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

[Zip15]

Buffalo isn't being targeted, folks.

 

[boots electric]

Buffalo definitely isn't being targeted, but the coincidental timing of all this is aggravating nonetheless

 

[MayDay]

People can say "the league isn't trying to hurt Buffalo, it's trying to help other teams."

But if "helping other teams" has the net effect of hurting Buffalo, it's really six of one, half-dozen of the other.

The league shouldn't be playing favorites at all. And changing the rules every couple years based on who is going to be in the draft and which teams stand to benefit is just bush-league. It's Mickey Mouse.

 

[krt88]

People can say "the league isn't trying to hurt Buffalo, it's trying to help other teams."

But if "helping other teams" has the net effect of hurting Buffalo, it's really six of one, half-dozen of the other.

The league shouldn't be playing favorites at all. And changing the rules every couple years based on who is going to be in the draft and which teams stand to benefit is just bush-league. It's Mickey Mouse.

the league is not trying to screw Buffalo....take off the Rose Colored Glasses

The league doesn't want teams to tank an entire season or two.

Who does this ruling favor? Chicago? NYR? LA? who?

oh wait, it favors everyone BUT Buffalo.....oh brother

If the league was playing favorite I think the Toronto Maple Leafs would have won a few cups since the 1968 expansion period....oh wait, they haven't

 

[26CornerBlitz]

6-25 PIERRE LEBRUN OF ESPN ON WGR <13:54>

LeBrun talks draft lottery changes, Free Agency, Trades, Draft Prospects and more with Howard and Jeremy.

 

[Karate Johnson*]

Here's a crazy idea.... How about the last place team picks first, second last place team picks second and so on.

Maybe just run the draft like a normal draft an stop trying to manipulate it.


And Edmontom wasn't trying to tank but we are?

If Murray comes out an says "we aren't trying to tank" is it ok then.

 

[Gabrielor]

Kevin Devine doesn't believe the changes will come in time for 2015.

 

[Rhett4]

Kevin Devine doesn't believe the changes will come in time for 2015.

Let's hope he's right. Did LeBrun give any indication if this would affect more than just the first pick? It's losing out on the chance for Eichel that would really bum me out.

 

[MayDay]

It would be hilarious if the NHL puts the top 3 picks in the lottery next year, and Buffalo, NYI, and STL all miss the playoffs and win those three picks - giving Buffalo all of them.

It'll never happen, but the wailing and gnashing of teeth around the league would be magnificent. If that happened, guaranteed they would change the lottery again before 2016.

 

[joshjull]

Ridiculous.

The NHL wants to be like the NBA - a league with no parity.

Instead, they should try to be like the NFL - a league with great parity and no draft lottery.

Worst picks first. It can't be any simpler than that. Works fine for the NFL.

This will have no bearing on parity. The league has created a lot of parity in recent years with the overall team cap on salaries as well as capping individual salaries. That has been tweaked even more in the last CBA to further limit teams ability to outspend other teams or horde talent. That's what creates parity. The lottery changes if they happen will not impact parity.

 

[Chad Thundercock]

'Fairness' cannot be mentioned in any system that rewards a team for losing. This is why I despise the draft system. I HATE rooting for the local teams to lose, but that's obviously what's best for them. And then the vast majority of local fans end up hating me for having common sense, etc...

I'm fine with however the NHL decides to improve this broken system, whatever gets closest to a completely random draft. Of course, that will likely end up being fixed when necessary, so whatever.

 

[MayDay]

This will have no bearing on parity. The league has created a lot of parity in recent years with the overall team cap on salaries as well as capping individual salaries. That has been tweaked even more in the last CBA to further limit teams ability to outspend other teams or horde talent. That's what creates parity. The lottery changes if they happen will not impact parity.

It will absolutely have an effect on parity. Salary cap/floor and revenue sharing can only do so much.

Ultimately though, you can only have parity in the league if bad teams have a good opportunity to get better. Getting better can happen through free agency or it can happen through the draft.

