Simple Draft Reform Idea

[Marshal Rochambeau]

One of the glaring flaws in the draft is the current lottery system. It still encourages tanking by giving the last place team the highest probability of winning the first overall pick. Therefore teams still have an incentive to throw away games in pursuit of the top prospect.

A simple and easy way of correcting this so that no team purposely loses games is to change the odds to not favor a single team but to favor a group of teams. This means that a certain number of the teams that finished poorly will have the same odds of winning the lottery.

I believe that the last five teams should all have the same odds of winning first overall, but these odds should not be such an improvement over the subsequent odds that teams purposely lose to get into this bottom five group. I choose the bottom five because that seems to be where the bottom of the bottom ends up at the season's end, and, so, those teams each equally deserve a star player.

My second idea is that a team should be limited to 2 first overall picks every 5 years. So, a team can pick first overall twice in a row, but for the next three seasons, the team cannot. So how does this affect the lottery? If a team has drafted first overall twice in a row, then said team will be removed from the lottery and its odds of winning will be spread out evenly across the lottery teams.

I apologize now for hurting anyone's feelings and for being too complicated to understand. Give me your criticism and be harsh.

Click to read more...

 

[YearlyLottery]

Your first idea is actually really interesting and one of the best ideas I have seen thrown around.

 

[Breakers]

I believe that the last five teams should all have the same odds of winning first overall, but these odds should not be such an improvement over the subsequent odds that teams purposely lose to get into this bottom five group. I choose the bottom five because that seems to be where the bottom of the bottom ends up at the season's end, and, so, those teams each equally deserve a star player.

How big should the gap be?

Bottom 5 Teams:
-- All have 9%

Other 9 teams:
--All have 6%
-------------
Bottom 5 Teams:
-- All have 12%

Other 9 teams:
--All have 4.5%

 

[syc]

Nah enough of this mercenary stuff.

Just go by region, if a players born in an area the team from that area has first dibs.

Maybe then we will see a top 3 pick come from Chicago, Detroit or Boston.

 

[LaP]

How big should the gap be?

Bottom 5 Teams:
-- All have 9%

Other 9 teams:
--All have 6%
-------------
Bottom 5 Teams:
-- All have 12%

Other 9 teams:
--All have 4.5%

I think there's should be a difference between teams missing the playoffs by 1 or 2 positions and the others.

Like bottom 5 : x%
5 next : y%
4 best teams to miss the playoffs : z%

Not sure about the idea of limiting the number of 1st overall a team can get in 5 years. Some drafts are way weaker than others (Yakupov). Maybe a team could have a slight penalty to his % if said team drafted first more than once in the last 5 years but still have a chance to get the first. Like if you drafted more than once first in the last 5 years the team gets a 1% penalty for every time it drafted first in the last 5 years.

 

[Gains]

I really dislike your first idea, 5 is an arbitrary number that comes from your head. What if the bottom 6 was:

Team A : 55 pts
Team B: 62 pts
Team C: 63 pts
Team D: 66 pts
Team E: 78 pts
--------------------
Team F: 79 pts

Is it still fair ? Clearly not.

If you want to keep the lottery, make it so that your odds of winning are proportionnal to the number of lost points (i.e. a weighted lottery based on your points in the standings, but inversed, so the last team picks first with the highest %)

OR

the 30 teams have the same odds (in a 30 year cycle).

I feel like any other solution (including the current system) is mathematically flawed.

