I Hate The Draft Lottery

[LeafFever]

The draft lottery is crap too because then the NHL can start putting guys where they want them, and don't think for a second that they won't. It's all about the dollar bill.

The first two years of the lottery, two huge Canadian markets get their saviors. I'm shocked.

Are you seriously claiming the NHL rigged it so a generational talent went to Edmonton? LOL. What? Edmonton is the worst choice for the NHl. If they rigged it. he'd be a Ranger. McDavid playing on a west coast in a very small Canadian market for a team that was selling out before they got him does nothing. for them.
Edmonton won the draft lottery. What a shocker! They've only won the most by far of any franchise.
And if it was rigged, 100% Matthews goes to Arizona. Toronto was making the most $ and selling-out for decades without him. The NHl could have saved the Coyotees by doing that.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

Open lottery for all teams for the top 3 picks the standings dictate the rest. If you win 1st overall the you can’t win for a decade 2nd overall 5 years 3rd 3 years

That is probably the worst idea possible.

 

[sharks9]

That is probably the worst idea possible.

Imagine getting Nail Yakupov as your 1st overall and then not being allowed to draft 1st for another decade

 

[Gnashville]

Imagine getting Nail Yakupov as your 1st overall and then not being allowed to draft 1st for another decade

Nothing stopped them from drafting Forberg of Reilly that year. Then scout better or trade the pick. What’s wrong with rewarding teams for good scouting?

This prevents anyone from gaming the system the way Edmonton did and has continued to do. They could easily end up with another 1st overall this year. 5 1st overalls in less than a decade is insane when there are several organizations that have never had one. In my idea almost every team gets a top 3 pick in a ten year span and the talent is spread around to all the teams. When the Predators played Pittsburgh last SCF the Penguins had 5 top 5 picks on their roster and Nashville had none. It was a talent mismatch.

 

[Morgs]

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.

Example:
Arizona gets mathematically eliminated from the playoffs at game 60, the first team in the league. They still have 22 games left in the season, but as a team going for the best odds on Dahlin, they would have most likely traded away their players that can help at the deadline, and they're going to do their best to make sure they tank for the next 22 games. That is a terrible way to see this league work because it promotes teams to tank the end of the season and give away points that other Playoff teams can't afford to see go to another team (that got lucky they face them when they aren't trying... as hard). They then have the "possibility" to get rewarded by dumb luck. Very rarely does that team actually come away with the 1st OA (Matthewsp>

I propose that when a team gets eliminated, they start counting a separate standings: "the 1st OA bowl" if you will. Basically they and every other eliminated team has x amount of games to score y amount of points.

In this made up scenario, Arizona getting eliminated at game 60 has 22 games to score a potential maximum 44 points, meaning they still have the best odds at Dahlin, but they have to work for it instead of "getting lucky". The second team eliminated (Buffalo) is mathematically out at game 64, meaning they have 18 games to score a potential 36 points. 3rd team is out at 66, so 16 games for 32 points, and so on and so forward. Basically it still gives the worst teams in the league the best chance at securing 1st OA (as long as they attempt to stay competitive), and the teams that miss the playoffs on the last day no chance at it (we'd obviously need to figure out a tiebreaker). No more tanking (unless they tank right off the start of the year and try to improve by the end), no more dumb luck, and no more teams like Tampa last year having the opportunity to win the lottery.

 

[BrannigansLaw]

The draft lottery is crap too because then the NHL can start putting guys where they want them, and don't think for a second that they won't. It's all about the dollar bill.

The first two years of the lottery, two huge Canadian markets get their saviors. I'm shocked.

Yea, I don't believe this for a second. I might have before Edmonton won McDavid, but I think after that happened, my doubts were put to rest. That was literally the last location the NHL wanted him to wind up.

 

[Beauner]

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.

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.

 

[absolute garbage]

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.

OP suggested this too and I agree, it would be a much more interesting system.

However, the pro lottery folk, or pro loser-culture and pro welfare-gift folk, would have reservations about this and you have to admit they are legitimate reservations. For example, what about the difference between conferences? Right now Western conference seems way stronger and more competitive than East, which would mean the bad teams in West would have a significant advantage because they will be mathematically eliminated earlier from the playoffs. Is this a concern? Or do you just say the East will also have easier time getting points once they are eliminated so it's no biggie? Or is this just one of those things that will even itself out over the years and that's ultimately fine?

Or what happens when a team like Arizona starts the season with 5 wins in their first 30 games. Would this mean they just completely give up (and tank) until they are eliminated, and then start trying again? Is this any better than now?

Like I said, I would prefer that system, but it's not perfect either.

