I Hate The Draft Lottery

[Finlandia WOAT]

The point here is NOT to screw over bad teams and make sure they stay in the basement for ages. In fact it's the opposite; it's how to get rid of that loser culture and welfare prizes that promote incompetence, so they actually start hiring competent people to run their teams and get out of the basement (and players' no-trade lists) in a sustainable way.

Why do you think removing the best way for teams to get talent, in an NHL where the movement of talent from team to team is at the lowest point since the time when the Montreal Canadiens/Leafs wrote the rules so they could hog the talent, will solve that problem?

Newsflash: even in a League where all 31 teams are trying their damndest to win, a team is still going to finish last. That's just the nature of the League.

In fact, the lottery system right now is bs. They should just do a straight reversal of the standings and give the middle finger to anyone who cries about it.

 

[lomiller1]

I've been preaching it for years that the best solution to replace the draft lottery is to count points after a team has been mathematically eliminated. Don't mind the teams I picked for the scenario, I just used the two teams with the lowest points so far.

The Jets would have picked first overall in 2016 and 2017 under that formula, and there would be just as much complaining about how broken the system was as we have now.

 

[Machinehead]

If you don’t like that, how much would you like a no cap league where every single good player left to sign with the Leafs or Canadians for more money and you never had any chance to reach a Cup final because you’d be forced to play against those very players using only the players those teams didn’t want?

Wouldn't want that at all. That's why I want a different system like a soft cap or a transfer cap.

 

[Machinehead]

I understand you're frustration, but it's only in the perspective of a Rangers' fan. Ask Detroit fans how great it was to watch Lidstrom, Datsyuk, Z, etc. all those years? Or Boston with Z, Krejci, Bergeron and Marchand. Chicago with Keith, Toews, Kane, Seabrook. Hell I'm a Pens fan and we have/had the group of Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Fleury, Kunitz for almost a decade. Yeah, support players come and go, but if you get a core of solid players that can contend every year, they'll stick around.

Chicago and Boston have new teams every year outside of those few guys.

I wouldn't enjoy that.

 

[Morgs]

The Jets would have picked first overall in 2016 and 2017 under that formula, and there would be just as much complaining about how broken the system was as we have now.

No.. because they earned it. Even if it's unfortunate a team did it twice in a row.

Better than a team winning with lotto balls 4 times in 6 years.

Also, did you really just do the math to figure out who would win?

 

[vancityluongo]

Re-posting myself from the thread on the Canucks board:

Do the lottery on a weighted three year rolling average for all 31 teams. Basically kill the odds that Chicago will win this year, while also providing a direct disincentive against blowing up a roster at the deadline for a one year payoff. A team like the Jets would be in the lottery this year, but because of the weighting also have very little shot at winning.

I took each team's 82 game pace for points this year and gave that a 50% weighting, with 30% on the points earned last year and 20% for 2016. Arbitrarily gave Vegas 70 points for last season (one point higher than the Canucks, which would have them at 3rd last, and is where they were slotted for the lottery) and then weighted the two seasons 50/50 so they don't get sewered for their success this year. This is a side by side comparison of the current lottery odds and my proposed system.

That first percentage for the last overall team may be too high...but basically I'm trying to achieve a balance between rewarding teams for doing poorly, and actually trying to create a level playing field for teams with years of incompetence. Also like the idea of possibly adding "points" to teams that do win the lottery...maybe 30 for 1st overall, 20 for 2nd, 10 for 3rd, with the 50/30/20 weightings helping to even things out so a team isn't punished disproportionately for winning a third overall three years ago.

Thoughts?

 

[lomiller1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the cap limiting the growth of the league salary wise? If a few teams could spend more, wouldn't salaries shoot up? I don't understand how this is not a good thing.

Can someone with a background in economics chime in on this? I just feel like having a cap space limits the overall growth of the league $ wise.

The more money the team owner gets to keep, the more interested they are in growing the game in their city and the more resources they have to do it. This leads to there being more money for everyone down the road.

Players taking a large share leads to ownership that is more interested in leveraging the team to make side deals and then sell the team to someone else. Circa 2003 so many teams were losing so much money that the NHL had run out of people with the money and interest in owning a team.

 

[lomiller1]

Wouldn't want that at all. That's why I want a different system like a soft cap or a transfer cap.

At best a soft cap reduces the gradient between rich and poor teams it doesn’t change their place in the packing order at all. You'd still be at a competitive disadvantage year in year out and those teams would still go out and take the players they really wanted from your roster. Transfer payments just means the business model of everyone else to act as suppliers of talent to the Leafs/Habs instead of developing fans in their own market.

