't get bumped down any more than you are.

 

[Husko]

The lottery still causes a lot of problems in the NBA imo, even if it is a fundamentally different league and sport where parity is concerned. Missing the playoffs in the NBA becomes better than making the playoffs as a #8 seed, because those #8 seeds have simply no shot against the real contenders. If you miss the playoffs as one of the final couple lottery slots, you have a very small chance at #1, but a combined non-negligible shot at moving into the top few spots, while you can't get bumped down any more than you are.

Yes, BUT, and it's a big but, a top 5 pick in the NBA isn't the same as a top 5 pick in the NHL. Top 5 in the nhl you expect an impact player. The 5th pick in the NBA could end up never even being a starter depending on the strength of a draft.

 

[joshjull]

Indeed. Last place gets dropped by 5%... second-to-last gets dropped more than 5% lol! NHL, who taught you math?



One reason, and one reason only. Let's not kid ourselves. It has nothing to do with preventing tanking. It has nothing to do with Buffalo. It has nothing to do with Edmonton. It has nothing to do with "appropriately reflecting the current state of competitive balance in the league" or some ******** like that. It's simply that there's 4 teams that this could hurt, and 26 teams this could benefit.

What math brought you to the conclusion that 26 teams could benefit? It can benefit up to three of the teams positioned from #2 to #14 before the lottery. As for how many teams it could "hurt". It could be any where from 0 to 13 teams not 26 teams.

There's a bunch of owners and GMs around the league that reeeeeeally want McDavid, but their team isn't terrible enough that they have a good shot. So they change the system to give themselves a better shot. There really isn't anything more to it.

Second-best scenario in my view (best obviously being the Sabres win the lottery anyway), is the team with the worst odds wins it, especially a large-market team. Then the league has to deal with the fallout of everyone crying about a conspiracy. The NHL is such a joke sometimes.

Considering the odds weren't changed all that much I find this assertion to be pretty silly bordering on paranoid. The odds of getting McDavid were never great to begin with.

 

[NotABadPeriod]

Yes, BUT, and it's a big but, a top 5 pick in the NBA isn't the same as a top 5 pick in the NHL. Top 5 in the nhl you expect an impact player. The 5th pick in the NBA could end up never even being a starter depending on the strength of a draft.

The real difference though is one player in the NBA could dramatically change your fortunes.

If you get the #1 pick, chances are that player is going to get you out of the basement the next year.

In the NHL, you could land Reinhart and STILL be bad because prospects don't enter the league with the kind of impact that NBA rookies do, and one player has a limited impact compared to the NBA. It's rare for a team to finish in the cellar for one year only--usually the bottoming out takes a couple years.

If the NHL was looking for a way to improve the draft to create competitive balance in the race for the next superstar, I'd suggest using a system that factors in the performance and draft position over the last 2-3 years instead of just the most recent season. It would also discourage the mythical strategy known as "tanking" because one season wouldn't have as much impact and teams aren't likely to "tank" for multiple years due to the backlash they would get from the fans.

 

[Paxon]

Considering the odds weren't changed all that much I find this assertion to be pretty silly bordering on paranoid. The odds of getting McDavid were never great to begin with.

Going from 25% to 20% is a 20% reduction, which is pretty substantial in my book, especially when just the year before it was dropped from 50% (IIRC) to 25%. The reduction at the bottom end of the draft overall is substantial. I don't think all about McDavid either, but the changes for 2015 are notable, and are part of what ultimately has been a staggered, drastic changing of the game over three years, dating back to 2013 and finalizing with the 2016 lottery.

 

[Eram]

Starting in 2016, here is the full table of odds for where a team finishes vs. the selection they will be awarded in the draft, based on the new odds and the fact that the top 3 draft selections are assigned by lottery:

A couple things of note:

-the worst finishing team will only be awarded a top 3 pick a smidge over 50% of the time. That means, 50% of the time, the worst team will slide to the 4th overall pick.

-99.4% of the time, the draft order will be different than the standings. So, pretty much always.

-In fact, of the 7 draft selections the 4th worst team may be awarded, they would be LEAST likely to actually end up with the 4th overall pick than any other pick they could end up with. At just over 3% odds, effectively the team that finishes 4th worst should never actually own the 4th overall pick. WTF is up with that NHL?

