Replace the Draft Lottery with an Auction

[Ted Hoffman]

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.

Team gets bad, be it lack of talent or aging of roster or bad luck. Your solution: try harder. [As if nobody in the organization is trying at all and no one really cares.]

Team gets worse because of lack of high-end talent coming in, which is going to nearly playoff teams: Now you're just tanking, you're not even trying, screw you - we're going to keep giving all the really good talent to the teams just missing the playoffs; are least they care, at least they're trying. Either get your shit together or go f*** off in the league basement forever and rot there.

I can't imagine how that eventually doesn't doom teams who are bad at the start of this idea to the league basement permanently. But it's ok, they can overcome the obstacles we're setting in their way to get better stuck as denying them some high-end young talent. They just need to try harder.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

Crazy idea, but it will never happen because the league doesn't allow teams that actually make money take advantage of that over teams that don't

Did you even read the post?

 

[82Ninety42011]

Sounds like fantasy hockey they already have that. Nice try though does sound exciting but would never fly.

 

[glovesave_35]

Team gets bad, be it lack of talent or aging of roster or bad luck. Your solution: try harder. [As if nobody in the organization is trying at all and no one really cares.]

Team gets worse because of lack of high-end talent coming in, which is going to nearly playoff teams: Now you're just tanking, you're not even trying, screw you - we're going to keep giving all the really good talent to the teams just missing the playoffs; are least they care, at least they're trying. Either get your **** together or go **** off in the league basement forever and rot there.

I can't imagine how that eventually doesn't doom teams who are bad at the start of this idea to the league basement permanently. But it's ok, they can overcome the obstacles we're setting in their way to get better stuck as denying them some high-end young talent. They just need to try harder.

Don't be pedantic. Obviously, what I mean by try hard is fight for a playoff spot. How many fans of tweener teams have the conversation at deadline time, "we aren't winning the Cup this year and may not even get into the playoffs, better sell off everything"? Sports have all become almost totally focused on the championship. And if you can't fight for it just tank for that high pick. What I'm saying is at that fork un the road, what if teams thought they would be rewarded no matter what for fighting tooth and nail for a playoff spot.

I watched my team end up just outside the playoffs for years. All we had to show for almost getting there was draft picks from like 10-15. It sucks for fans of those teams maybe worse than the awful teams because at least they have the draft and hope to look forward to.

The argument about dooming bad teams is weak because we have seen for the last decade that numerous 1st overall picks can't help Edmonton. And one of those includes the best player in the world. Management and development is crucial.

I wish we had relegation to be honest. What I'm suggesting isn't all that radical.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

So what happens when everyone bids the max for McDavid? He picks the team and then you all bid again?

He goes to the highest bidder, priority to the team that most recently finished in the worst seeding, then rebid for #2.

 

[Colin226]

I say we replace the lottery with a chicken drop.

That’s where you put a chicken into a fenced in area that’s divided into sections. If the chicken poops in your section, you WIN!

 

[Shrimper]

Auctioning off the talents of young men.

Not good optics.

 

[tempofound]

I honestly think that this is a very good idea, it lessens randomness of difference of value of picks between different years, that is sometimes there are 4 great players in one draft, so pick #4 is worth alot, other years pick #4 is worth about the same as #10.

However, a major problem is determining auctioning order.

 

[Wallet Inspector]

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.

The old one was better, because having a last or 2nd last place team drop 3 spots is totally idiotic.

 

[Dynamite Time]

Interesting idea but too much for an actual pro league to run.

Let’s say (once there’s 32 teams) the 16 teams that make the postseason, as well as teams 9-11 in each conference, are locked into their picks leaving the bottom 10 teams/5 per conference open to a lottery; the better of the bottom 10 teams in points has a better chance and so on in the lottery, sort of creating a playoff of its own.

Teams still fighting for a playoff spot as well as teams already out will still be playing to win until the season ends.

A team like Ottawa of course this season I guess wouldn’t really care much but the rest would.

 

[Dynamite Time]

I’m also not whining or saying the NHL needs to change the draft, again. As I was reading through this thread it was just an idea that popped in my head though.