The first one is mostly out. The Rangers and Leafs and other big market teams can do this, but teams like Buffalo and Winnipeg and Edmonton and Columbus are never going to be able to attract top free agents, especially when they are bad.

That leaves the draft. The worst teams need to be able to access the top talent in the draft, or else it will be needlessly difficult for them to get better and you will have less parity.

In the absence of that system, all the salary cap/floor system will mean is that those bad teams are going to have to meet the salary floor either by taking on other teams' cap dump contracts through trade, or overpaying mediocre free agents. Neither of those really helps bad teams get better or build.

 

[Paxon]

'Fairness' cannot be mentioned in any system that rewards a team for losing. This is why I despise the draft system. I HATE rooting for the local teams to lose, but that's obviously what's best for them. And then the vast majority of local fans end up hating me for having common sense, etc...

I'm fine with however the NHL decides to improve this broken system, whatever gets closest to a completely random draft. Of course, that will likely end up being fixed when necessary, so whatever.

If a randomized draft is your idea of fair, then what's really fair would be eliminating the draft all together and going to an open signing system.

This will have no bearing on parity. The league has created a lot of parity in recent years with the overall team cap on salaries as well as capping individual salaries. That has been tweaked even more in the last CBA to further limit teams ability to outspend other teams or horde talent. That's what creates parity. The lottery changes if they happen will not impact parity.

The worst team getting the best player doesn't effect parity? Apply that logic
to a system where the Cup winner gets #1 overall, runner-up #2, etc. Wouldn't that effect parity? Logically, it's the same effect, either positively or negatively affecting parity.

This assertion only makes sense if you submit that the team that finishes last isn't the worst team, second-to-last not the second-worst team, etc.

 

[MayDay]

If a randomized draft is your idea of fair, then what's really fair would be eliminating the draft all together and going to an open signing system.

That's not fair, that's biased in favor the richest teams, big market teams, and the teams that happen to be good at the time.

If the best prospects could sign anywhere, they're going to want to sign with the best teams to have a chance to win right away. Barring that, they are going to want to sign in a place like NYC, LA, or Toronto with a lot of entertainment and nightlife for a young man.

That's the opposite of fairness. The whole reason we have a draft is so that bad teams can get better and so that the best prospects don't always go to the same, most attractive franchises.

 

[Paxon]

That's not fair, that's biased in favor the richest teams, big market teams, and the teams that happen to be good at the time.

If the best prospects could sign anywhere, they're going to want to sign with the best teams to have a chance to win right away. Barring that, they are going to want to sign in a place like NYC, LA, or Toronto with a lot of entertainment and nightlife for a young man.

That's the opposite of fairness. The whole reason we have a draft is so that bad teams can get better and so that the best prospects don't always go to the same, most attractive franchises.

I didn't say it's fair, I said if a randomized draft is fair, then that's even more fair. And it is fair in as many ways as you can argue something else is fair. For one thing, there is a salary cap and a contract limit. For another, prospects don't all seek the same thing. Not everyone wants to play for Toronto, that's been well-established. Not everyone wants to sign with a contender when they're 16 years old. This idea that LA and NYC have some special pull on free agents has absolutely never been indicated by free agent history. What some teams had was a ridiculous spending power versus other teams. Nevermind that you're only evaluating "fair" from the perspective of teams, without considering what is "fair" to the hundreds of players and potential players in question. I say all this without even advocating such a system.

"Fair" has no use in this conversation. If the rules are consistent and apply to all teams then it is a fair system. The argument is what's best for the league, not what is "most fair".

 

[BCS]

A randomized draft is a hilariously terrible idea. Draft lotteries are also dumb. The order should go based on record. The NFL has it right.

 

[couture23]

A randomized draft is a hilariously terrible idea. Draft lotteries are also dumb. The order should go based on record. The NFL has it right.

And the MLB.

