Is the draft lottery working?

[Dogewow]

With the way it is currently set up with the listed odds to move forward/fall back, the system is working as intended. Right now, it's a lot more likely that a team will drop down spots than it is that they stay put or move up, and we've seen a lot of that in recent years.

In terms of it "working out", I would say no. Teams that suck really should have the best shot at getting the better overall players in a given draft year. Most years are not like 2015, and while you can usually still get a good player in the top 10, there is typically a drop off (sometimes a large one) between drafting in the top 2 or 3, versus drafting 4-6.

Really a lot of this stems from some misplaced public fear of a team compromising the integrity of the sport due to purposeful loosing. Purposeful loosing isn't as pervasive as people think it is, and a team being bad or incompetent does not mean that they're losing on purpose or making a mockery of the sport (I see a lot of ignorant posters around here who can't make this distinction for some reason).

I'm fine with keeping the lottery structure in tact but revise it a bit. Make it so only the top five teams have a shot at moving up, or structure it so the percentages of picking a top pick are higher for the teams at the bottom. That way the top teams will have a better shot at retaining a top pick, but also still does not guarantee the worst team gets the first pick consistently.

 

[boredmale]

It's working for NJ

 

[KingsFan7824]

Yes, the lottery is working. There's not a ton of reason to actively cheer against your team winning any given game. That's what the league doesn't want to see happen. Yes, every loss improves your draft position should you lose the lottery, but every loss doesn't guarantee anything one way or another.

 

[Frank the Tank]

People complained when Edmonton got 4 1OA in a row. The irony is: that only happened BECAUSE of the lottery.

When did that happen?

 

[serp]

The draft is there to make worse teams better and thus ensure a measure of parity. A lottery doesn't ensure that at all. To me, it's a farce.

I don't think the worst teams in the league are allways actually the worst teams that need most help. Fairly often those teams going nowhere for years are the worst organisations who actually need help the most. Those are the ones who never get to pick high and allways just stay mediocre. The current system helps those teams to a greater extend . I prefer that. I look at the Kings hiring one of the worst possible coaches to blatantly tank the season and just don't think that deserved a top 3 pick more than say the Devils or hell even Minny or the Oiler or the Hawks or some of those other teams who weren't quite as bad but still bad.

 

[X66]

As long as Vancouver keeps moving down, the lottery is working.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

No it's not working, because there was no problem to begin with. Making decisions over paranoia or panic is never going to end well. Especially for a major organization like the NHL. And especially over something that's of little importance as the fear of teams maybe tanking. There's not going to be a 30 team tie for 2nd. Somebody's always going to finish last. And it won't change if everybody "tries" to win. Now you're just punishing certain franchises and fans for being punished all season by losing. And punishing teams for having forethought, instead of thinking like a 5 year old, where you can't think or plan past 5 minutes into the future. And you're making it so that certain teams always stay at the bottom.

 

[Just Linda]

It's incredibly flawed and can definitely be immensely improved but it's working.

 

[Eisen]

Yes, it is.

Since the lottery changes in 2016, over the 4 years, the team with the worst record kept the pick twice, moved down 3 spots twice.

People complained for years that the ****ty teams always got the best picks and then when they changed the rules, there's still more whining

It's likely different people complaining. Hockey fans are not a uniform mass.

 

[Khelandros]

But Hughes might be. He's definitely in the top tier.

Matthews is not top tier. He's a solid second tier guy, no matter what Leaf fans think.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

There was no Oiler Tanking problem.

The Oilers were the worst team, and only got 2 legitimate #1 overall picks.



Sorry but adding Yakupov to the roster didn't exactly skyrocket us up the standings.

 

[Eisen]

I don't think the worst teams in the league are allways actually the worst teams that need most help. Fairly often those teams going nowhere for years are the worst organisations who actually need help the most. Those are the ones who never get to pick high and allways just stay mediocre. The current system helps those teams to a greater extend . I prefer that. I look at the Kings hiring one of the worst possible coaches to blatantly tank the season and just don't think that deserved a top 3 pick more than say the Devils or hell even Minny or the Oiler or the Hawks or some of those other teams who weren't quite as bad but still bad.

But that's why you play the games. Being in no mans land might be frustrating but it's not worse than bottom feeding. I get where you are coming from though. But why do mediocre teams not just trade all their players with value and hoard picks to improve?
Coaching is indeed a problem. Inept coaches get hired all the time, because apparently experience (at sucking) is more important than competence. It's the old boys club mentality. Someone would have taken him anyway. It's just luck to pick a good one who is available. Even good coaches get fired often.

 

[Icejoker]

After Taylor Hall was 1OA (2010) his team , 2011 1 RNH ,2012 1 Yakopov,2013 7 Nurse, 2014 3 Drai, 2015 1 McDavid, 2016 4 Pulju, 2017 1 Hischier, 2018 not in the draft , 2019 1

5 of 8 1OA, thats pretty good.

 

[alg363636]

I think it's fine. I don't like intentional tanking. If managed correctly you can build a damn good team without high draft picks (see the Bruins).

I do think bad teams should get higher picks and this system still means the 2 worst teams get top 5 picks but you can't just stink up the joint so you get McDavid (looking at you Buffalo). You don't want teams like Edmonton ruining all these top picks because they're too incompetent to actually build a functioning team.

