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

[justafan22]

The last 10 cup winners, all have had a top 3 pick in their lineup one way or another

2009: Crosby, Malkin
2010: Kane, Toews
2011: Seguin
2012: Doughty
2013: Kane, Toews
2014: Doughty
2015: Kane, Toews
2016: Crosby, Malkin
2017: Crosby, Malkin
2018: Ovechkin

If you even go back 15 years, it holds true.

2001 avs are the last team not to have one.

 

[BlueBaron]

I don't like any idea that limits your chance to win the lottery. Getting McDavid and Getting Yakupov are pretty different, so why pretend they have the same value? No team has better illustrated that not all #1 picks are equal than the Oilers. Why should I be punished for having Yakupov? Is that just an insane advantage? Now you want to take away their chance of getting a good #1 pick? Makes 0 sense.

 

[lamp9post]

The last 10 cup winners, all have had a top 3 pick in their lineup one way or another

2009: Crosby, Malkin
2010: Kane, Toews
2011: Seguin
2012: Doughty
2013: Kane, Toews
2014: Doughty
2015: Kane, Toews
2016: Crosby, Malkin
2017: Crosby, Malkin
2018: Ovechkin

If you even go back 15 years, it holds true.

2001 avs are the last team not to have one.

Top-3 picks aren't all that rare. Assuming an active-player window of 15 years, there is the potential for there to be 45 top-3 in the league (maybe more given longevity, maybe less if players bust).

There are only a handful of teams that don't have a top-3 pick on their roster (and I could be missing someone):

Boston
Detroit
NYI
NYR (although that will change in a few months)
Calgary
Vegas
Vancouver
Anaheim

And most of these teams have at least 1-2 #4-6 picks.

Among those teams, I see a pretty balanced mix of playoff contenders and rebuilding teams. Teams like Chicago and Pittsburgh are rare in that they hit multiple times in great years AND hit on their picks. Just having a top-3 player on your roster isn't a pre-requisite to winning the cup.

 

[Reno]

I would be ok with a lottery for the 5 worst teams, all having an equal chance with a drawing for each spot 1 thru 5

 

[Matty Sundin]

The draft lottery is something people are gonna complain about no matter what.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The last 10 cup winners, all have had a top 3 pick in their lineup one way or another

2009: Crosby, Malkin
2010: Kane, Toews
2011: Seguin
2012: Doughty
2013: Kane, Toews
2014: Doughty
2015: Kane, Toews
2016: Crosby, Malkin
2017: Crosby, Malkin
2018: Ovechkin

If you even go back 15 years, it holds true.

2001 avs are the last team not to have one.

Toews isn't a "franchise cornerstone" you would build around, and Seguin only played 13 games and wasn't the critical piece to winning it all.

Further, while the top guys in the 2003-2007 drafts have won a Cup along with Doughty (#2), both Staals that went #2, Malkin at 2 and Toews at 3,

-- the highest drafted player to win a Cup out of the 2002 draft is (I believe) Cam Ward at 25; the highest drafted player to get to the Finals is Ryan Whitney at 5
-- 2001? Spezza at 2 is the highest to the Finals; then it's Hamhuis at 12, then it's Krajicek at 24, then it's way the hell down to Patrick Sharp at 95 who's the highest drafted guy to win a Cup.
-- 2000? Gaborik at 3 won a Cup, but that wasn't until 2014 and he was on his 4th team. Hartnell at 6 got to the Finals, Orpik at 18 won a Cup.
-- 1999? The Sedins got there, Boynton at 21 won a Cup as a fill-in, Commodore at 42 is the first Cup-winner as a regular.
-- 1998? Lecavalier.
-- 1997? Thornton, Marleau, Luongo, ... got to the Finals but didn't win. That goes to Hossa at 12, 4 teams beyond the one that drafted him.

The point here: yeah, in recent years Cup-winning teams had high draft picks (and again, a lot of generational guys and it's pretty much 5 guys taking up that space before Ovechkin last year) but high draft picks in a year do not guarantee Cup-winning teams.