 

[aufheben]

Re-posting myself from the thread on the Canucks board:

Do the lottery on a weighted three year rolling average for all 31 teams. Basically kill the odds that Chicago will win this year, while also providing a direct disincentive against blowing up a roster at the deadline for a one year payoff. A team like the Jets would be in the lottery this year, but because of the weighting also have very little shot at winning.

I took each team's 82 game pace for points this year and gave that a 50% weighting, with 30% on the points earned last year and 20% for 2016. Arbitrarily gave Vegas 70 points for last season (one point higher than the Canucks, which would have them at 3rd last, and is where they were slotted for the lottery) and then weighted the two seasons 50/50 so they don't get sewered for their success this year. This is a side by side comparison of the current lottery odds and my proposed system.

That first percentage for the last overall team may be too high...but basically I'm trying to achieve a balance between rewarding teams for doing poorly, and actually trying to create a level playing field for teams with years of incompetence. Also like the idea of possibly adding "points" to teams that do win the lottery...maybe 30 for 1st overall, 20 for 2nd, 10 for 3rd, with the 50/30/20 weightings helping to even things out so a team isn't punished disproportionately for winning a third overall three years ago.

Thoughts?

I think that would be better than the current system. Nice job. Although if it was up to me I might just do a lottery for the bottom 3-5 teams and call it a day. I never saw this as a huge issue.

 

[BlueBaron]

I actually think the current system is just about ideal, though maybe the lottery group should just be the bottom 5.

Say a superior talent comes a long. A "Next One" type. We know from experience some teams will in fact try to deliberately be last to get that player. Rebuilding is one thing but actively trading players doing well to bottom out is another.

Should a team be rewarded by cheating their fans and forcing them to watch a garbage product? Should they be rewarded for making every team having to play them fans watch a garbage product? I think there should be a chance things will blow up in their face. A 20% chance means you better be taking care of business, anyone who banks on getting the "Next One" is a dumbass.

You do need mechanisms to help the worse teams climb back up, especially in an age where young players are locked down for long terms. UFA season usually has one or two guys who would make a difference and then a bunch of average players who you have to overpay, you just cannot rebuild that way.

Now the reality is this thread is about the Oilers and fear they will get Dahlin and win yet another lottery. Personally not going to lose sleep over their 8% chance or whatever. Yes it is weird how many first round picks they have had but they are a statistical anomaly. The Oilers do not want to be in the Lottery they want to be in the playoffs. Changing the rules because of one team and a statistically anomaly is just short sighted.

You also have to remember that drafting high has no guarantees. With the exception of the Hall and McDavid Drafts all the drafts they went first were weak. Should they be punished for that? How do you make a system that factors in draft strength? You can't. Do you say " Well you got Yakupov so you're all set" and shut them out from the first pick because of it? Doesn't work.

If a management group remains a bottom feeder in normal circumstances the culprits will lose their jobs and a new group will get a shot. It may take a couple tries but no one stays at the bottom forever and that is the goal.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

I hate that bad teams are rewarded with high draft picks, talented prospects who those poorly managed franchises often ruin.

Bettman got rid of tanking.
It really is just a lottery now.

Tanking isn't the savior it used to be.

 

[aufheben]

I hate that bad teams are rewarded with high draft picks, talented prospects who those poorly managed franchises often ruin. Athletes who spent their whole lives working their butt off to achieve their dreams to be mismanaged and have their development stunted by imcompentant management. Go to the sub-forums of teams who aren't even basement dwellers but bubble teams, and you'll see a bunch of fans actively cheering against their favorite team so they get a better shot at the loser prize. Teams who are 8th place whose fans want to lose even though they're in prime contention of a playoff spot. That is sad. Think of how much more thought would go into managing teams & how advanced scouting would become if teams success depended on it rather than knowing they'll get the clearcut superstar if they suck enough.

I don't know which system should replace it, whether it's that idea of points accumulated once statistically eliminated from contention. Which would still make the genuinely bad teams get better picks, as they'd be eliminated far earlier so have many more games to accumulate points. But it incentivize pushing all the way to the final game for every valuable point. Teams tanking mess the standings up for playoff teams, for instance if tanking team is playing 2WC and 2WC wins to surpass 1WC to get the easier playoff matchup. Those points are very valuable to some teams and others are icing a roster with the straight up intention of losing (obviously athletes play to win, but management selling off any pieces keeping them competitive & icing AHLers). Or better yet, have the draft lottery completely random. Parity sucks and hockey is already the sport that is most strongly influenced by luck rather than top end talent to begin with. A team should never be better off losing.

