Draft Lottery rule: max 1 top2 pick in 6-7 years

[lomiller1]

People really focus way too much on a few points difference in the standings when arguing over these things. Same thing on the flip side for playoff seedings, people going bananas over bracket seeding about how much more unfair X team's seed is because they have a few more points than Y team. That little difference is basically meaningless in terms of context especially when you factor the whole schedule is unbalanced.

Yup. The other thing to add is that "middleing out" is a real thing. Teams can get stuck in the middle where they are not good enough to win or even make the playoffs consistently but are too good to get a high pick. The current rules significantly reduce the need for these teams to tank, where in the past the only way for them to get better was to tank and hope for some top 3 picks.

 

[Rico Suave]

This please

im sure you like it being ur team tanked on purpose to get crosby,taking away the lottery will have the same effect again,just more teams tanking on purpose

 

[lomiller1]

im sure you like it being ur team tanked on purpose to get crosby,taking away the lottery will have the same effect again,just more teams tanking on purpose

How do you tank in a year when no-one played a game? Crosby was a straight up lottery win where no team had more than a 6.25% chance (5 teams had a 6.25, 10 had a 4.16% chance and the rest had a 2.08% chance)

 

[Nervousbreakdown]

I think these proposals are just an overreaction to having the draft work exactly as it was intended. In 4 years we have seen the last place team pick first twice, we've seen it get bumped out of the top 3 twice as well. We have gotten to see some teams that weren't to far out of the playoffs race move into lottery picks. This is how the current system is supposed to work because it discourages tanking and also offers a small chance for mediocre teams to move up and improve through the draft.

 

[jd22]

I think these proposals are just an overreaction to having the draft work exactly as it was intended. In 4 years we have seen the last place team pick first twice, we've seen it get bumped out of the top 3 twice as well. We have gotten to see some teams that weren't to far out of the playoffs race move into lottery picks. This is how the current system is supposed to work because it discourages tanking and also offers a small chance for mediocre teams to move up and improve through the draft.

It's also completely screwed Arizona and Vancouver multiple times.

 

[Voight]

Says the Oilers fan

 

[b in vancouver]

The margins in the NHL are thin and all of these 'bad by design/half efforts' lead to losses and - essentially Tanking.

The one thing I think is going to make teams actually attempt to ice competitive teams going forward is how ridiculous a lot of these second contracts for high picks are becoming.

- and yes, not all drafts are equal, but that's a ridiculous argument/ point to make. Your team is being given more 'value' than any other team that year. You are given something more than the 30 other teams and a leg up. It can be traded. You essentially should be getting the best player. Other teams outside of the top couple aren't gifted this. And those are the teams you're playing.
- essentially, if it's a bad draft year at the top and you're not getting a franchise player, you should still be closing the gap because other teams aren't getting an NHL player.

points after elimination will just have teams packing it in even earlier in the season.

 

[bouncesonly]

Get rid of lottery, let teams tank. Severely reduce the ELC/RFA lengths.

 

[VoluntaryDom]

Isnt that how the NBA does it? I don’t have a problem with it. I think it’s great for the 14th worst team to potentially get the 10th pick or vice versa. I do think you’d have to change the odds a bit. Right now there’s a floor of a 3 slot drop. There wouldn’t be with that, so you’d have to make it statistically extremely improbable the worst couple teams end up with the 7, 8, 9 picks.

nah nba just has top 3 as well

 

[Russian_fanatic]

This might sound self serving but the facts are the facts. Over the last 4 years the Vancouver Canucks have had the worst overall record in the NHL but the best they have ever drafted is the 5th selection.

How is the lottery fair and working?

Not like the Canucks have ever deliberately tanked a la Sabres and Leafs.

As a fellow Canuck fan... it’s called a lottery. It’s 100% luck and the Canucks have been unlucky.

 

[Khelandros]

There's many different ways to win the cup.

No there isn't. There is only one way. Draft a franchise corner stone, surround them with complementary talent, blow it up and start again.
See: Chicago, L.A., Pittsburgh, Boston.
Don't See: Edmonton

 

[Khelandros]

How do you tank in a year when no-one played a game? Crosby was a straight up lottery win where no team had more than a 6.25% chance (5 teams had a 6.25, 10 had a 4.16% chance and the rest had a 2.08% chance)

You'll never win this. Fans of opposing teams will never agree to facts and logic when it comes to the Crosby draft.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

But then there would be a humongous race to lose, and that's not pretty to watch at all.