 

[Bevans]

The last first overall pick to win a cup is Patrick Kane- drafted 12 years ago.

Why is so much typing wasted on this silly topic.

This is a solution in search of a problem.

 

[Braunbaer]

Of the 10 highest scoring players in the NHL over the last 3 years, 5 were first overall picks, 7 were picked in the top 5. There is more luck involved in getting an elite center like Bergeron in the second round than there is in winning the lottery. Even getting an elite scoring W outside the top 10 picks involves a lot of luck and Boston has 2.

But Boston didn't suck for an entire decade just to get those players.
There is a difference between just getting lucky in the second round (or even in the 6th round ... hello Pavel Datsyuk) and getting gifted generational players like Crosby or McDavid as a reward for sucking badly.

 

[Seattle Totems]

Top-3 picks aren't all that rare. Assuming an active-player window of 15 years, there is the potential for there to be 45 top-3 in the league (maybe more given longevity, maybe less if players bust).

There are only a handful of teams that don't have a top-3 pick on their roster (and I could be missing someone):

Boston
Detroit
NYI
NYR (although that will change in a few months)
Calgary
Vegas
Vancouver
Anaheim

And most of these teams have at least 1-2 #4-6 picks.

Among those teams, I see a pretty balanced mix of playoff contenders and rebuilding teams. Teams like Chicago and Pittsburgh are rare in that they hit multiple times in great years AND hit on their picks. Just having a top-3 player on your roster isn't a pre-requisite to winning the cup.

If your position is that a top three pick is not required to win the Stanley Cup, great. Then it won't even matter if the teams that keep going to the trough over and over are suddenly restricted. I dont know if this proposed system is the answer, but it would sure beat the current system, which discriminates based on luck.

Frankly, Im sick of the same teams being awarded all the top picks while other franchises get totally shut out. Chicago was awarded a hall of fame player with the 1st overall pick and went on to win three Cups. How on earth is it fair that they get to draft 3rd overall now? Its ridiculous. Ditto for teams like Pittsburgh. They were awarded TWO generational hall of fame players in a little over 20 seasons and won 5 cups. Colorado has been awarded the 1st pick what.. 5 times in their history and have two cups? And then there are all the bottom feeders that are continually awarded the 1st pick such as Edmonton, Florida, New York Islanders, etc.

1st and 2nd overall picks make a huge difference in terms of franchise building and there are soon to be 32 teams in the league. They can spread the 1st overall pick around more. Especially to the handful of teams that have never won the Cup or been awarded 1st.

 

[Nervousbreakdown]

I would be ok with a lottery for the 5 worst teams, all having an equal chance with a drawing for each spot 1 thru 5

My issue with this is that its a good thing for a couple reasons that a team like chicago can jump into the top 3. Sure we all kind of hate it because we just got through the "blackhawks winning half the cups in a 6 year period" dynasty but it isn't a bad story to have a team that battled until the end for a playoff spot get rewarded by the lottery. Also it has turned the draft lottery into a small event for the league, its exciting for more fan bases when you know that even though your team isnt going to the playoffs theres still a 2% chance or whatever that they might move up and the whole season isn't a loss.

 

[Nervousbreakdown]

But Boston didn't suck for an entire decade just to get those players.
There is a difference between just getting lucky in the second round (or even in the 6th round ... hello Pavel Datsyuk) and getting gifted generational players like Crosby or McDavid as a reward for sucking badly.

Since it keeps getting mentioned I would just like to point out that The Penguins winning the 2005 lottery wasn't really aided by them being bad. Since there was no season that year every team in the league had the opportunity to win the pick, teams were given between 1 and 3 balls based on playoff appearances and first overall picks in the previous 3 years. The penguins were one of 4 teams with 3 balls, 10 teams had 2, and 16 had 1. For those of you that are bad at math that gave the Pens less than a 1/15 chance of winning the lottery. On wednesday Colorado had almost a 1/5 chance of winning the draft lottery. If you want to make an argument that bad teams shouldn't get rewarded for being bad 2005 isn't your best argument.