I'm actually OK with this model. Yes, it 'harms' the worst teams a bit. But, there is some point where you should stop rewarding incompetence. Just how most people would say McDavid to BUF would be great, they'd also be annoyed if a perennial bottom feeder like FLA or EDM got him. The talent level in the league is higher than it's ever been. With some smart moves, you can easily boost your team up 5 positions in an off season. Look at DAL has done, and [if it works out] NYI. I'd say the league would be better mid-level teams like CAR and WPG got RNH/Yakupov over EDM.

Anyways, this change should help the Sabres in 15-16. Say they jump to 24th... that's a 20% chance of picking in the top 3 and would be a huge boost.

 

[joshjull]

It boggles my mind that the NHL is trying to follow the NBA model. I don't think they understand how parity works.

I strongly disgaree. The last CBA is testament to the fact that the NHL gets parity. By further reducing the players percentage share of revenue (down to 50%), putting limits on contracts lengths and limiting the variance from year to year on deals. All these things have strongly helped the league reinforce parity and severely reduce the advantages big markets had.

 

[Crazy Tasty]

I'm actually OK with this model. Yes, it 'harms' the worst teams a bit. But, there is some point where you should stop rewarding incompetence. Just how most people would say McDavid to BUF would be great, they'd also be annoyed if a perennial bottom feeder like FLA or EDM got him. The talent level in the league is higher than it's ever been. With some smart moves, you can easily boost your team up 5 positions in an off season. Look at DAL has done, and [if it works out] NYI. I'd say the league would be better mid-level teams like CAR and WPG got RNH/Yakupov over EDM.

Anyways, this change should help the Sabres in 15-16. Say they jump to 24th... that's a 20% chance of picking in the top 3 and would be a huge boost.

I'm fine with this as well, as long as the lottery draws are public.

 

[haseoke39]

I'm actually OK with this model. Yes, it 'harms' the worst teams a bit. But, there is some point where you should stop rewarding incompetence. Just how most people would say McDavid to BUF would be great, they'd also be annoyed if a perennial bottom feeder like FLA or EDM got him. The talent level in the league is higher than it's ever been. With some smart moves, you can easily boost your team up 5 positions in an off season. Look at DAL has done, and [if it works out] NYI. I'd say the league would be better mid-level teams like CAR and WPG got RNH/Yakupov over EDM.

Anyways, this change should help the Sabres in 15-16. Say they jump to 24th... that's a 20% chance of picking in the top 3 and would be a huge boost.

If Florida or Edmonton got McDavid, I'd be wicked happy for them, because they wouldn't be a bottom feeder any more. What'll absolutely piss me off is if someone like Washington just lucks into McDavid without ever having to rebuild or suffer, adds a superstar to an already solid core and just essentially has the cup handed to them that way.

 

[joshjull]

Going from 25% to 20% is a 20% reduction, which is pretty substantial in my book, especially when just the year before it was dropped from 50% (IIRC) to 25%. The reduction at the bottom end of the draft overall is substantial. I don't think all about McDavid either, but the changes for 2015 are notable, and are part of what ultimately has been a staggered, drastic changing of the game over three years, dating back to 2013 and finalizing with the 2016 lottery.

Shocking that you chose to nitpick my post. But thanks for the explanation of why, in your book, its a substantial change. The odds of landing McDavid as i said were never that great, even in last years setup the last place team had only a 1 in 4 chance of winning the lottery. Now its 1 in 5. The odds of getting McDavid were always long to begin with and now they're even longer.

The change the previous year was any non-playoff team that won the draft lottery would get the #1 pick. Before that teams could only move up 4 spots. I guess you're saying that works out to a 50% change.

 

[joshjull]

If Florida or Edmonton got McDavid, I'd be wicked happy for them, because they wouldn't be a bottom feeder any more. What'll absolutely piss me off is if someone like Washington just lucks into McDavid without ever having to rebuild or suffer, adds a superstar to an already solid core and just essentially has the cup handed to them that way.

The Oilers and Panthers have been run by idiots for years. Why would morons getting rewarded make you happy?

 

[haseoke39]

The Oilers and Panthers have been run by idiots for years. Why would morons getting rewarded make you happy?

I don't care about the morons. I care about their fans.

 

[sjci]

What this change does is give the middle teams a greater shot at the top prize. Teams 6-10 saw their % chance go up from a combined 19.3% to 28.5%, nearly a 50% increase, where as the bottom 3 teams saw there chance decline from 58% to 45% (about a 25% decline). I think the aim here was to give more teams a realistic shot of moving up, rather than it most realistically being limited to the bottom 5 teams.