YesWeCanNux Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 I'm sure this must have been talked about previously but... Arizona is 1-17-1 since February 10th and they still have 2 games against a team in the NHL that is still, somehow, worse in Buffalo. This got me thinking about a thought that always comes to mind this time of year. I get the idea of creating parity so I understand the reason why teams like buffalo and Arizona are doing what they are doing. But how much more exciting would the NHL be for ALL teams if the top draft pick went to the best team not in the playoffs ? 2nd best team not in the playoffs gets 2nd pick and so on... If I am one of the few fans in Arizona when buffalo comes to town do I really want to pay any money or even watch a game when I know that the general managers of both teams would genuinely rather lose than win? With a "best of the rest" draft lottery system GMs would try desperately to win every year. No one would ever be blamed for tanking. Every team would have to try without question to finish as high as possible. As teams have already planned for long term rebuilds, if I was running the NHL, I would roll this method out in 3-4 years to allow GMs to tweak their plans and make their teams competitive. But I would stop punishing teams that are trying to win and rewarding teams that are happy to tank for top draft picks. I think on paper the idea of worst team gets top pick makes sense but when we have situations like buffalo/Arizona going on in the NHL it's rather embarrassing. Thoughts ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deus.ex.makina Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 i understand what you try to do in terms of getting ride of the losing mentality. but before completely changing the lottery process you have to let a chance of the new format. Especially next year, with the lottery would determine the 3 top picks and not the 1st. i'm sure it will change the tanking mentality, expected enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassetgreg Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 YesWeCanNux for commish In a year like this it would be interesting Maybe LA Kings would get McDavid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 It's not really a new proposal, it has come up a number of times before (usually when we are just outside the playoffs). Giving the best player to the best non-playoff team would only discourage tanking until right at the very end (teams that are barely hanging on to the playoffs who don't think that this is really their year MAY lose a couple games at the end to make sure they don't make the playoffs to get the #1 overall). plus it would destroy the NHL's goal at parity across the league by making the strong teams even stronger, and the weak teams that NEED help get less help (not a big deal in THIS draft, but in a shallow draft with one superstar, it would just make a bottom feeder remain that way for even longer) You'll never be able to get rid of tanking completely, but having a lottery for the first 3-5 picks would at least help discourage it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 What about teams that legitimately suck? How will they ever get better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YesWeCanNux Posted March 23, 2015 Author Share Posted March 23, 2015 I don't think teams would intentionally miss the playoffs for top picks. Owners make millions of dollars per playoff series and players don't care about the up coming draft... Players and coaches want to play and win. The only one that can really affect tanking or only one that has a legitimate interest in long term thinking is the GM but in our case, could you ever picture Benning sitting starters or giving AHL young guys a look in the middle of a playoff run ? Wouldn't happen... As for the parity thing... I completely get the idea of it but teams will stop icing bad teams. Teams would have to go for it every year which is exactly how sports should be in my opinion. Edmonton is a good example of the opposite being true. They attempted to rebuild and intentionally iced less competitive/younger teams to have better odds of improving their draft position. Had they known that the best teams got the best picks do you think they change their strategy ? If we look at all the bottom feeder teams... Can you not envision drastically different strategies by teams in which they want to be great THIS year. I think it's best for the fans and best for the integrity of the sport. Some team is going to get into the playoffs this year down the stretch on a couple of wins against a Buffalo Edmonton or Arizona. As we get closer to the end of the season the terrible rosters we are seeing now are only going to get worse and games for others are getting more important. "You play ... To win ... The game " -Herm Edwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 At the trade deadline, take the bottom 5 teams in the league standings. Whoever has the best winning record of those 5 teams in the last 20 games of the season gets the 1st pick. 2nd best record of those 5 teams gets 2nd pick. and so on for those 5 teams For the bottom 5 teams, The better your record is in the last 20 games, the better your pick is This would stop teams from gutting their team at the deadline, stop tanking as the worst 5 teams would try to win every game, yet still give the 5 worst teams at the least a top 5 pick, If one of those bottom 5 teams actually ends up in the playoffs they don't get a top 5 pick and would pick in the last 16 picks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baer. Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 At the trade deadline, take the bottom 5 teams in the league standings. Whoever has the best winning record of those 5 teams in the last 20 games of the season gets the 1st pick. 2nd best record of those 5 teams gets 2nd pick. and so on for those 5 teams For the bottom 5 teams, The better your record is in the last 20 games, the better your pick is This would stop teams from gutting their team at the deadline, stop tanking as the worst 5 teams would try to win every game, yet still give the 5 worst teams at the least a top 5 pick, If one of those bottom 5 teams actually ends up in the playoffs they don't get a top 5 pick and would pick in the last 16 picks #TankTheFirst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 At the trade deadline, take the bottom 5 teams in the league standings. Whoever has the best winning record of those 5 teams in the last 20 games of the season gets the 1st pick. 2nd best record of those 5 teams gets 2nd pick. and so on for those 5 teams For the bottom 5 teams, The better your record is in the last 20 games, the better your pick is This would stop teams from gutting their team at the deadline, stop tanking as the worst 5 teams would try to win every game, yet still give the 5 worst teams at the least a top 5 pick, If one of those bottom 5 teams actually ends up in the playoffs they don't get a top 5 pick and would pick in the last 16 picks that would just make the teams tank until the trade deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 I don't think teams would intentionally miss the playoffs for top picks. Owners make millions of dollars per playoff series and players don't care about the up coming draft... Players and coaches