GDT: NHL Draft Lottery 2017: Red Wings Edition | Wings pick 9th overall

[njx9]

If my franchise is average to below average, but <Team X> is a perpetual cellar dweller due to obvious mismanagement...why should they keep getting the best rookies, instead of others having a chance to land a special player?

I just find that to be really lame reasoning. Are people really upset that the Oilers got the chance to draft RNH and Yakupov, solely because Hall didn't make them an overnight winner? And further, if a team is so mismanaged that you want to take away their only potential avenue for getting better, they should be contracted, or the league should force the owner to sell. Just telling them they're no longer allowed to get top end players because it's not fair is really, really silly (to put it as nicely as I can).

 

[HockeyinHD]

Speaking only for myself, I'm perfectly willing to tolerate 5-10 years of top-5 picks, in search of one or more high-end players.

Sure, but that's never going to happen, at least not on purpose. You may (perhaps) be willing to stick it out that long, but lots of other fans won't and that's tens of millions of dollars of lost revenue in aggregate.

And then, at the end of that, there's a strong majority chance the team you end up with looks more like Washington than it does Chicago, or more like Vancouver than either of them.

If any team in roughly Detroit's circumstances is extremely fortunate, they'll get back to a spot where they can be talked about as a team likely to win a round of the playoffs consistently over a three or four year stretch. If they don't get lucky, they'll be able to get back to the level of making the playoffs most years, and maybe having a 2 or 3 round run once a decade.

That's the reality of the NHL as it exists today.

 

[Frk It]

I just find that to be really lame reasoning. Are people really upset that the Oilers got the chance to draft RNH and Yakupov, solely because Hall didn't make them an overnight winner? And further, if a team is so mismanaged that you want to take away their only potential avenue for getting better, they should be contracted, or the league should force the owner to sell. Just telling them they're no longer allowed to get top end players because it's not fair is really, really silly (to put it as nicely as I can).

Most teams would have taken RNH and Yakupov #1 those years. I'd call that more bad luck than bad management, as far as having the #1 pick where that was the best prospect available.

As far as taking away the avenue to get better... I think you would have to say the league's hand was somewhat forced, due to the fact that the NHL has by far the strongest likelihood of the #1 and #2 draft selections becoming elite, franchise-altering players compared to the other major pro sports leagues... and as a natural bi-product of this, you are going to have teams out of the playoff picture jockeying for those positions, which can be detrimental to the quality of the league.

The cost of that would be it is going to be harder for teams to get better now, due to them having less control of securing a spot where the high percentage picks are. You will have less worst to first scenarios, or quick turn-arounds. I imagine you will see slower gradual builds from the bottom, or teams that stall out and struggle for a prolonged period of time. Some teams might be immune to this, I think we might do ok in this system, but the teams that were bad in the old system are just going to be worse in this one.

 

[njx9]

Most teams would have taken RNH and Yakupov #1 those years. I'd call that more bad luck than bad management, as far as having the #1 pick where that was the best prospect available.

Absolutely, that's why I find the whining/complaints about one team getting so many high end picks more than slightly disingenuous. RNH isn't a bad player, but he isn't going to lift a bad team out of being bad by himself, and he's hardly a 'reward' for bad management. Yakupov even less so.

As far as taking away the avenue to get better... I think you would have to say the league's hand was somewhat forced, due to the fact that the NHL has by far the strongest likelihood of the #1 and #2 draft selections becoming elite, franchise-altering players compared to the other major pro sports leagues... and as a natural bi-product of this, you are going to have teams out of the playoff picture jockeying for those positions, which can be detrimental to the quality of the league.

I would argue that it's *far* more detrimental to doom a team to perpetual failure (until they get lucky, which is roughly the same thing) solely because you don't like the fact that Buffalo can intentionally lose games. If you don't like tanking, address it. Don't punish a team like Colorado because their players just weren't very good.