It's a not a reward.

Why do you think removing the best way for teams to get talent, in an NHL where the movement of talent from team to team is at the lowest point since the time when the Montreal Canadiens/Leafs wrote the rules so they could hog the talent, will solve that problem?

Newsflash: even in a League where all 31 teams are trying their damndest to win, a team is still going to finish last. That's just the nature of the League.

In fact, the lottery system right now is bs. They should just do a straight reversal of the standings and give the middle finger to anyone who cries about it.

I'd be down.

 

[Machinehead]

At best a soft cap reduces the gradient between rich and poor teams it doesn’t change their place in the packing order at all. You'd still be at a competitive disadvantage year in year out and those teams would still go out and take the players they really wanted from your roster. Transfer payments just means the business model of everyone else to act as suppliers of talent to the Leafs/Habs instead of developing fans in their own market.

You keep saying that's what's going to happen but MLB objectively has more parity than the NHL. A lot more.

MLB has seen two small market champions in the last three years, and the other team won their first title in 108 years.

The last small market champion in the NHL was TWELVE seasons ago.

Which system is actually removing competitive disadvantage?

 

[Machinehead]

And while I'm on the subject what the flipping f*** did the Leafs win before the salary cap? Or the Rangers? Or the Bruins? Or the Hawks? They all sucked.

"Muh buy championships take all the good players." Wasn't happening.

 

[lomiller1]

No.. because they earned it. Even if it's unfortunate a team did it twice in a row.

Leaf fans (for example) would still complain that they were in much greater need of young talent.

Also, did you really just do the math to figure out who would win?

The basic idea has been around a while so the result for the last couple years have been documented. Winnipeg plays in a strong division so they have been eliminated relatively early and then played teams that didn’t have much to play for because their playoff position was pretty much set. The Matthews/Laine year they finished with their longest winning streak of the season leapfrogging CBJ, Cgy and Van in the standings which had people on the Jets board going nuts.

 

[vancityluongo]

I think that would be better than the current system. Nice job. Although if it was up to me I might just do a lottery for the bottom 3-5 teams and call it a day. I never saw this as a huge issue.

Thanks. I think having a team like Dallas last year win a lottery pick leaves a sour taste in people's mouth. At the same time, there's the "Edmonton effect" where years of incompetence shouldn't just be rewarded over and over to the point where losing is somewhat incentivized.

The whole thing is simply a matter of perception. I like my blended system simply because it tries to correct for years of incompetence, not just a one-off poor season and as a result doesn't incentivize a team like Montreal to just call it quits at this point. At the same time, if this is just a fluke season for Colorado, they aren't punished for winning while still rebuilding.

 

[Morgs]

Leaf fans (for example) would still complain that they were in much greater need of young talent.

The basic idea has been around a while so the result for the last couple years have been documented. Winnipeg plays in a strong division so they have been eliminated relatively early and then played teams that didn’t have much to play for because their playoff position was pretty much set. The Matthews/Laine year they finished with their longest winning streak of the season leapfrogging CBJ, Cgy and Van in the standings which had people on the Jets board going nuts.

To be honest, that would've been easier to swallow than losing in the lottery.

I don't remember that at all haha. Strange.

 

[Anglesmith]

Maybe I hate the cap because the league is garbage?

You might be enjoying it, which is bizarre but I'm not one to judge, but I haven't watched the NHL in weeks and haven't missed it at all.

Listen to what you're saying. The cap forces you to draft well every year and have a constant shuffling of ELC's? Yeah, that ****ing blows. We all lose half our team every year.

In 2013-14 I had the pleasure of watching the Rangers in the SCF. Within four years, I've lost almost that entire team. It sucks. It's depressing, it's boring, it's frustrating, it's disheartening. It ****ing sucks.

Stepan, Brassard, Richards, Hagelin, Pouliot, Boyle, Stralman, Klein, Girardi if you're into that kind of thing, and soon to be McDonagh. That's the price of contending in a hard cap league. Say goodbye to your entire ****ing team that you spent years building.