 

[Nervousbreakdown]

The draft lottery isn't broken.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Don't be pedantic. Obviously, what I mean by try hard is fight for a playoff spot. How many fans of tweener teams have the conversation at deadline time, "we aren't winning the Cup this year and may not even get into the playoffs, better sell off everything"? Sports have all become almost totally focused on the championship. And if you can't fight for it just tank for that high pick. What I'm saying is at that fork un the road, what if teams thought they would be rewarded no matter what for fighting tooth and nail for a playoff spot.

I keep asking this question, and no one seems to want to answer it, so I'll ask yet again: what is the big problem with teams realizing they're probably not making the playoffs and deciding to trade off players that other teams want? It's like some of you think protecting the integrity of the draft is vastly more important than winning the Cup.

For every team that's good, there's going to be a team that's going to be not good; for every team that's really good for an extended period, there's probably going to be a team that's not good for a little while. It happens, it's always happened in pro sports, it's always going to happen in pro sports no matter what you all try to do to "get teams to play better" or hang whatever artificial incentives to get teams to "play harder" presuming that any team that doesn't have a good record is out nightly loafing it. But no, all of you people trying to "fix" the draft think that you can not just make all teams at least average, you can make them above average. Folks, this isn't Lake Wobegone: not everyone can be "above average" in a year, or a few years, or over some extended period. Someone inevitably is going to be crap.

The only way you can "fix" that is to make everyone average - which we can do, but it's going to make for some shitty playoffs and inevitable HF grousing about zomg, teams are total shit today, none of these teams would beat an 8-seed from 20 years ago, this league is so watered down and the inevitable "I have an idea to 'fix' things" which is only going to create new problems. [Which, I don't know about anyone else, but personally I can't wait to hear those ideas too.] In the meantime, teams selling off expecting they won't make the playoffs makes teams that are expecting the playoffs better; that makes playoff teams stronger, deeper, more interesting. The playoffs have more talent, matchups get more interesting, the quality of play gets better, and winning the Cup is much more of a challenge and not just "there's only really 3 good teams, everyone else is mediocre."

Preserve the sanctity of the draft order, or have compelling, interesting playoffs? I can tell you which one I'm more interested in; I can tell you what fans you're trying to attract to the sport would rather have, too. The growth in this sport isn't all the "true fans" who you've got and will be there no matter what; it's all the people you don't have that you could have, but don't have a hook to draw them in. I can guarantee you that's not going to be "we've contrived the draft process to be more fair for all."

I watched my team end up just outside the playoffs for years. All we had to show for almost getting there was draft picks from like 10-15. It sucks for fans of those teams maybe worse than the awful teams because at least they have the draft and hope to look forward to.

Life isn't fair. Your team [and no other team] has no right to a high draft pick. Maybe your team should have just tried harder to get into the playoffs those years.

The argument about dooming bad teams is weak because we have seen for the last decade that numerous 1st overall picks can't help Edmonton. And one of those includes the best player in the world. Management and development is crucial.

Exactly. If teams are bad and are incompetent, they're going to be bad for a while. Quit trying to "save" all the prospective 18-year olds coming into the league "whose talent will be squandered on bad teams." The draft gives teams the rights to players; it doesn't guarantee or in any way obligate those players to sign with whoever drafts them. If an 18-year old wants to sign up and play for that team and miss the playoffs year after year, they're big boys; let 'em. If a 20-year old wants to sign an 8-year deal to be part of an existing dumpster fire with no signs of improving, let 'em. If someone who's drafted doesn't want to be a part of that, there's an easy solution: don't sign. Demand a trade. Threaten to go back into the draft or go unsigned UFA if it's an option. It's not like the NHL is the only league they can play in during the wait. Maybe not optimal, but it's an option; like teams aren't guaranteed to get high draft picks, players aren't guaranteed playing time in the NHL upon being drafted.

But no, apparently it's "we've all seen that high draft pick after high draft pick doesn't guarantee success - but damn it, we're going to be the independent arbitrer of when enough is enough, and teams that don't like it, they .... just need to try harder." Because, like I said, guys on those teams are fat and happy collecting big paychecks and have no pride and don't give a shit about the success of the team or getting into the playoffs and playing for the Cup like all the other kids wanted to do when they were all little - their NHL dream was to play for high pick after high pick, and they're totally thrilled to lay down and half-ass it to keep doing that.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The draft lottery isn't broken.