 

[Aceboogie]

I think top pick should go to bottom team(s). I think people get caught up on #1 going to same team year over year and ignore fact #2, #3 or #4 still going to same teams year over year. But I could get on board with limiting #1 to 2 years in a row. Draft lottery for bottom 5 teams, then 6-15 is a separate lotto for those teams

That way a team that just misses playoffs still have chance at #6 or a high pick. But bottom 5 teams that actually need the pick get it. If a team tanks or whatever to get a high pick, its not a beneficial thing for them. They have to tear a team apart and ruin image and moral for a high pick. If they really want to do that they can

The only thing that takes away incentive to tank completely and also introduces parity into league is no draft.

or if a team picks in bottom 3 for 3 consecutive years issue them a penalty like loss of a second round draft pick. That high pick is still picked by a team that needs it, but they do so by forfeiting a pick. Itll make teams really consider tanking. They get back a second round pick if they make playoffs within 2 years or something

 

[LeafsNation75]

I believe that the last five teams should all have the same odds of winning first overall, but these odds should not be such an improvement over the subsequent odds that teams purposely lose to get into this bottom five group. I choose the bottom five because that seems to be where the bottom of the bottom ends up at the season's end, and, so, those teams each equally deserve a star player.

That's what the NHL use to do until the 2012 Draft where only the teams who finished between 26th - 30th overall had a chance at the 1st overall pick.

It was for the 2013 Draft when the rules were changed that all non playoff teams had a chance to win the 1st overall pick.

 

[Roomtemperature]

Good so the 4th, 5th,6th and 7th teams lose to get into the bottom pool. Same problem different area

 

[PALE PWNR]

I still think that the draft order should be the amount of points won by a team after the day they are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. The earlier a team is eliminated from the playoffs the earlier they can start competeting for their draft position. But it gives everyone incentive to win at all times. And the teams that really do suck will have a much longer time to accumulate points than teams that don't.

I think that idea fosters the most competitive environment you can put teams in. The biggest downside is more teams would be unwilling to sell at the tdl

 

[RoyalGremlin]

Nah enough of this mercenary stuff.

Just go by region, if a players born in an area the team from that area has first dibs.

Maybe then we will see a top 3 pick come from Chicago, Detroit or Boston.

How do you think Montreal has so many cups? They exploited this. Just like the Leafs would if this rule was implemented last year and got McDavid lol.

 

[LeafsNation75]

I still think that the draft order should be the amount of points won by a team after the day they are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. The earlier a team is eliminated from the playoffs the earlier they can start competeting for their draft position. But it gives everyone incentive to win at all times. And the teams that really do suck will have a much longer time to accumulate points than teams that don't.

I think that idea fosters the most competitive environment you can put teams in. The biggest downside is more teams would be unwilling to sell at the tdl

The problem with that idea is what are those teams supposed to do with their UFA's prior to the trade deadline? If they trade them won't they be at a disadvantage? I bring that since teams are mathematically eliminated from playoff contention after that point in the season even though it's obvious some teams won't make it, just won't be official.

 

[Aceboogie]

Although Im still not sure why people are so hung up on teams tanking. Tanking teams both sell of vetern assets for cheap and also stay out of free agent and trade market thus driving down price of players. If you are a fan of a contending team you probably have a player or 2 on it that you wouldnt have without teams tanking or just being content with being bad for a year or 2 (you either traded for a guy or get them in FA). Plus being a basement teams creates a negative image league wide that hurts you in future free agent markets. Good teams are just way better off with tanking teams

Its like eating at a 4-star restaurant on you look outside and see the restaurant giving a homeless man some food and getting pissed off about it

People that complain about draft lotto now will likely really want to go back to asap once a team like LA or Pitt gets 1st overall soon. Or the already dry free agent market gets dryer by more teams entering it

 

[Diamondillium]

I sit on the other end of the spectrum.

Remove the draft lottery. Give it to the 30th team.

Tanking isn't an issue. Somebody will be 30th every season no matter what system is implemented.

 

[The Thin White Duke]

I really dislike your first idea, 5 is an arbitrary number that comes from your head. What if the bottom 6 was:

Team A : 55 pts
Team B: 62 pts
Team C: 63 pts
Team D: 66 pts
Team E: 78 pts
--------------------
Team F: 79 pts

Is it still fair ? Clearly not.

If you want to keep the lottery, make it so that your odds of winning are proportionnal to the number of lost points (i.e. a weighted lottery based on your points in the standings, but inversed, so the last team picks first with the highest %)

OR

the 30 teams have the same odds (in a 30 year cycle).