 

[Braunbaer]

Since it keeps getting mentioned I would just like to point out that The Penguins winning the 2005 lottery wasn't really aided by them being bad. Since there was no season that year every team in the league had the opportunity to win the pick, teams were given between 1 and 3 balls based on playoff appearances and first overall picks in the previous 3 years. The penguins were one of 4 teams with 3 balls, 10 teams had 2, and 16 had 1. For those of you that are bad at math that gave the Pens less than a 1/15 chance of winning the lottery. On wednesday Colorado had almost a 1/5 chance of winning the draft lottery. If you want to make an argument that bad teams shouldn't get rewarded for being bad 2005 isn't your best argument.

So they had the best chances because they were bad in the previous years.
The fact that they had less than a 1/15 chance does not change that since there wasn't a single team with better chances.

 

[Reno]

My issue with this is that its a good thing for a couple reasons that a team like chicago can jump into the top 3. Sure we all kind of hate it because we just got through the "blackhawks winning half the cups in a 6 year period" dynasty but it isn't a bad story to have a team that battled until the end for a playoff spot get rewarded by the lottery. Also it has turned the draft lottery into a small event for the league, its exciting for more fan bases when you know that even though your team isnt going to the playoffs theres still a 2% chance or whatever that they might move up and the whole season isn't a loss.

How about a separate lottery for everyone after 5

 

[Nervousbreakdown]

How about a separate lottery for everyone after 5

You have basically just described a more complicated version of what we had before 2016. How does this discourage tanking any more than the current system?

 

[Nervousbreakdown]

So they had the best chances because they were bad in the previous years.
The fact that they had less than a 1/15 chance does not change that since there wasn't a single team with better chances.

Yeah but its not nearly the same advantage that teams had in every other draft lottery when the oilers won 3 straight because you had a 50% chance of holding the first pick if you finished last. 2005 is the most "lottery" of draft lotteries the league has ever done because the 4 worst teams were still only about 27% combined to last Crosby.

 

[Muikea Bulju]

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:

In a year like 2012 the 3rd overall or 2nd overall team might have done it if they'd won.

2010 2nd team could've done it

But the actual purpose of that "extra rule" would've just been to cut out the whining that the lottery winner could not win again for N years - they could just decide for themselves if they want to keep the 1st pick or have a chance the next years.

 

[Muikea Bulju]

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.

I think it makes a lot of sense to spread out the best picks to the equally bad teams more evenly. There is absolutely zero sense in having some really bad teams getting zero high picks when they need them.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

In a year like 2012 the 3rd overall or 2nd overall team might have done it if they'd won.

This presumes that Columbus and Montreal had the respective guys they eventually took ranked 1st on their draft boards. No idea if that was the case, so it's idle speculation - but pretty clearly, if Columbus had Yakupov ranked 1st or Montreal had Yakupov or Murray ranked 2, they're not kicking back to their old spots to take a lower-rated guy for the sake of getting another 1st.

2010 2nd team could've done it

If Boston preferred Hall to Seguin, they're not sticking at 2 for the sake of an extra 1st and hoping Edmonton passes on the consensus #1 guy. Again, it's idle speculation that can't be proven.

But the actual purpose of that "extra rule" would've just been to cut out the whining that the lottery winner could not win again for N years - they could just decide for themselves if they want to keep the 1st pick or have a chance the next years.

Like everyone else with these solutions, you're fixing an imaginary problem. But I'm going to go back to the comment that launched this, and throw in another $0.02 on it:

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)

The playoff-winning teams are not signing up to fork out another 1st to a team that happens to decide to stand pat in the draft instead of moving up to their lottery-awarded position. They're not doing it on hey, one day that could be us and hey, some team that's there might happen to be one, let's give them more help to get better and draw closer to us when that scenario could be Boston, 2010 as you allude to up above. That "be helpful" gate cuts both ways. I suspect non-lottery winning teams also don't want to be bumped back a spot with all of their 2nd round and later picks because someone else happened to get picked and that team takes advantage of the situation to game it for an additional pick while still getting the guy they really wanted in the original spot. Again, I'm sure it's really fair though because we're somehow [not] punishing all the undeserving tanking teams in some contrived way.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I think it makes a lot of sense to spread out the best picks to the equally bad teams more evenly.