The cost of that would be it is going to be harder for teams to get better now, due to them having less control of securing a spot where the high percentage picks are. You will have less worst to first scenarios, or quick turn-arounds. I imagine you will see slower gradual builds from the bottom, or teams that stall out and struggle for a prolonged period of time. Some teams might be immune to this, I think we might do ok in this system, but the teams that were bad in the old system are just going to be worse in this one.

Exactly. And having a team like Arizona, in a market the NHL wants to grow in, suck forever is terrible for the league as a whole. Especially if the only reason they're doing it is to make some fans feel better about how unfair it is that their team didn't have the chance to draft Yakupov, RNH and Hall.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

That's why a few months ago I was posing the question about what the Wings would look like with the elite player from some other team, compared to how that other team does.

Detroit's a very good drafting team as far as consistently landing middle-6 talent with their picks. One of the 5 best in the league. What they haven't done is land a superstar, at least since they landed D and Z. The largest part of that is not having a pick earlier than 15 since 1991. Quite a bit of the rest of it is not landing on a mostly lucky shot like some other teams occasionally have, and like they did with D and Z.

Heck, even drafting in the 5-10 range you're barely looking at a 50% rate of landing a top line player, much less the kind of elite, franchise-altering player so many fans here demand in a tank... and if Detroit doesn't do it on their first try fans will continue to demand scalps, independent of any real grasp on the probabilities which surround their demands.

Almost every team in the league can claim they are good at drafting middle six talent with their picks.

You are setting the bar very low for determining draft success if you think drafting middle six wingers and 4-5 defenseman makes an organization good.

That's almost never the reason why a team struggles.

Funny how you mock the proponents of a tank for chasing such low odds, but you have no issue with the organization chasing after even lower odds of success.

If tanking is more likely to fail than succeed, then the current strategy looks down right idiotic.

Also how can fans complain about management not getting that elite player on their first try when the Wings refuse to even entertain the notion of bottoming out? Did i miss something the past ten years? People "demand scalps" aka "accountability" from an organization that acted like they were ahead of the curve in terms of drafting and player development, when in reality they are clearly so far behind the curve it's already lapped them twice.

 

[Frk It]

If you don't like tanking, address it. Don't punish a team like Colorado because their players just weren't very good.

They did. The best way to address it is to remove the incentive to do it. How else are you supposed to address it?

Exactly. And having a team like Arizona, in a market the NHL wants to grow in, suck forever is terrible for the league as a whole. Especially if the only reason they're doing it is to make some fans feel better about how unfair it is that their team didn't have the chance to draft Yakupov, RNH and Hall.

They're making headway. Their draft last year of Keller, Chychrun, Dineen was very good IMO. DeAngelo trade looks good. Pulled off highway robbery for Martin Hanzal. Their issue hasn't been a lack of quality picks, it's mostly been an issue tied to ownership where they are not willing to spend money to retain players and add impact players through free agency.

 

[jkutswings]

Sure, but that's never going to happen, at least not on purpose. You may (perhaps) be willing to stick it out that long, but lots of other fans won't and that's tens of millions of dollars of lost revenue in aggregate.

And then, at the end of that, there's a strong majority chance the team you end up with looks more like Washington than it does Chicago, or more like Vancouver than either of them.

If any team in roughly Detroit's circumstances is extremely fortunate, they'll get back to a spot where they can be talked about as a team likely to win a round of the playoffs consistently over a three or four year stretch. If they don't get lucky, they'll be able to get back to the level of making the playoffs most years, and maybe having a 2 or 3 round run once a decade.

That's the reality of the NHL as it exists today.

Assuming all you say is true:

So be it. All I care about is chasing championships.

No matter how difficult or elusive the process, SOMEBODY is going to win the Cup each year, and being the best is the goal around which my interests take shape.

 

[njx9]

They did. The best way to address it is to remove the incentive to do it. How else are you supposed to address it?

