Replace the Draft Lottery with an Auction

[Martin Skoula]

Keep picks and the lottery, just make lottery odds traceable assets. Trade your 8% chance at a top-3 pick for a guaranteed 3rd.

Bottom feeders with an excess of picks can spend them on improving their odds of getting a top talent instead of being stuck picking 8th 5 years in a row. Teams that just missed the playoffs can pick up extra picks without treading away roster depth.

 

[Selzoons]

I don't get the point. What issue with the draft does this attempt to solve? The top talent still automatically goes to the team with the most draft capital (points/highest 1st round pick). There is still a direct incentive for performing poorly in the standings. Players still have little to no control over where they play out the first half of their careers.

This is just complicating the system for no apparent reason.

Points are more granular than draft picks and aren't affected by outside factors (strength of the draft class). Because they're more granular you have the option to tweak the parameters according to what you desire: parity, fairness, etc. By icing a poor roster you are getting some benefit to help parity if that's what the league wants, but it can be adjusted so that proper management is more rewarding. As it is there's basically zero way to make drafting fair because drafting is inherently unfair. Some prospects are better than others.

Say the lowest team gets 1000 points and the second lowest team gets 980 points. The 20 points could be made up in trades pretty easily. Actually being that bad means you don't have talent on the roster to trade away.

If a generational talent is available, sure you could do poorly for 3 years in a row and accumulate points. But a trade could would ruin your plans if a player like, say, Karlsson is worth 800 points. A team that finishes just outside of the playoffs gets around 900 points. Your two or three year tank job just went up in smoke because you couldn't develop properly and the Senators had to reset their roster because of outside factors. It becomes more beneficial to have strong player development.

 

[blinkman360]

If I were to change anything I'd get rid of the top-3 drawings and make it just one winner gets the top pick. Simple as that. Any non-playoff team can win but the most you can drop is one spot.

BTW isn't your idea essentially Baseball's International signing market? It's interesting in theory but probably just complicates things more than it helps.

 

[tony d]

I agree with replacing the draft lottery but an auction's not the way to go. To me it should be like it was pre-lottery with the last overall team picking #2 if they finish last overall in 2 straight seasons.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Gotta be honest - most of these "first time ever?!" lottery ideas get posted about twice per week between March and June, and about once per month otherwise.

This one, I can't remember seeing before.

 

[hairylikebear]

Points are more granular than draft picks and aren't affected by outside factors (strength of the draft class). Because they're more granular you have the option to tweak the parameters according to what you desire: parity, fairness, etc. By icing a poor roster you are getting some benefit to help parity if that's what the league wants, but it can be adjusted so that proper management is more rewarding. As it is there's basically zero way to make drafting fair because drafting is inherently unfair. Some prospects are better than others.

Say the lowest team gets 1000 points and the second lowest team gets 980 points. The 20 points could be made up in trades pretty easily. Actually being that bad means you don't have talent on the roster to trade away.

If a generational talent is available, sure you could do poorly for 3 years in a row and accumulate points. But a trade could would ruin your plans if a player like, say, Karlsson is worth 800 points. A team that finishes just outside of the playoffs gets around 900 points. Your two or three year tank job just went up in smoke because you couldn't develop properly and the Senators had to reset their roster because of outside factors. It becomes more beneficial to have strong player development.

So in summary, the problems you're trying to solve are 1. lack of granularity, and 2. lack of bottom feeders selling off their only good players?

I don't even consider those to be problems with the current system, much less problems worth a total overhaul. I think it's much much better for the league that Karlsson was traded for actual hockey players than purely for draft currency.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

This is the Cones of Dunshire of draft ideas.

 

[Geoist]

I feel like hockey fans complain about the most ridiculous things. The only thing "wrong" with the draft lottery is that there are some incompetent teams who have gotten a ton of high picks.

Which can be easily fixed by putting a cap on how many times a team can win a top pick over a certain number of years. No need to completely uproot the system, though I do find the auction idea intriguing, even if unrealistic.

 

[Geoist]

I don't get the point. What issue with the draft does this attempt to solve? The top talent still automatically goes to the team with the most draft capital (points/highest 1st round pick). There is still a direct incentive for performing poorly in the standings.