I feel like any other solution (including the current system) is mathematically flawed.

Proportional lottery weighting would solve a lot of issues but create a boatload of new ones. If a team is significantly behind the pack by Thanksgiving, they have even more incentive to actively lose games (not the players but management) to increase their odds further.

Maybe if last place was used as an anchor value? As in, last place has guaranteed 15% odds no matter what, 17th has 1% odds no matter what, and all the teams in the middle get sliding odds based on points relative to last place.

 

[ck26]

How do you think Montreal has so many cups? They exploited this. Just like the Leafs would if this rule was implemented last year and got McDavid lol.

http://thehockeywriters.com/lies-their-fathers-told-them/

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

 

[thepuckmonster]

I sit on the other end of the spectrum.

Remove the draft lottery. Give it to the 30th team.

Tanking isn't an issue. Somebody will be 30th every season no matter what system is implemented.

I'm fine with this or making all 14 teams who miss have equal odds. If that means the team that just misses gets 1OA so be it.

 

[Breakers]

I'm fine with this or making all 14 teams who miss have equal odds. If that means the team that just misses gets 1OA so be it.

That would be amazing

The first pro-league in North America where the draft is even for teams who miss the playoffs.



Make GM's actually have to start working.

 

[MikeyMike01]

I think the draft should be the inverse of the standings. The end. The Oilers would've had fewer 1st overalls this way. A lottery and all other ridiculous systems just causes more problems.

On the other hand, after the Oilers dynasty of the last few years, I can see why teams would aim to come in last place frequently. It's a blueprint for success.

 

[AvroArrow]

Another suggestion, lottery odds should be determined by a teams point percentage rather than their position in the rankings. For example, Team A can have 60 points and be in last, Team B can have 61 points. The difference in points is extremely small but the difference in the odds is massive, 20% vs 13.5%. I think determining the lottery by point percentage would make it a lot more fair, along with limiting the number of times a single team can win the lottery over a specific time period.

 

[Number 57]

I think it would be interesting to abolish the draft and let the kids choose where they play, without money being a factor. For exemple, teams would only be able to bid over $1M for an entry-level contract to ONE player per year, with the rest being under $1M. This would give a level playing field for every team.

 

[AvroArrow]

I think it would be interesting to abolish the draft and let the kids choose where they play, without money being a factor. For exemple, teams would only be able to bid over $1M for an entry-level contract to ONE player per year, with the rest being under $1M. This would give a level playing field for every team.

Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Boston and Minnesota would all be powerhouses. The other 4 Canadian teams too probably.

 

[MikeyMike01]

I think it would be interesting to abolish the draft and let the kids choose where they play, without money being a factor. For exemple, teams would only be able to bid over $1M for an entry-level contract to ONE player per year, with the rest being under $1M. This would give a level playing field for every team.

Besides the dozen or so other noteworthy factors besides salary that could play into a draftee's team choice, yes it's completely level.

You can't possibly think these offers are equal:

3 years/$3m PHX
3 years/$3m EDM
3 years/$3m CHI
3 years/$3m WSH

 

[Tatar]

How about make it interesting:

Non-Playoff teams are awarded 40,000 draft points
Playoff teams are awarded 30,000

Run a silent auction.

Player goes on stage and teams privately submit the amount of Draft Points they want to spend

Team with the most bids wins the players in exchange for the points

All other teams are refunded 75% of their Draft Points

All teams get a shot at every player

Go big for two or three players or draft many in hopes of getting a gem

 

[DD03]

How about make it interesting:

Non-Playoff teams are awarded 40,000 draft points
Playoff teams are awarded 30,000

Run a silent auction.

Player goes on stage and teams privately submit the amount of Draft Points they want to spend

Team with the most bids wins the players in exchange for the points

All other teams are refunded 75% of their Draft Points

All teams get a shot at every player

Go big for two or three players or draft many in hopes of getting a gem

Teams just spend all their points on one player...