I'd say it's been tilted too far the other way in the name of "taking away incentives for teams to tank" [which have been overblown for years].

If anything, teams kind of but not really good have more incentive drop out of the playoff chase [what I think all the cool kids here would call "tanking"] because now, they've actually got a shot at the #1 overall pick instead of best-case scenario only moving up 4 spots; the worst that happens is "eh, we weren't making the playoffs, we're not really losing anything by not winning any of the drawings."

 

[Nervousbreakdown]

I'd say it's been tilted too far the other way in the name of "taking away incentives for teams to tank" [which have been overblown for years].

If anything, teams kind of but not really good have more incentive drop out of the playoff chase [what I think all the cool kids here would call "tanking"] because now, they've actually got a shot at the #1 overall pick instead of best-case scenario only moving up 4 spots; the worst that happens is "eh, we weren't making the playoffs, we're not really losing anything by not winning any of the drawings."

I don't think any team, players, GM,coaches, Owners, would rather miss the playoffs by finishing 5th in their division than make it.

 

[absolute garbage]

Auctioning off the talents of young men.

Not good optics.

At least they're mostly white this time.

No but the idea isn't that different from current system. Teams would still use assets to choose their player. Cool idea that would create some interesting dynamics. I'm not sure how it would work in practice though. Tend to think that the team who has the most points would just use every point they can on the #1 ranked player, and the whole thing would become a contest of the worst team(s) unloading as much talent for points to secure the #1 prospect that year.

 

[37Bergenov14]

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.

To me, all this does is help ensure strong teams stay strong and weak teams stay weak unless they luck into a better player. Seems more logical the way it is where a once strong team that is beginning to falter through age/poor "reward" contracts must go through restructuring pains unless it lucks into a high pick (and poorly build teams are given a better chance to rebuild/compete). I don't like the idea of a system where powerhouses (that may have gotten there on their own merit, to be clear) remain powerhouses through favorable rules rather than smart management.

 

[glovesave_35]

I keep asking this question, and no one seems to want to answer it, so I'll ask yet again: what is the big problem with teams realizing they're probably not making the playoffs and deciding to trade off players that other teams want? It's like some of you think protecting the integrity of the draft is vastly more important than winning the Cup.

For every team that's good, there's going to be a team that's going to be not good; for every team that's really good for an extended period, there's probably going to be a team that's not good for a little while. It happens, it's always happened in pro sports, it's always going to happen in pro sports no matter what you all try to do to "get teams to play better" or hang whatever artificial incentives to get teams to "play harder" presuming that any team that doesn't have a good record is out nightly loafing it. But no, all of you people trying to "fix" the draft think that you can not just make all teams at least average, you can make them above average. Folks, this isn't Lake Wobegone: not everyone can be "above average" in a year, or a few years, or over some extended period. Someone inevitably is going to be crap.

The only way you can "fix" that is to make everyone average - which we can do, but it's going to make for some ****ty playoffs and inevitable HF grousing about zomg, teams are total **** today, none of these teams would beat an 8-seed from 20 years ago, this league is so watered down and the inevitable "I have an idea to 'fix' things" which is only going to create new problems. [Which, I don't know about anyone else, but personally I can't wait to hear those ideas too.] In the meantime, teams selling off expecting they won't make the playoffs makes teams that are expecting the playoffs better; that makes playoff teams stronger, deeper, more interesting. The playoffs have more talent, matchups get more interesting, the quality of play gets better, and winning the Cup is much more of a challenge and not just "there's only really 3 good teams, everyone else is mediocre."

Preserve the sanctity of the draft order, or have compelling, interesting playoffs? I can tell you which one I'm more interested in; I can tell you what fans you're trying to attract to the sport would rather have, too. The growth in this sport isn't all the "true fans" who you've got and will be there no matter what; it's all the people you don't have that you could have, but don't have a hook to draw them in. I can guarantee you that's not going to be "we've contrived the draft process to be more fair for all."


Life isn't fair. Your team [and no other team] has no right to a high draft pick. Maybe your team should have just tried harder to get into the playoffs those years.