The incentive to perform poorly can be resolved by adopting the Gold Plan.
Down Goes Brown: Could the 'Gold Plan' eliminate tanking? - Sportsnet.ca

 

[CoachBadkitten]

This idea is ridiculous, but also a lot of fun and well thought out. Obviously will never happen but I like it.

 

[TheMule93]

The worst team in the NHL only has an 18% shot at the 1st overall pick. How on earth could you de-incentivize tanking any more?

Generally speaking, bad teams deserve to draft higher to add talent to become competitive.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be salty af if the Devils were jumped over twice. But this system is lightyears better than the old one and I hope the NHL sticks with it.

The draft isn't there to solve all the warts of mismanaged teams like the Oilers.

Tanking hasn't been disincentivised in the slightest. It's still better to finish as badly as you can if you're not a playoff team in order to get the best draft lottery odds.

The only difference is that now bad teams have a higher chance of remaining bad because they lose more lotteries. This hasn't changed the fact that they're still compelled to try to be as bad as possible.

Now success in the NHL is less predictable and is dictated by luck for the most part. You can't strategically rebuild anymore because you never know where you're picking. All you can do is play the odds and remain bad until you eventually win the lottery once or three times.

 

[sufferer]

Poor Colorado didn't get Hughes or Hischier so they couldn't replicate their Forsberg/Sakic/HHoF laden roster every ten or so years.

 

[quacktastic93]

Not a terrible idea, but the biggest problem with a system like this is that the top few picks are worth so much more than the rest of the draft picks. If a 7th rounder is worth 1 point, the top pick is worth thousand of points. Teams would go all in for top picks. I know you're trying to deter that with the minimum players bid on but I'm not sure how much that solves it.

Mayby only use the point system for the first round or two or have it cut off for playoff team s and give the teams in playoffs only like 1 point

 

[quacktastic93]

Also am i the only one who thinks they need to show the draft lotery live? Not do it behind closed doors then hold an event revealing it, why go threw it all instead of doing it all at once.

 

[Brian McDavid]

The entry draft and lottery are fundamentally broken. The draft rewards poor teams but is broken in that poor team building becomes an optimal strategy to amass talent. The lottery is a band-aid solution to severe hemorrhaging. Basically it adds randomness to discourage tanking but in the end it just adds randomness. Doing poorly is still optimal, just not as reliable. And now teams randomly get franchise and generational talents even if some are more likely to than others.

My idea is a bit radical but basically the draft lottery is scrapped and replaced with an auction.

- Teams use points to bid on players.
- Teams are allocated points based on how they low they finish for parity.
- Instead of trading picks, you can trade points, which allows for more granularity. (The number of points distributed would necessarily need to be large numbers to ensure enough players are bid on each year.)
- Tweak the point distribution to discourage tanking and make it more advantageous to have assets to deal at the trade deadline.
- Points have a lifespan of up to 2 (3?) years to balance out strong and weak years and to ensure players are bid on each year.
- Each team must place bid on a minimum number of players (60?).
- Players are eligible for more bonuses depending on how many points are spent on them.

Benefits:
- Skill not luck based, while still giving some advantages to weaker teams.
- Trade deadline becomes more beneficial to middling teams. They can trade off assets to higher tier teams for points to leverage as funds for obtaining franchise players rather than be stuck in a cycle of mediocrity.
- Balances years with no franchise players and years with multiple franchise players. If you aren't happy with the players available you can save them up for the following year or spend fewer points.
- Rewards asset development. Middling teams that develop good players can still get good value out of them rather than trading them for middling lottery tickets.
- Would be significantly more entertaining to see GMs bid on players.

Issues:
- Bad optics, players are treated as assets (not that they aren't currently through trades but this is a step up by creating a virtual currency)
- Would remove any pretense out of the prestige of being drafted.
- Could potentially create too much player movement. A generational talent is available. Chaos ensues.
- Converting from one system to another. How should picks be converted into points? One is based on the future (picks), while the other is based on the past (points). It seems difficult if not impossible to reconcile the two systems.
- If there are any imbalances in the parameters, the system could quickly become degenerate.
- Could destroy parity if a few teams are significantly better at gaming the system than others.

