Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Another Entry Draft System Idea


Another Entry Draft System Idea  

13 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I've come up with a number of different draft system adjustments over the past few years as I hate the concept of rewarding teams based on pure luck as opposed to strategic decisions. So here's another one that I think solves a lot of the issues:

  • Doesn't reward tanking
  • Significantly reduces chance of multiple top draft picks, and distributes top prospects in a more fair and more strategic way
  • Adds a layer of strategic decision making for the GMs
  • Adds a new piece fans and analysts can spend time on analyzing
  • [Could be considered a positive or negative, but I think it's a positive:] Reduces the value of 1st round picks in trades, so potentially more trades involving 1st round picks (you'll see what I mean by the end)

 

Here are the main features:

  • Each team has a "draft point" count, which is what they can use to bid on their 1st round pick ranking
  • 2nd+ round draft picks are assigned as they are under current system
  • Each year, each team gets some draft points added to their draft point count based on how they finish the season:
    • Out of playoffs: 10 points
    • 1st round exit: 6 points
    • 2nd round exit: 4 points
    • Conf final exit: 2 points
    • Finalist loser: 1 point
    • Champ: 0 points
    • These numbers should be adjusted with lots of analysis to make sure they provide the right amount of reward to the teams based on where they finish
  • Before draft (so instead of the lottery), each team has to submit how many of their draft points they're willing to bid to get the highest draft pick (silent auction system, so all bids are revealed at the same time in a live show with lots of coverage)
    • The draft picks are distributed from 1st to 31st based on the bids
    • Any tied bids will have a random draw to determine ranking amongst them
      • Another feature that's not necessary but adds much more fairness at the cost of more complexity: there is a "tie-breaker ranking" that determines how the tied bids are resolved, with teams that had won tie-breakers before having a lower chance of winning future tie-breakers (I have some ideas on how this would work, but for now, let's not go into more details.. maybe another post later)
    • You can bid all or some or none of your draft points, since you can carry your remaining points forward to next year (the strategic analysis element)

 

That's it! Here are some ways it makes NHL draft more interesting and more fair:

  • If teams know a McDavid type is coming up in a year or two, they will then save up their points to have a chance at getting the highest bid possible, which means if other teams are strategically thinking, they could get a high pick in the current draft with a small bid, since they expect most are saving up points for a McDavid next year
  • Teams that go all in in one year to get a high pick, will likely not have enough points for another high pick again for a year or two until they fill up their draft point count (a much better Oiler Rule than the current one!)
  • Since if you trade your 1st round pick, you won't bid any points to win a high pick for someone else, all 1st round pick trades (unless trade is done after the bidding process) are going to be bottom 1st rounders, so teams can value them easier and more trades would happen (in the business world, less uncertainity = more interest)
  • No more benefit from tanking in one season... teams that are bad will miss playoffs multiple seasons and will have more points for higher picks, so still crappier teams are provided a way to improve their teams, but you don't have a case like Oilers that get McDavid, and get lucky with an injury to him that effectively tanked them again next year to draft #4 Pulliorvy 
  • In years like this year, where the draft is not perceived to be as good as other years, teams can save up points for future drafts... so the random luck of sucking at the right or wrong time is taken out of the game
  • Rebuilds can be planned more effectively by saving up points in years where you're good to have more bidding power in years where you need those high picks
  • If you allow trading for draft points, you now have another currency and lubricant for trades!

 

Issues:

  • Only one I could think of is collusion amongst friendly GMs as to what they should bid, but not sure if this would be a big issue or if GMs can even trust each other to do this

 

Love to hear you guys thoughts... pros, cons, anything but lame one-liners please!

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, canucks.bradley said:

I don't mind the current system.

 

Had we won it and were able to draft McDavid and Matthews, we would be saying we love the current system.