Exactly. If teams are bad and are incompetent, they're going to be bad for a while. Quit trying to "save" all the prospective 18-year olds coming into the league "whose talent will be squandered on bad teams." The draft gives teams the rights to players; it doesn't guarantee or in any way obligate those players to sign with whoever drafts them. If an 18-year old wants to sign up and play for that team and miss the playoffs year after year, they're big boys; let 'em. If a 20-year old wants to sign an 8-year deal to be part of an existing dumpster fire with no signs of improving, let 'em. If someone who's drafted doesn't want to be a part of that, there's an easy solution: don't sign. Demand a trade. Threaten to go back into the draft or go unsigned UFA if it's an option. It's not like the NHL is the only league they can play in during the wait. Maybe not optimal, but it's an option; like teams aren't guaranteed to get high draft picks, players aren't guaranteed playing time in the NHL upon being drafted.

But no, apparently it's "we've all seen that high draft pick after high draft pick doesn't guarantee success - but damn it, we're going to be the independent arbitrer of when enough is enough, and teams that don't like it, they .... just need to try harder." Because, like I said, guys on those teams are fat and happy collecting big paychecks and have no pride and don't give a **** about the success of the team or getting into the playoffs and playing for the Cup like all the other kids wanted to do when they were all little - their NHL dream was to play for high pick after high pick, and they're totally thrilled to lay down and half-ass it to keep doing that.

I think you have basically missed my entire point but I don't have the energy.

League has parity. There aren't really any "have nots" anymore, not in a meaningful way. The status quo is just ok IMO in terms of the draft and how teams are incentivized to win. The draft structure in its basic form was made pre-cap. Back then, rewarding the worst team made sense.

 

[glovesave_35]

To me, all this does is help ensure strong teams stay strong and weak teams stay weak unless they luck into a better player. Seems more logical the way it is where a once strong team that is beginning to falter through age/poor "reward" contracts must go through restructuring pains unless it lucks into a high pick (and poorly build teams are given a better chance to rebuild/compete). I don't like the idea of a system where powerhouses (that may have gotten there on their own merit, to be clear) remain powerhouses through favorable rules rather than smart management.

Powerhouses don't miss the playoffs.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I think you have basically missed my entire point but I don't have the energy.

Perhaps you need to explain it better, in a way that makes sense.

League has parity. There aren't really any "have nots" anymore, not in a meaningful way. The status quo is just ok IMO in terms of the draft and how teams are incentivized to win. The draft structure in its basic form was made pre-cap. Back then, rewarding the worst team made sense.

So really, what we've got now is fine too and we don't need to make any changes and this whole idea of teams shouldn't get high draft picks more than once every X years is a dumb one? Awesome, glad we both agree on that.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I don't think any team, players, GM,coaches, Owners, would rather miss the playoffs by finishing 5th in their division than make it.

I agree, but some people here think some teams are more interested in winning high draft picks than they are winning in the playoffs. That said, there's a cold hard reality about making the playoffs: only 8 teams in each conference get in, and someone who's kind of close and thinks they might make it isn't going to. Teams who look at where they are, how the team is trending, what other teams are doing, and any number of items that affect the future and say "you know what, this isn't our year to get into the dance, we need to retrench and fight for another year" do that with a strategic purpose ... and I'm OK with that.

And really, that's "tanking" - it's just not "openly tanking from before Day 1 of the regular season" because at least they tried, so it's OK - we should commend that and give them some reward for it. So really, the "problem of tanking" is really just an argument about semantics over when tanking is OK, and to what extent - and that's the part I don't get. It's like "a lot of tanking is terrible, that damages the integrity of the league - but a little but of tanking? Well, that's OK, we're cool with that, a little bit of tanking never hurt anyone and we'd rather give teams incentives and rewards for that."

 

[Dynamite Time]

I keep asking this question, and no one seems to want to answer it, so I'll ask yet again: what is the big problem with teams realizing they're probably not making the playoffs and deciding to trade off players that other teams want? It's like some of you think protecting the integrity of the draft is vastly more important than winning the Cup.