It's not a realistic solution but I think it addresses most of the issues fans have with the draft lottery. There are clear drawbacks mostly for the players that would ensure that this would never be implemented but I thought it was an interesting thought experiment. And maybe someone has an idea that could be used to mitigate those problems.

Like a fantasy sports auction. I love it. Great effort on your part...very refreshing idea.

 

[glenwo2]

The entry draft and lottery are fundamentally broken. The draft rewards poor teams but is broken in that poor team building becomes an optimal strategy to amass talent. The lottery is a band-aid solution to severe hemorrhaging. Basically it adds randomness to discourage tanking but in the end it just adds randomness. Doing poorly is still optimal, just not as reliable. And now teams randomly get franchise and generational talents even if some are more likely to than others.

My idea is a bit radical but basically the draft lottery is scrapped and replaced with an auction.

I stopped reading here....

Just 'cause The Devils won, everyone is pitching a hissy fit, it seems.

Some were saying "It's rigged" even, when it's not.

And besides, the teams that have the worst records have always gotten the better chances at a high pick.

It's always been this way and always will be.

The idea of an auction is Far-fetched at best, utterly ridiculous at worst.

 

[Nithoniniel]

I think the current system is quite good. If they changed it, I wouldn't mind moving more towards an elimination point race for top seeds. The huge advantage with that is that it will keep almost all regular season games important. Top teams fight for seeding, mid-range team fight for playoff spots, and the bottom tier fight for draft positioning.

Who knows what that would do to the trade market though.

 

[glenwo2]

I don't want to doo doo all over OP's idea, but I think they need to go to a system of lottery where the teams that just miss the playoffs have the highest chance at 1st overall. Reward teams for trying but failing to make the dance. We have seen with Edmonton that 1st overall to the worst team isn't necessarily a way to respectability. Bad teams can still trade away assets for futures to make their team better in the long term. But in a league with such sweeping parity, I think rewarding the teams that try but just barely fail is a better approach.

So the teams that are non-playoff teams NEVER get any help in the Draft then?

Oh yeah....THAT will go over well.

 

[JianYang]

I don't want to doo doo all over OP's idea, but I think they need to go to a system of lottery where the teams that just miss the playoffs have the highest chance at 1st overall. Reward teams for trying but failing to make the dance. We have seen with Edmonton that 1st overall to the worst team isn't necessarily a way to respectability. Bad teams can still trade away assets for futures to make their team better in the long term. But in a league with such sweeping parity, I think rewarding the teams that try but just barely fail is a better approach.

Every year, there seems to be a team in the mid 90s for points that misses the playoffs.

They get the worst of both worlds. No playoffs, and a vanilla pick. It is these exams that I feel bad for.

 

[elmaco]

Its more about good scouting than luck, just look at Edmonton lol.

 

[Groo]

Need to find a way to incorperate system like the EPL's regulation

 

[glovesave_35]

So the teams that are non-playoff teams NEVER get any help in the Draft then?

Oh yeah....THAT will go over well.

Non-playoff teams are who I specifically mentioned. I prefer to reward the trying part. If my team tries really hard and just misses the cut there is a silver lining. Right now, teams must choose between trying or trying to suck.

 

[JMecc]

I like this. The granularity and system could also mean smart drafting by finding undervalued players rather than waiting a while other round to see if no one took your guy. Would make the GM's look smarter than just looking lucky to have got datsyuk low.

 

[Individual 1]

How about a tournament to decide the first 4.

You can tank in the regular season to get into the bottom 4, but then your team has to be good enough to win a best of 3 two-round tournament played in the arena where the draft will be held.

How would you convince the players to even try?

Play in this loser tournament to decide which team has one of your roster players immediately replaced.

 

[greasysnapper]

Ha, no. Hire people actually qualified to make a decision.

Ya guys, you gotta get yourself a whizkid who uses a modded NHL 2004 game and or is really just Nathan Fielder working on his new season of Nathan For You.