 

[Peggy]

lesser teams should be able to have a chance to acquire better players
no one on a winning team is crying how don't have mcdavid when they're winning Stanley cups

sure come up with a better system, but playoff teams should not be eligible for 1st over all

I miss not having a salary cap more. Why build a power house only to have to tear it down because your team is too good?

salary cap is so a teams are fair
so rich cities/teams aren't the best based off money

it takes a higher iq/skill management to fill a talented team with limited supplied than have an "infinite" amount of money

if you're team is hurt by the salary cap, then it's just poor salary cap management
don't blame the system for trying to make things more "fair"
blame the management

this just sounds like a Yankee fan complaining about not being able to abuse their bank

 

[Morgs]

OP suggested this too and I agree, it would be a much more interesting system.

However, the pro lottery folk, or pro loser-culture and pro welfare-gift folk, would have reservations about this and you have to admit they are legitimate reservations. For example, what about the difference between conferences? Right now Western conference seems way stronger and more competitive than East, which would mean the bad teams in West would have a significant advantage because they will be mathematically eliminated earlier from the playoffs. Is this a concern? Or just one of those things that will even itself out over the years?

Or what happens when a team like Arizona starts the season with 5 wins in their first 30 games. Would this mean they just completely give up (and tank) until they are eliminated, and then start trying again?

Like I said, I would prefer that system, but it's not perfect either.

It's not perfect for sure, but it's a lot better than seeing a team trade away assets that are literally helping them win a single game (Buffalo).

I think it would eventually balance itself out when it comes to the conferences. It also really is a lot closer than people give it credit for. I mean the Penguins are the 2nd wildcard team, and they have 55 points, where as Colorado is the 2nd wildcard team and has 57 points. Last season? Toronto at 95, Nashville/Calgary at 94. That to me really isn't enough of a difference for this to not make sense.

Also, if a team does that and tanks 5/30 games it's perfectly fine (imo) for the sole reason they HAVE to try and win as many games as possible after. That means no trading UFA's, no trading guys for assets because they need to get as many "1st OA points" as possible. Look at Colorado last year, they tried to win all season and still ended up with 48 points. If a team gets eliminated game 60, they still have the potential to get 44 points. Not like Colorado was eliminated day 1.

 

[absolute garbage]

It's not perfect for sure, but it's a lot better than seeing a team trade away assets that are literally helping them win a single game (Buffalo).

I think it would eventually balance itself out when it comes to the conferences. It also really is a lot closer than people give it credit for. I mean the Penguins are the 2nd wildcard team, and they have 55 points, where as Colorado is the 2nd wildcard team and has 57 points. Last season? Toronto at 95, Nashville/Calgary at 94. That to me really isn't enough of a difference for this to not make sense.

Yeah. It's just the idea that, since playoff races are conference-based, having drafts (that are whole league-based) possibly heavily impacted by a conference's playoff race might seem unfair to some. Imagine a year where there's 7 clear playoff teams in a conference and then a big dropoff after that for the last spot. This could take like 5 games away from the bad teams' "1OA bowl", putting the other conference's bad teams in a favorable position.

Again, I wouldn't have issues with that and it surely would be better than current system, just playing devil's advocate here.

Also, if a team does that and tanks 5/30 games it's perfectly fine (imo) for the sole reason they HAVE to try and win as many games as possible after. That means no trading UFA's, no trading guys for assets because they need to get as many "1st OA points" as possible. Look at Colorado last year, they tried to win all season and still ended up with 48 points. If a team gets eliminated game 60, they still have the potential to get 44 points. Not like Colorado was eliminated day 1.

I have a feeling teams would still be trading UFAs but it would be more interesting because you would have to make a choice between having more assets vs having possibly a better asset.

 

[AUAIOMRN]

Anyone proposing a "solution" to the draft system should also provide a solution for the considerable disadvantage bad teams have in trading and free agency. It's hard to get better when you have to overpay FAs and you're on everyone's no-trade list.

 

[Morgs]

Yeah. It's just the idea that, since playoff races are conference-based, having drafts (that are whole league-based) possibly heavily impacted by a conference's playoff race might seem unfair to some. Imagine a year where there's 7 clear playoff teams in a conference and then a big dropoff after that for the last spot. This could take like 5 games away from the bad teams' "1OA bowl", putting the other conference's bad teams in a favorable position.

Again, I wouldn't have issues with that and it surely would be better than current system, just playing devil's advocate here.

I completely understand where the side is coming from. I just think that if you balance out the pro/con system, luck of the balls is a lot more of a con then "not enough good teams"

I have a feeling teams would still be trading UFAs but it would be more interesting because you would have to make a choice between having more assets vs having possibly a better asset.

Exactly. It makes it interesting for the teams not in the playoffs too. Keeps their fans in it hoping they can end up with Dahlin/Svech instead of losing the lottery (as the worst team) and ending with Tkachuk.

 

[absolute garbage]

Anyone proposing a "solution" to the draft system should also provide a solution for the considerable disadvantage bad teams have in trading and free agency. It's hard to get better when you have to overpay FAs and you're on everyone's no-trade list.