want to play and win. The only one that can really affect tanking or only one that has a legitimate interest in long term thinking is the GM but in our case, could you ever picture Benning sitting starters or giving AHL young guys a look in the middle of a playoff run ? Wouldn't happen... As for the parity thing... I completely get the idea of it but teams will stop icing bad teams. Teams would have to go for it every year which is exactly how sports should be in my opinion. Edmonton is a good example of the opposite being true. They attempted to rebuild and intentionally iced less competitive/younger teams to have better odds of improving their draft position. Had they known that the best teams got the best picks do you think they change their strategy ? If we look at all the bottom feeder teams... Can you not envision drastically different strategies by teams in which they want to be great THIS year. I think it's best for the fans and best for the integrity of the sport. Some team is going to get into the playoffs this year down the stretch on a couple of wins against a Buffalo Edmonton or Arizona. As we get closer to the end of the season the terrible rosters we are seeing now are only going to get worse and games for others are getting more important. "You play ... To win ... The game " -Herm Edwards owners would make even more in the long run by missing the playoffs a single year, getting a generational talent that sells tickets and merchandise for decades, and helps them make the playoffs for a decade or 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YesWeCanNux Posted March 23, 2015 Author Share Posted March 23, 2015 I don't mind that at all MackCanuck ! There is just something wrong about teams tanking and I don't blame the teams themselves. The rules are written in a way to encourage it. But as an NHL fan or if I was a fan of one of these bottom teams I would hate to goto the rink and cheer AGAINST my team because it's the best thing for my team. Seems entirely backwards. I wouldn't wish this on many people but ... I would love for Bettman to sit in the stands for a full Buffalo Arizona game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 imo, you leave the lottery as is, but pick all spots...so the 14th pick could get 6th and so one...no automatic placement...it would still be weighted in the worst teams favour. the 30th place team could end up picking 6th or 14th....it may not fix the process but it won't make tanking teams more vulnerable to losing out on best players.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YesWeCanNux Posted March 23, 2015 Author Share Posted March 23, 2015 that would just make the teams tank until the trade deadline. Teams aren't tanking to start a season. Buffalo added Jorge's and gionta to help make them competitive. Vancouver was said to tank this year we added miller and vrbata. Florida added bolland. Teams want to win but when they are out they tank, dress younger players and look PURELY at the future. The present suffers as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 that would just make the teams tank until the trade deadline. I don't think so, 20 games is 25% of the season, pretty much every team comes out of training camp hoping to make the playoffs. This also stops the gimme games for teams trying to get into the playoffs as the bottom dwellers will be trying to win every game, instead of handing teams 2 points every night, it should make the bottom teams much more competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baer. Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 How about out of the bottom 5 teams last year, the team with the best record the following year get's the first overall. Example: In the 12-13 Lockout season, the Avelanche finished with a 16-25-7 record. They ended up finishing 29th. In the 13-14 season they bounced back with a sparkling 52-22-8 record. They finished first in their division. That means that, by making the biggest improvement, they would earn the 1st overall in the 2014 draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 How about out of the bottom 5 teams last year, the team with the best record the following year get's the first overall. Example: In the 12-13 Lockout season, the Avelanche finished with a 16-25-7 record. They ended up finishing 29th. In the 13-14 season they bounced back with a sparkling 52-22-8 record. They finished first in their division. That means that, by making the biggest improvement, they would earn the 1st overall in the 2014 draft. No. We don't need stacked teams becoming more stacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 How about out of the bottom 5 teams last year, the team with the best record the following year get's the first overall. Example: In the 12-13 Lockout season, the Avelanche finished with a 16-25-7 record. They ended up finishing 29th. In the 13-14 season they bounced back with a sparkling 52-22-8 record. They finished first in their division. That means that, by making the biggest improvement, they would earn the 1st overall in the 2014 draft. they wouldn't have had that giant improvement if not for their 1st overall pick in MacKinnon though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Teams aren't tanking to start a season. Buffalo added Jorge's and gionta to help make them competitive. Vancouver was said to tank this year we added miller and vrbata. Florida added bolland. Teams want to win but when they are out they tank, dress younger players and look PURELY at the future. The present suffers as a result. i'm not saying they'll start from the beginning, but if they get to the christmas break and they are near the bottom, they'll tank until the trade deadline, at which point they'll trade to get as much help as possible to become competitive as possible, potentially making the playoffs, and then getting the first overall to boot. it's ridiculous and just as bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiznac Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 I don't mind that at all MackCanuck ! There is just something wrong about teams tanking and I don't blame the teams themselves. The rules are written in a way to encourage it. But as an NHL fan or if I was a fan of one of these bottom teams I would hate to goto the rink and cheer AGAINST my team because it's the best thing for my team. Seems entirely backwards. I wouldn't wish this on many people but ... I would love for Bettman to sit in the stands for a full Buffalo Arizona game.that's why ( and I know it wouldn't work ) I wish hockey could adopt a system like soccer were the worst team gets relegated down a league and has to work their way back up. Couldn't imagine teams trying to tank if that was the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 that's why ( and I know it wouldn't work ) I wish hockey could adopt a system like soccer were the worst team gets relegated down a league and has to work their way back up. Couldn't imagine teams trying to tank if that was the case I love that idea, but we'd need to either split the NHL in half, or add a whole second league like the SHL. The bottom 4 teams should face off in a relegation playoffs, with the team winning the playoffs getting the first overall pick, and the bottom team getting jettisoned to the lower league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.