Meh. Your specific team's experience failure to accommodate the salary cap does not define the effects of the salary cap, and no, I'm delighted to report that for many fans of the game, the sport is still very much enjoyable. Perhaps more than ever. I guess the perspective that is missing for a fan of one of the richest teams in the sport is that these things you are talking about- constant roster turnover and being unable to keep a team together- that is reality for small-market teams under a non-salary cap system.

If the extreme example of the roster turnover with the Rangers was really an inevitable result of the salary cap (and not a result of a team that repeatedly moved out first rounders for players with large contracts and signed high-profile UFAs, like the Rangers), then it would be the case for every team that plays under this system. But most teams that navigate the cap well can sustain their core over the long term. Yes, of course there is turnover of a few players, but there is always turnover. The Rangers chose to go down a route that led to much more turnover; it was not forced upon them.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

You keep saying that's what's going to happen but MLB objectively has more parity than the NHL. A lot more.

That's because money isn't as efficient in MLB as it is in the other Big 4 sports. Individual player impact on team success is the lowest of the 4, and the most important position in the game is inconsistent and injury prone.

 

[lomiller1]

MLB has seen two small market champions in the last three years,

3 years is a pretty small sample size, but even in that small sample size of the 6 participants 4 of them are representing 1st. 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest US cities. While the small market Royals are already back to being a .500 team.

The last small market champion in the NHL was TWELVE seasons ago.

The NHL is heavily gate driven so a lot of what makes a "small market" simply a function of whether it’s currently winning or not. Pittsburgh, Chicago and LA were all losing money before the salary cap and the Pens were in serious danger of folding/moving. That’s a lot of cups won by teams that need things to fall just right in order to thrive in a non-cap league.

 

[lomiller1]

And while I'm on the subject what the flipping **** did the Leafs win before the salary cap?

Not a good example. The Leafs spent a long time under ownership more interested in extracting every possible dime for themselves than winning games. They may have been the second largest market at the time but they spent like one of the smallest.

Before that Montreal was Canada’s largest/richest city until language laws prompted much of it’s corporate community to move to Toronto. It wasn’t until the late 90’s that Toronto was a clearly larger market. Before that it was Montreal with the financial leverage, and guess where all the cups went.

 

[Machinehead]

Meh. Your specific team's experience failure to accommodate the salary cap does not define the effects of the salary cap, and no, I'm delighted to report that for many fans of the game, the sport is still very much enjoyable. Perhaps more than ever. I guess the perspective that is missing for a fan of one of the richest teams in the sport is that these things you are talking about- constant roster turnover and being unable to keep a team together- that is reality for small-market teams under a non-salary cap system.

If the extreme example of the roster turnover with the Rangers was really an inevitable result of the salary cap (and not a result of a team that repeatedly moved out first rounders for players with large contracts and signed high-profile UFAs, like the Rangers), then it would be the case for every team that plays under this system. But most teams that navigate the cap well can sustain their core over the long term. Yes, of course there is turnover of a few players, but there is always turnover. The Rangers chose to go down a route that led to much more turnover; it was not forced upon them.

Massive roster turnover is not just a Rangers thing and it wasn't an extreme example. It's happening all over the league.

 

[Machinehead]

Not a good example. The Leafs spent a long time under ownership more interested in extracting every possible dime for themselves than winning games. They may have been the second largest market at the time but they spent like one of the smallest.

Before that Montreal was Canada’s largest/richest city until language laws prompted much of it’s corporate community to move to Toronto. It wasn’t until the late 90’s that Toronto was a clearly larger market. Before that it was Montreal with the financial leverage, and guess where all the cups went.

Montreal won twice from 1980-2005 with no cap.

This idea that two rich teams win literally every year with no cap is a ridiculous fantasy.

 

[Name Nameless]

To reduce the effects of losing on purpose in the last games, the odds in the draft lottery could be decided by the placement after the first half of the season. But of course, only the teams not making the play-offs should be in it, so the internal rankings of the 15 teams in it should be decided this way. This would solve the problem with teams losing on purpose in the last games of the season. Then if you wanted to tank, you would have to do it all year. A whole lot less appealing. Use some lotto-balls to determine if you want to use the results after game 37-46 or something, so there is no special incentive to throw exactly game 41.

 

[cactusjack]

Montreal won twice from 1980-2005 with no cap.

This idea that two rich teams win literally every year with no cap is a ridiculous fantasy.

Doesn't it have more to do wich owner interest in spendind than market capacity. From what I remember from the 95-05 era is that Detroit-Colorado-Dallas were boosted teams spending way more than the habs. Didn't work in NY but it seems western final was always between Col/Det/Dallas