For every team that's good, there's going to be a team that's going to be not good; for every team that's really good for an extended period, there's probably going to be a team that's not good for a little while. It happens, it's always happened in pro sports, it's always going to happen in pro sports no matter what you all try to do to "get teams to play better" or hang whatever artificial incentives to get teams to "play harder" presuming that any team that doesn't have a good record is out nightly loafing it. But no, all of you people trying to "fix" the draft think that you can not just make all teams at least average, you can make them above average. Folks, this isn't Lake Wobegone: not everyone can be "above average" in a year, or a few years, or over some extended period. Someone inevitably is going to be crap.

The only way you can "fix" that is to make everyone average - which we can do, but it's going to make for some ****ty playoffs and inevitable HF grousing about zomg, teams are total **** today, none of these teams would beat an 8-seed from 20 years ago, this league is so watered down and the inevitable "I have an idea to 'fix' things" which is only going to create new problems. [Which, I don't know about anyone else, but personally I can't wait to hear those ideas too.] In the meantime, teams selling off expecting they won't make the playoffs makes teams that are expecting the playoffs better; that makes playoff teams stronger, deeper, more interesting. The playoffs have more talent, matchups get more interesting, the quality of play gets better, and winning the Cup is much more of a challenge and not just "there's only really 3 good teams, everyone else is mediocre."

Preserve the sanctity of the draft order, or have compelling, interesting playoffs? I can tell you which one I'm more interested in; I can tell you what fans you're trying to attract to the sport would rather have, too. The growth in this sport isn't all the "true fans" who you've got and will be there no matter what; it's all the people you don't have that you could have, but don't have a hook to draw them in. I can guarantee you that's not going to be "we've contrived the draft process to be more fair for all."


Life isn't fair. Your team [and no other team] has no right to a high draft pick. Maybe your team should have just tried harder to get into the playoffs those years.


Exactly. If teams are bad and are incompetent, they're going to be bad for a while. Quit trying to "save" all the prospective 18-year olds coming into the league "whose talent will be squandered on bad teams." The draft gives teams the rights to players; it doesn't guarantee or in any way obligate those players to sign with whoever drafts them. If an 18-year old wants to sign up and play for that team and miss the playoffs year after year, they're big boys; let 'em. If a 20-year old wants to sign an 8-year deal to be part of an existing dumpster fire with no signs of improving, let 'em. If someone who's drafted doesn't want to be a part of that, there's an easy solution: don't sign. Demand a trade. Threaten to go back into the draft or go unsigned UFA if it's an option. It's not like the NHL is the only league they can play in during the wait. Maybe not optimal, but it's an option; like teams aren't guaranteed to get high draft picks, players aren't guaranteed playing time in the NHL upon being drafted.

But no, apparently it's "we've all seen that high draft pick after high draft pick doesn't guarantee success - but damn it, we're going to be the independent arbitrer of when enough is enough, and teams that don't like it, they .... just need to try harder." Because, like I said, guys on those teams are fat and happy collecting big paychecks and have no pride and don't give a **** about the success of the team or getting into the playoffs and playing for the Cup like all the other kids wanted to do when they were all little - their NHL dream was to play for high pick after high pick, and they're totally thrilled to lay down and half-ass it to keep doing that.

?... There’s no problem at all.

If a team/GM isn’t going to make the postseason but can grab picks/prospects by trading a player, especially a UFA who isn’t going to resign then do it. This is just another thread about options/ideas for the draft.

 

[stator]

My fear is that major market, rich teams would find loopholes to exploit due to the complexity. Thus, parity would be harmed.

Although, I do agree with you that something needs to be fixed because there are teams that don't field competitive teams for years. They don't draft their needs to be competitive, but draft the player solely for drawing fans and revenue instead.

I think they should just change the compensatory draft picks for offer sheet RFAs such as to make for more bonafide offer sheets.

 

[HabsWhiteKnightLOL]

but why

 

[Ted Hoffman]

?... There’s no problem at all.

If a team/GM isn’t going to make the postseason but can grab picks/prospects by trading a player, especially a UFA who isn’t going to resign then do it. This is just another thread about options/ideas for the draft.

Go back and read the OP that lays out the premise for this thread. According to it, there's a problem with teams being bad and loading up on high picks, and so the draft need to be fixed.