Outright prohibit it. Tell the owners that there will be financial repercussions. It's not hard. All they're doing with this method is creating a way to punish every team that isn't any good, regardless of the method. Making it more likely that Colorado ends up with the 4th pick does absolutely nothing to prevent a team like Buffalo from deciding that getting better odds is still a far more valuable use of their final 10 games than winning 20 completely irrelevant points. I'm flabbergasted anyone thinks otherwise.

They're making headway. Their draft last year of Keller, Chychrun, Dineen was very good IMO. DeAngelo trade looks good. Pulled off highway robbery for Martin Hanzal. Their issue hasn't been a lack of quality picks, it's mostly been an issue tied to ownership where they are not willing to spend money to retain players and add impact players through free agency.

They were just an example of a team in a market the NHL would like to grow. If you don't like that example, use Las Vegas.

 

[Frk It]

Outright prohibit it. Tell the owners that there will be financial repercussions. It's not hard.

Where do you draw the line between being bad on accident vs on purpose? How do you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the teams you think are being bad on purpose are being bad on purpose?

You can't. So you take away the reward.

 

[jkutswings]

I guess I still don't understand what's wrong with tanking, even to the extent of:

Dear Fans,

For the remainder of the regular season, I want to lose every game. I'll be benching out best players, and trading then away if they don't cooperate. I want the #1 pick, and I'll be as awful as possible to chase after it.

Sincerely,
Ownership


If fans don't like the approach (or resulting experience), they're free to not support it. In which case, it's something that ownership would have to weigh in their decision.

But as an extreme, if I have a franchise that needs to rebuild, and I think the next generational player is at the top of the next draft, I'm pulling a tank job that's more obvious than what Buffalo did in the year that netted them Eichel. I might not make such overtly dumb trades of roster players like they did, but I'd give away t-shirts with my team logo riding a giant tank and the whole shebang.

But hey, I'd be an owner who had building for a championship as my top priority, instead of collecting revenue sharing checks and fleecing the municipality for the cost of a new arena. But that's just me.

 

[njx9]

Where do you draw the line between being bad on accident vs on purpose? How do you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the teams you think are being bad on purpose are being bad on purpose?

You can't. So you take away the reward.

Of course you don't (prove it). Because it doesn't matter in the first place.

Your solution, on the other hand, is to tell Colorado they get to spend the next decade being terrible because it's not fair that Edmonton got some high picks and Buffalo tried to tank for McDavid and already failed *prior* to this asinine system being put into place? That's not really the way to get the NHL financials going in a better direction, bring in new fans, or do anything other than create a JV-class in the NHL.

I'll ask again: who cares, aside from the fans of that team, if a team tanks it's way to the worst record, or gets there organically? Every argument for the lottery is based on a bad premise.

 

[Frk It]

Your solution, on the other hand, is to tell Colorado they get to spend the next decade being terrible because it's not fair that Edmonton got some high picks and Buffalo tried to tank for McDavid and already failed *prior* to this asinine system being put into place? That's not really the way to get the NHL financials going in a better direction, bring in new fans, or do anything other than create a JV-class in the NHL.

It's not my solution, I didn't come up with it. They want to remove the incentive to being bad to begin with - so there is ONLY teams that end up being bad organically, not by design. It's a bold stance to take. I understand the thought process behind it. We will see what becomes of it.

 

[HockeyinHD]

Almost every team in the league can claim they are good at drafting middle six talent with their picks.

They can claim it, they'd just be wrong.

You are setting the bar very low for determining draft success if you think drafting middle six wingers and 4-5 defenseman makes an organization good.

Strawman.

Funny how you mock the proponents of a tank for chasing such low odds, but you have no issue with the organization chasing after even lower odds of success.

Strawman.

If tanking is more likely to fail than succeed, then the current strategy looks down right idiotic.

Strawman.

Also how can fans complain about management not getting that elite player on their first try when the Wings refuse to even entertain the notion of bottoming out?

The same way they do now: loudly, with vigor, and unconstrained by reality.

Did i miss something the past ten years? People "demand scalps" aka "accountability" from an organization that acted like they were ahead of the curve in terms of drafting and player development, when in reality they are clearly so far behind the curve it's already lapped them twice.