Can we also spread out the best playoff seeds and pairings to the equally good teams more evenly while we're at it? Because if we're rationing who can pick in what spots in some interval, I'd like to propose rationing how many times teams can be in the playoffs in some interval as well so that everyone has a chance.

After all, if we're trying to carry out this doctrine of fairness for things, I think we should extend it to as many things as possible in the interest of maximum fairness for everyone, so that no one feels slighted or neglected in any way.

There is absolutely zero sense in having some really bad teams getting zero high picks when they need them.

I can guarantee that neither you nor anyone else can come up with objectively clear criteria to state when teams need high draft picks without screwing up something else, much less being able to always accurately identify need. Plus, I can think of perfectly legitimate arguments for one lousy team who hasn't picked high shouldn't get a high draft pick, and why a lousy team that's had a few high draft picks should get yet another - and cite "need" or the lack of it in each respective one as needed.

Again, quit trying to push an idea under the notion of fairness. Life isn't fair.

 

[fsanford]

I think it makes a lot of sense to spread out the best picks to the equally bad teams more evenly. There is absolutely zero sense in having some really bad teams getting zero high picks when they need them.

Or just give the first pick to the team with the worst record and so on and so on.
A couple of other large leagues have followed this proedure for years and it has worked well.

But then we could not have the NHL's version of reality TV with advertising $$ so it is not going to change anytime soon, and could expand to maybe the top 5 picks in play to add to the drama.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Eliminated point totals still seems like the best draft determination system

This pretends that teams who are bad will suddenly start playing harder [and better] after elimination to accumulate points for a higher draft pick. News flash to everyone: teams that are bad don't suddenly get good after elimination, and they're not going to be play better with a different carrot than "make the playoffs, try to win the Cup" hanging out there. You're more likely to put higher picks in the hands of teams who finish higher in the standings because ... well, they're probably better than then ones who are down toward the basement.

Additionally, teams that are eliminated tend to start the focus on "next year" by starting to look at younger players to get them a taste of the NHL for the following season, evaluate what to do with them going forward, and so on. Trying to induce them to win more for a higher draft pick implicitly says "don't worry about getting guys developed and acclimated in low-pressure situations, play your older guys who might be slightly more skilled today but are declining and will be worse next season or the season after than the guys you'd like to build around."

 

[Djp]

How about an April Madness -tournament in which the teams get as many draft lottery "tickets" as they get points in the tournament?

good teams missing something tank to get in it then excell to draft 1OA.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

The rule should be after each team gets a top five pick in the draft the percentage cuts down going in the next draft.

The trick to it is if the team just misses the playoffs or is a team that consistently flirts and misses consecutive years. Then I'd say if they do win the lottery they get docked the points by a percentage, but also depends on how often they make a playoff appearance or win the lottery.

Another idea would be NHL GMs should vote on what team deserves the first overall pick, discluding their respective team, plus executives and Co.

 

[Seattle Totems]

Can we also spread out the best playoff seeds and pairings to the equally good teams more evenly while we're at it? Because if we're rationing who can pick in what spots in some interval, I'd like to propose rationing how many times teams can be in the playoffs in some interval as well so that everyone has a chance.

After all, if we're trying to carry out this doctrine of fairness for things, I think we should extend it to as many things as possible in the interest of maximum fairness for everyone, so that no one feels slighted or neglected in any way.


I can guarantee that neither you nor anyone else can come up with objectively clear criteria to state when teams need high draft picks without screwing up something else, much less being able to always accurately identify need. Plus, I can think of perfectly legitimate arguments for one lousy team who hasn't picked high shouldn't get a high draft pick, and why a lousy team that's had a few high draft picks should get yet another - and cite "need" or the lack of it in each respective one as needed.

Again, quit trying to push an idea under the notion of fairness. Life isn't fair.