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.

 

[sharks9]

Nothing stopped them from drafting Forberg of Reilly that year. Then scout better or trade the pick. What’s wrong with rewarding teams for good scouting?

This prevents anyone from gaming the system the way Edmonton did and has continued to do. They could easily end up with another 1st overall this year. 5 1st overalls in less than a decade is insane when there are several organizations that have never had one. In my idea almost every team gets a top 3 pick in a ten year span and the talent is spread around to all the teams. When the Predators played Pittsburgh last SCF the Penguins had 5 top 5 picks on their roster and Nashville had none. It was a talent mismatch.

Forsberg or Rielly still aren't anywhere close to guys like McDavid or Matthews. It's a terrible idea because if you're bad at the wrong time your franchise could be screwed for the next decade.

 

[Gains]

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.

 

[GoJetsGo55]

I disagree. The hardcap has made the ELC system obsolete. And heaven forbid we give players options to whom they want to play for.

What are you talking about. No one is forcing them to play in the NHL. The KHL is right there if they want. Go to your boss and demand a transfer to the Hawaii office. See how that works for you.

There's plenty of companies that make more than $31B and pull a lot of **** because you get away with it when you make that much.

Again, I could be wrong, but these results all seem awfully convenient so far. Plus, there's really no need to begin with to hand teams picks other than the ones they earned on the ice.

Man you are really grasping at straws here.

 

[cbcwpg]

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.

If there was no cap ( high end ) there would only be 6-10 teams in the NHL. No one else could afford to compete. IMO there should be no cap floor, but that's just me. The only people that want to get rid of the cap are the people in those 6-10 cities that think buying a Stanley Cup is the only way to go.

 

[GoJetsGo55]

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.

It sounds like you're more mad at your GM than anything.

Also, "We all lose half our team every year" I don't think that's quite how it works.

 

[Jeti]

I don't mean I hate the lottery drawing odds and would rather go in reverse order of the standings, I mean I want to get rid of this system altogether and have it random. Every team has the same odds and no-one is better off for losing

Wow, that's a truly terrible idea.

Competitive balance is better for everyone: the on-ice product is better, more teams enter the playoffs having a shot at actually going somewhere, and fewer teams should languish at the bottom year after year (though it still can and does happen). And despite all this (the cap, a draft system that prioritizes balance, revenue sharing, etc.), we've still had 4 teams win the last 8 cups - how much further do you want that to go?

The lottery goes far enough now to not overly reward (or guarantee a better reward for) tanking. Is it perfect? Probably not, but it's the best it's every been IMO.

Aside from the fact we're no longer blissfully unaware of the dangers of concussions, I'd say the NHL is a better entertainment product than it maybe ever has been.

 

[lomiller1]

The salary cap has ruined the magic of the game. Younger fans don't understand and argue it on the internet. There is no such thing as powerhouses and underdogs anymore. Every team is interchangeable. It doesn't matter what jersey you wear, what your city is. Every team's the same now. Nerds and kids don't get it.

You come off as someone trying to pretend to be older than you are, because you clearly don't know anything about the pre-cap NHL.The "powerhouses and underdogs" of the 1990’s only worked for the teams rich enough to hire all the big ticket free agents. For everyone else it was a formula for NHL hockey leaving your city.

For a while people though all that needed to happen was for teams to "move to a better market", well the Jets moved to a "better" market how has that worked out? There are no better markets than the ones the NHL is already in.

"Just contract so you are only in the 6 really good markets!" doesn’t work either. You still have half the league that is in the bottom half of revenues and can’t afford to pay what the top half can so you can’t contract your way out of the problem either, and even if you could who would care about a struggling 6 team league in todays sports market?

 

[lomiller1]

And to those who don't want a salary cap, well the NHL will be a 16 team league. And it most cases it would be the Premier League in British Football, six dominate teams year after year....with the yearly intrusion of one or two more.

A 16 team league still has a top 8 revenue teams and a bottom 8 revenue teams and the bottom 8 still can’t outbid the top 8 for players. In a gate drive league like the NHL that means those 8 teams days are numbered.

 

[ES]

The worst team has a 52% chance at the #4 pick. It is technically the most likely scenario. So in the case of Colorado getting #4, that was not a fluke.

The thing which made last year special that none of worst three teams or Golden Knights won any of the lotteries. Together they had 50,7% to win in each lottery (actually bigger one for the 2nd and 3rd considering the other half was missing team(s)).

 

[AUAIOMRN]

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.

Are you really suggesting that the reason bad teams are bad is because management and ownership don't care about getting better? That "high draft picks" are some kind of addiction that are valued over winning? That seems pretty ridiculous... even if you had the 31 most qualified people in the world heading each team, someone would still come in last.

And if high draft picks aren't helping the perennial cellar-dwellers then maybe they aren't as much a prize as you think.

 

[lomiller1]

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.

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?