If my team was bad I'd probably be frustrated too but as a team on the outside its nice to see teams like Chicago get rewarded for actually trying to have a good season but falling short. Although I wish it wasn't Chicago specifically because f*** them.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

I've always thought draft selections should be waited over 3-5 years. That way you don't get bullshit like the Colts getting Luck because Manning got hurt.

 

[serp]

But that's why you play the games. Being in no mans land might be frustrating but it's not worse than bottom feeding. I get where you are coming from though. But why do mediocre teams not just trade all their players with value and hoard picks to improve?

a) Thats just wrong especially when you're in no mans land for 5-10 years in a row.

b) Because not all teams can just afford to throw a season. A completely lost season also tanks the teams income and not everyone has some really big spender in the backhand who can just absorb the losses.

 

[Stickpucker]

I think the draft eligible players like this system more.

Top picks can get drafted by bubble teams and put them over the edge instead of being on prepetual rebuilding teams.

 

[haulinbass]

Yes, the lottery is working. There's not a ton of reason to actively cheer against your team winning any given game. That's what the league doesn't want to see happen. Yes, every loss improves your draft position should you lose the lottery, but every loss doesn't guarantee anything one way or another.

Which is stupid. I want to cheer for my team to make the playoffs and win in the playoffs or to lose and get rewarded for it. I have zero interest in cheering for my team to finish 10th worst instead of 5th worst. I would rather cheer for them to finish last and be rewarded with an elite player in the top 2. That is something to get excited about, finishing 10th worst is not. Oh sweet we finished 10th worst and have a 1.5% chance to win the lotto.... Fun season guys.

You don't have any real odds of winning the lotto finishing outside the top 5. Its just that teams 4-15 combined have a very good shot at screwing over the bottom 3. It is stupid.

I want teams to be able to make a plan, execute and get properly rewarded. Not this oh well I guess it don't matter we will just go with it see what happens at the lotto, eventually things will work out and we will get better one way or another. Right now you can plan, execute and you may get rewarded, then other teams who try the exact same thing do not. How is that fair? NJ wins two lottos and the next team who trys may take a decade to win 1.

 

[Eisen]

a) Thats just wrong especially when you're in no mans land for 5-10 years in a row.

b) Because not all teams can just afford to throw a season. A completely lost season also tanks the teams income and not everyone has some really big spender in the backhand who can just absorb the losses.

Does that really happen? I don't have the numbers, but do losing seasons really impact the income of the team a lot? Because I have the impression that fans go regardless. If it's true, it's just a couple of seasons loss with a couple of seasons of higher income, providing the rebuild worked. It might even out.

 

[ClassicBusiness]

It's not a good system... Just limit on a team getting 1OA in back to back seasons or more than once every 3 years. And just go by reverse standings..

 

[the_fan]

It's a dumb system

 

[serp]

Does that really happen? I don't have the numbers, but do losing seasons really impact the income of the team a lot? Because I have the impression that fans go regardless. If it's true, it's just a couple of seasons loss with a couple of seasons of higher income, providing the rebuild worked. It might even out.

Yes it does. Stars went through this when Tom Hicks went bankrupt. The team for years was going nowhere. Allways somewhat closely missing the playoffs with an older core and never actually really bad. The GM wasn't allowed to tear the team down for year even though it needed to be done.

Another team in my opinion is Arizona / was Arizona. ( not sure if they're still that kind of team ) . Allways somewhat competetive but never really good.

 

[JT Kreider]

All I'm saying is I was glad the Rangers didn't completely bottom out and give up and at least showed some fight. Because once you let that losing mindset seep into your culture that stink is damn near impossible to get off. The Sabres buried themselves in a 10 foot hole to get Eichel and are actually burying themselves even deeper instead of burying themselves out of it.

Jarvis Landry said it best "That shit is contagious bruh".

 

[TheOtherOne]

You guys call it tanking. I call it rebuilding. Most of the time they look identical.

• What do you do when you rebuild? You stockpile picks and prospects.
• How do you do that? You trade players.
• What kind of players do other teams want? The good ones.
• What does that do to your team? It makes it suck more.

That's an excellent point but let's look at it a different way. The difference between "tanking" and "rebuilding" is the timeframe.

"Tanking" = losing individual games on purpose: This is NOT rewarded in the current system because an individual lottery is a crapshoot and a worst overall team can easily drop 1 to 3 spots.

"Rebuilding" = trading your good players to suck more over the course of multiple seasons: This IS rewarded in the current system because even if you do float around the 4th to 7th is positions for a few years chances are pretty good you'll win the lottery in one of them.

This is not black and white but I think it's a decent representation of what's happening now.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Matthews would likely have been the best player in franchise history. Not to mention a home town boy, which is a big thing in Canada. If the lottery was rigged, Matthews should've been in Arizona, and certainly not Toronto.

Yes, Matthews would have been their best player ever, and a home town boy. But, Arizona will never be anywhere close to the hockey market in Toronto. Do you think his jersey sales would be anywhere remotely close to what they are now if he played in Arizona? That's the financial incentive to put him in Toronto.