The NHL is not life and it doesn't operate like a free market system. It's a collection of teams that have banded together to share revenues, attract the best players, and operate under a cap system. Every aspect of the league works around the ideal of fairness. Its why they instituted the draft in the first place.

As far as need is concerned how difficult could it possibly be to come up with a system that restricts teams from getting too many 1st OA picks?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The NHL is not life and it doesn't operate like a free market system. It's a collection of teams that have banded together to share revenues, attract the best players, and operate under a cap system. Every aspect of the league works around the ideal of fairness. Its why they instituted the draft in the first place.

Let's back up a second and get philosophical for a moment.

"Fairness" is an abstract idea whose definition is subject to the goals of the person doing the defining. One person's idea may be "equal chances to everyone" while another's may be "each according to his own." Both represent valid concepts of fairness ... depending on the viewpoint you take about what "being fair" really means. Each clearly has different goals in mind because both take different viewpoints about what is "fair." The sentence about a collection of teams banding together and so on? I've seen some here use a word to describe that: socialism. [Which of course shows an utter ignorance of what socialism really is, but clearly connotes their idea of what "fairness" should represent.]

So with that in mind, I can very easily argue that not every aspect of the league works around the ideal of fairness. It might be more accurate to say it reflects "opportunity" but certainly that's not equal to all members and certain aspects of league operations [say, participation in the playoffs] are by no means guaranteed to anyone.

Which is why I keep saying to everyone trying to invoke fairness as if it's some tangible, objective measure that can be even somewhat unambiguously defined: all you're really trying to do is make an argument for why certain conditions require a doctrine of fairness, and others do not - and try to maintain a consistent argument to tie the two together. You'll never be able to do it, and I keep trying to illustrate why by asking about different situations and why those should be treated any differently than the sanctity of high draft picks.

As far as need is concerned how difficult could it possibly be to come up with a system that restricts teams from getting too many 1st OA picks?

Then we're really not arguing need in any fashion; we're simply saying:

-- No team should have more than a stated opportunity for top-X picks in some timeframe [which is akin to saying that all teams should have "equal opportunity" for top-X picks in some timeframe, except there's a recognition that all teams will be able to realize such opportunity ... well, until we get into the "every team should be guaranteed" ideas]
-- Each pick in 1, 2, ..., X in a given year is of equal value
-- All picks in the top-X are of equal value regardless of year
-- The possession of a top-X pick for any team connotes an opportunity to a team for improvement
-- The realization of that opportunity [making the draft pick or trading it away] gives an impact to to the team that will always be fully realized in no more than one season and results in immediate improvement such that the team should never be in the bottom-X of the league in the following season for any reason
-- Any and all circumstances that may diminish that opportunity are irrelevant and should be completely disregarded
-- Any and all circumstances that may prevent the team from showing the requisite immediate improvement are irrelevant and should be completely disregarded
-- Any past actions taken by the team, including [especially] by officials no longer affiliated with the team in the present, which weakened the team's ability to improve the requisite amount after the realization of an opportunity in the present, are irrelevant and should be completely disregarded

I can keep going with this for a while, and it's not difficult at all to illustrate that every single one of those statements is false. The fact is, all these "great" ideas designed to "punish" bad teams or prohibit them from "taking advantage" of multiple high picks by using a one size fits all standard is going to do much more to keep bad teams bad - especially those that are truly terrible and legitimately trying to get better, and one top-X pick isn't nearly enough to get them out of the hole.

And I haven't even raised other points I always bring up:
-- Not everyone can be "above average"
-- Tanking = more talent in the postseason
-- The dichotomy of good teams and bad teams and the disparate treatment of each

Good luck, though. Maybe someone will figure out the perfect system to promote fairness, while being objective, while recognizing that all teams are not bad for equal reasons, while succeeding in correctly identifying and damning the unworthy without missing anyone or wrongly damning any of the worthy. Or, just quit obsessing about teams being terrible for whatever reason while 16 15 14 teams are still battling it out in this year's postseason going after what's really important in this sport.