Hyperbole.

 

[HockeyinHD]

It's not my solution, I didn't come up with it. They want to remove the incentive to being bad to begin with - so there is ONLY teams that end up being bad organically, not by design. It's a bold stance to take. I understand the thought process behind it. We will see what becomes of it.

The least intrusive way to do this is to include all teams in a weighted lottery. Base the draft chances on where they finished in the playoffs, or regular season standings for those who missed out. If a team has finished in the bottom 5 two years (or whatever) in a row, reduce their number of ping pong balls by some amount.

Reduce the draft disincentive for success, reduce the draft incentive for failure.

The reason many teams tank is it's the financially cheapest way to get better. If they stumble into a great young player they control their rights for a good long time at very reasonable (relative) rates they can't come anywhere close to matching on the UFA market, and there's no financial downside to a bad pick. If a prospect sucks, he never makes any money. If a UFA comes in and sucks, you're stuck with the contract.

If just laying in the bottom of the NHL like a rotted log stops being a feasible way to get randomly better cheaply, or at least becomes substantially less so, fewer teams would explore it.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

Ohh good, you respond to my post by incorrectly using a phrase three times.

Which is odd considering almost all of your posts consist of making up hypothetical scenarios that have no basis in reality.

 

[Retire91]

They should raise the draft age to 20 or 21 so it's not such a real shoot who is going to make it. Drafting a top 10 player should not come with odds that they might be a marginal player or never even crack the league. 18 year olds are so underdeveloped and too difficult to project.

 

[HockeyinHD]

Ohh good, you respond to my post by incorrectly using a phrase three times.

-buzzer-

Which is odd considering almost all of your posts consist of making up hypothetical scenarios that have no basis in reality.

-buzzer-

 

[HockeyinHD]

They should raise the draft age to 20 or 21 so it's not such a real shoot who is going to make it. Drafting a top 10 player should not come with odds that they might be a marginal player or never even crack the league. 18 year olds are so underdeveloped and too difficult to project.

I don't know how playing longer against lower level competition makes a prospects NHL ceiling more or less obvious. I mean, Detroit's essentially a test case for exactly what you're talking about and it's not like people are any more sure of what a guy will do in the NHL for seeing him 3 years in the AHL versus 1 or none.

There might be some degree of shakeout, I'm just not sure if it'd be enough to pay for the massive lawsuit the NHLPA would lodge over it.

 

[Frk It]

They should raise the draft age to 20 or 21 so it's not such a real shoot who is going to make it. Drafting a top 10 player should not come with odds that they might be a marginal player or never even crack the league. 18 year olds are so underdeveloped and too difficult to project.

I don't see this as a solution. Teams would just tank harder if you make it more of a sure thing. The top 3 picks in the NHL draft translate better than most other sports as it is. Plus the NHLPA would never agree to this as it would limit the earning potential of players.

 

[Chris 84]

as i've said before, i'm in favour of all non-playoff teams having an equal chance of drafting between 1-14. the current situation is a step in the right direction at least.

tanking is contrary to sport. the fact that it is the "sensible" thing to do is pretty nauseating.

 

[taylorjonl]

I think it would be interesting if the draft order was determined by your season record along with some penalty that was calculated based off the draft order from previous years, e.g. the higher you drafted in the recent past the more you get penalized. It is depressing knowing that to get better you first have to get worse and you may have to remain at the bottom for a decade or more before you get lucky with a draft pick.

I feel unfortunate I started watching hockey when I did. I started following the wings the last year of Rafalski and Lidstrom. Since then the team has gotten worse every year and it isn't looking too good for the next 5-10 years. It has been super hard to motivate myself to follow them this year with Pavel gone, even when the team sucked at least I would watch the magic man, but even that is gone now.

 

[Shaman464]

Don't change the lottery rules change the age of free agency to pump more players into that pool and sooner to then even things out more

Never going to happen. The RFA/UFA rules were a (if not THE) major victory for the NHL team ownership. I would even say it was a bigger coup than the salary cap itself. There is no way the owners give that up without a major lockout and the NHLPA actually becoming a decent union.