The worst teams should get plenty of picks in the top15, but I don't think they should be allowed to luck themselves into multiple 1st overall selections. That is just not fair to the other bad teams.

I hope your shitty team gets a bust like Nail Yakupov, and the next year you can finish dead last and watch McDavid tier talent go to your rival.


Goodluck with your rebuild for the next 7years, trying to build your team around a bust.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

cant speak for ottawa, but the kings definitely werent tanking. they just ****ing suck from top to bottom

The Sens did the opposite of tanking.

They kept Duchene/Stone/Dzingel until the last possible moment. I'm not saying it for sure was to try and avoid finishing last, but if they were tanking, they would have moved those guys in the summer.

I think there was a pretty valid argument last year that if the Senators gave up the 2018 4th, they probably could have ensured they'd get 4th or better by trading Karl/Stone/Duchene/Anderson in the summer.

 

[Dr Quincy]

It's fine the way it is. So many issues that could be addressed first. This is way down on the list.

 

[BPD]

I just don't get this spate of "Change the Lottery" threads. Is it just a bunch of butthurt over the devils winning another one?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I just don't get this spate of "Change the Lottery" threads. Is it just a bunch of ******** over the devils winning another one?

By and large, it's a bunch of hand-wringing about "protecting the integrity of the draft order" because someone might be intentionally tanking for a bunch of high draft picks, so it's necessary to take a rod to all bad teams - even the totally legitimate ones who are really trying to get better - in the name of hockey honor and fairness to all. If it's not that, it's about "protecting the integrity of the draft order" by suddenly keeping semi-good teams who aren't truly terrible from sopping up all the high draft picks [which statistically is going to happen every so often], but still punishing all the teams out there actively tanking.

In reality, tanking makes for better playoffs because talent gets moved from non-playoff teams to playoff teams, but we can't have teams getting better for a more compelling playoffs and a better fight for the Cup; we gotta protect a few of the elite youth of the hockey world from landing on certain teams. [All you other potential hockey players who would go in the first couple picks of any later round? Yeah, tough shit - some of you may land on the same team because it's totally OK if someone keeps picking in the first 5 picks of those later rounds year after year.] So, the more convoluted we can make a "solution" to "fix" all the "problems" that exist, the better.

 

[bauer]

6-7 years is too long. 3 seems more than enough.

 

[Matty Sundin]

It's fine the way it is.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Instead of parity, we are getting ridiculous results to only a few teams (whatever team Hall is playing for)

I'm all for restricting the "luck component", for example to put some rules to cut out the ridiculously lucky results Edm+Njd are getting.

Examples:

-Max 1 Top2 pick in 6-7 years
-Max 2 Top5 picks in a row
-Max 4 years in a row in the top10

This is a fantastic idea. In fact, to help promote the idea of fairness for all, I'd like to propose a similar rule on the other end of the spectrum to cut out the ridiculously lucky results CHI, LAK, PIT [and before that DET] got.

-- Max 1 time being in the Finals in 6-7 years
-- Max 2 times in the conference finals in a row
-- Max 4 years being in the playoffs

This would get rid of the ridiculous results [Crosby/Malkin, Kane/Toews, whatever team Justin Williams plays for] and help us get to parity.




Yeah, this sound ridiculous - and it is. But it makes just as much sense as the hyperbolic concern over where some team drafts in a given timespan. Let teams suck ass if they want, let the team's fans decide how long they're willing to put up with it before they sit on their wallets and demand better.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I already proposed that if a Lottery-winning team doesn't like the top picks at the draft, they could just opt to take their old pick + an extra pick at the end of the 1st round (or some other suitable place)

Would you like to know how many times lottery-winning teams will ever elect to do this? I'll let you guess - and I'll even give you a hint:

 

[Braunbaer]

No there isn't. There is only one way. Draft a franchise corner stone, surround them with complementary talent, blow it up and start again.
See: Chicago, L.A., Pittsburgh, Boston.
Don't See: Edmonton

So around what high pick did the Bruins build their cup winning team?

 

[blankall]

The Hall effect has been largely dealt with. You can't get the #1 pick but tanking repeatedly like Edmonton. NJD winning twice was just pure luck.

The reality is giving a player like McDavid to any team is unfair. There will always be an element of luck in where the stars go.

 

[PittsburghPens8771]

Not all first overall picks are superstars. So no, there shouldn’t be a limit on how many times you can draft 1 OA

 

[Tavares91Stamkos91]

Lottery only for the bottom 5 teams only anybody? Yes, no?