 

[Beerz]

I didn't say it's fair, I said if a randomized draft is fair, then that's even more fair. And it is fair in as many ways as you can argue something else is fair. For one thing, there is a salary cap and a contract limit. For another, prospects don't all seek the same thing. Not everyone wants to play for Toronto, that's been well-established. Not everyone wants to sign with a contender when they're 16 years old. This idea that LA and NYC have some special pull on free agents has absolutely never been indicated by free agent history. What some teams had was a ridiculous spending power versus other teams. Nevermind that you're only evaluating "fair" from the perspective of teams, without considering what is "fair" to the hundreds of players and potential players in question. I say all this without even advocating such a system.

"Fair" has no use in this conversation. If the rules are consistent and apply to all teams then it is a fair system. The argument is what's best for the league, not what is "most fair".

Agreed.

The word "fair" should be banned from use when talking about anything other then children fighting. A subjective word has weaseled its way into our Politics and Sports (life) .. I hate the word.

 

[BCS]

And the MLB.

Right. I shouldn't have forgotten MLB.

 

[joshjull]

It will absolutely have an effect on parity. Salary cap/floor and revenue sharing can only do so much.

Ultimately though, you can only have parity in the league if bad teams have a good opportunity to get better. Getting better can happen through free agency or it can happen through the draft.

The first one is mostly out. The Rangers and Leafs and other big market teams can do this, but teams like Buffalo and Winnipeg and Edmonton and Columbus are never going to be able to attract top free agents, especially when they are bad.

That leaves the draft. The worst teams need to be able to access the top talent in the draft, or else it will be needlessly difficult for them to get better and you will have less parity.

In the absence of that system, all the salary cap/floor system will mean is that those bad teams are going to have to meet the salary floor either by taking on other teams' cap dump contracts through trade, or overpaying mediocre free agents. Neither of those really helps bad teams get better or build.

A lottery will not prevent the bad teams from getting access to good players in the draft. You also have this fallacy in your head that drafting high equals success later. It doesn't just ask the Isles, Oilers, Florida, Atlanta/Winnipeg etc. Successfully drafting throughout the draft for several a years is what builds a strong and competitive team.

You do realize even with tweaked odds and a lottery for the top 3 picks that the teams at the bottom while still have a big advantage in landing those picks. You're sting like they will put every non playoff teams name into a hat and then draw the first 3 picks (or whoever many picks they decide).

You're understandably mad because this could impact the Sabres next summer and are throwing anything against the wall to rant about it.

 

[couture23]

Right. I shouldn't have forgotten MLB.

It just makes the most sense, really.

 

[Beerz]

A lottery will not prevent the bad teams from getting access to good players in the draft. You also have this fallacy in your head that drafting high equals success later. It doesn't just ask the Isles, Oilers, Florida, Atlanta/Winnipeg etc. Successfully drafting throughout the draft for several a years is what builds a strong and competitive team.

You do realize even with tweaked odds and a lottery for the top 3 picks that the teams at the bottom while still have a big advantage in landing those picks. You're sting like they will put every non playoff teams name into a hat and then draw the first 3 picks (or whoever many picks they decide).

You're understandably mad because this could impact the Sabres next summer and are throwing anything against the wall to rant about it.

Why do you resort to this strawman? Absolutely nobody believes that drafting high ='s success and that's it. And absolutely nobody here has argued that.

 

[MayDay]

You also have this fallacy in your head that drafting high equals success later. It doesn't just ask the Isles, Oilers, Florida, Atlanta/Winnipeg etc.

No I don't. That's why I said "opportunity to get better."

I know high draft picks are no guarantee. Some teams draft high and don't get better. On the other side though, it is very hard to get better (starting from the bottom) without those top picks.

 

[joshjull]

Why do you resort to this strawman? Absolutely nobody believes that drafting high ='s success and that's it. And absolutely nobody here has argued that.

And why don't read my back and forth with mayday. The only way has argument about parity would make sense is if drafting high equals success.

 

[FamilyGuy716]

**** this!