I can't believe I have to repeat this so often.

Let me break it down for everyone:

Santa isn't real.

Most of the time others get rich off your hard work.

and

The cap/RFA rules were not about competitive balance.

 

[Winger98]

I don't think tanking has occurred often enough to warrant the amount of concern it gets. The lottery feels more like something masquerading behind the idea of fairness when it's only real job to hike interest in the draft among groups of fans who have no real reason to care about what's still happening on the ice.

I also don't care for the idea of screwing with RFA/UFA ages just because we don't want to go through the pain of becoming a worse team after, literally, decades of success. I don't remember a single Wing fan from our big years saying, "wow, it's great we have a good team and all, but they need to lower the UFA age so we're forced to jettison some talent and make other teams better. THat's only fair, right?" We're lousy right now, we're probably going to be lousy for awhile, but when we're not lousy we're going to want to keep our talent as long as we can just as TB, Toronto, Chicago, Pittsburgh, etc. want to now.

 

[jkutswings]

I also don't care for the idea of screwing with RFA/UFA ages just because we don't want to go through the pain of becoming a worse team after, literally, decades of success. I don't remember a single Wing fan from our big years saying, "wow, it's great we have a good team and all, but they need to lower the UFA age so we're forced to jettison some talent and make other teams better. THat's only fair, right?" We're lousy right now, we're probably going to be lousy for awhile, but when we're not lousy we're going to want to keep our talent as long as we can just as TB, Toronto, Chicago, Pittsburgh, etc. want to now.

QFT. It was very easy to focus on the success when Detroit was high man on the totem pole, and it's very easy to focus on the difficulty of building a good team, when they're faced with the other end of the spectrum.

Keep the rules approximately the way they are.
Take the medicine of being a bad team for at least the next 2-3 years.
Hope we're very lucky with draft picks.
Buckle up.

 

[Red Stanley]

I guess I still don't understand what's wrong with tanking, even to the extent of:

Dear Fans,

For the remainder of the regular season, I want to lose every game. I'll be benching out best players, and trading then away if they don't cooperate. I want the #1 pick, and I'll be as awful as possible to chase after it.

Sincerely,
Ownership


If fans don't like the approach (or resulting experience), they're free to not support it. In which case, it's something that ownership would have to weigh in their decision.

But as an extreme, if I have a franchise that needs to rebuild, and I think the next generational player is at the top of the next draft, I'm pulling a tank job that's more obvious than what Buffalo did in the year that netted them Eichel. I might not make such overtly dumb trades of roster players like they did, but I'd give away t-shirts with my team logo riding a giant tank and the whole shebang.

But hey, I'd be an owner who had building for a championship as my top priority, instead of collecting revenue sharing checks and fleecing the municipality for the cost of a new arena. But that's just me.

For your scenario, hire a coach who will pull the goalie at the start of the third period regardless of the score. There, you just lost every game of the season and are the laughing stock of the league. Enjoy your #1 pick!

But seriously, it's a problem because sports are based on competition. That goes even more for professional sports. It's the same as diving. Yeah, it might get you a powerplay on which you score the game winning goal, but it's still unsportsmanlike. Tanking teams have a significant influence on the rest of the league, especially now with parity and division games being ultra important. GMs deciding it's better to be the biggest loser possible rather than fight for low playoff spots and fans rooting for losses are just two moronic side effects of a system that caters to the two extremes and punishes the parity middle. Nosediving should not be a prerequisite for building a successful team. That's why I'm glad they're tweaking it to be more fair to those teams that give it an honest shot. Winning is its own reward. Every team should be trying to win all the time and not be punished if they fall short.

TLDR Better competition = better talent in all aspects of an organization rising to the top. Parachute deals = prolonging sub-par performance. How many years of scraping bottom and picking high did it take for Edmonton to finally clean house? How many will it take Colorado and Arizona?