No definitely not. This idea is not born from our misfortune. The system has major flaws that I'm trying to fix through this system. If we had won, I'd be saying I'm really glad we got lucky, but the system sucks regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that this system is not a good idea. As soon as you start talking about a silent auction, you are just doing it wrong. There should be far more certainty to the way the draft picks are distributed, now you are asking team's to do a cost-benefit analysis on how many points they would wager in the auction, trying to hedge between just enough to win and still maintain as much value for later picks that would have to be sacrificed. Not to mention, someone could choose to finish 31st and then save up all their points to guarantee the next year's first. This is silly.

 

The simplest thing to do is to give every team outside the playoffs equal odds, draft the 15 teams who miss the playoffs, and assign them 1-15. Then group 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, sort these groups by record. Don't allow a team to draft Top-5 two years in a row, Don't allow a team to draft Top-10 three years in a row. Shuffle the teams as required to meet these conditions, if it is impossible to meet these conditions for some reason (ie 6 teams are ineligible to draft Top-10 in a specific year.), then the team with the worst record amongst them would draft #10. This would actually create a lot of predictability for teams in terms of where they will end up drafting.

 

If you end up drafting Top-10 two years in a row, you know that the best spot you can get is probably #11. Unless 5+ other teams are in the same boat as you. This helps you plan for any trading up or down, and helps you isolate the players you want to scout quite early. You'd have to make a decision on whether a team's eligibility to draft Top-5 or Top-10 is based on whether they select, not where they result in the lottery, or not. Meaning, that if a team traded up into the Top-5 from #11, would they be eligible to receive a Top-5 pick the following year as a result of the lottery? Would the team who traded down be eligible? One of these teams should be ineligible. These would probably require a good deal of discussion, but are relatively simple decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so two years in, it's already clear why the new lottery system absolutely SUCKS! and before that, oilers showed us why the old lottery system was bad too. 

 

They have to add some measure to even out the luck over time, otherwise they'll lose huge fan bases like Canucks two years in a row now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add just 3 things

 

- no team can drop in 2 consecutive drafts

 

- no team can go up in 2  consecutive drafts.

- no team can draft first overall 2 years in a row.. should a team finish last 2 years in a row they will enter the draft placed with the 4th overall team

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something inherently wrong with rewarding bad teams with high draft picks.  The purpose of the current system is to ensure that bad teams get the best opportunity to get better by rewarding mediocrity and so teams do not suck for years and years and so achieve more parity.  They have failed.  Just look at NYI, EDM,TOR, ARI and COL.

I have long believed that the best way to give bad teams the chance to improve is to reward improvement, not punish it.

The top pick should go to the team that has improved the most from one season to the next.  This would give the bottom team the most opportunity to gain the highest pick and obviously the President's trophy team has no chance to improve, so they would get the 16th pick at best, but more likely a pick in the 20's.

The benefit of this system is that teams cannot tank. Also teams cannot get top picks year after year after year.  All games become relevant, even at the end of the season, teams would have something to play for.  It is simple.  Everyone can understand the concept.

For the sake of illustration this season Edmonton finished with 103pts, last season, they had only 70pts, a net gain of 33pts. Columbus finished with 108 pts and last year had 76pts, a net gain of 32pts.  So they get the top 2 picks. We may not like it, but lets face it, they deserve it for not sucking .

Dallas had 109 pts in 2016 and fell back to 79pts, a net loss of 40pts.  So they would pick 31st.

I'm open to any thoughts as to why this wouldn't work, but I cannot think of any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, danaimo said:

There is something inherently wrong with rewarding bad teams with high draft picks.  The purpose of the current system is to ensure that bad teams get the best opportunity to get better by rewarding mediocrity and so teams do not suck for years and years and so achieve more parity.  They have failed.  Just look at NYI, EDM,TOR, ARI and COL.

I have long believed that the best way to give bad teams the chance to improve is to reward improvement, not punish it.

The top pick should go to the team that has improved the most from one season to the next.  This would give the bottom team the most opportunity to gain the highest pick and obviously the President's trophy team has no chance to improve, so they would get the 16th pick at best, but more likely a pick in the 20's.

The benefit of this system is that teams cannot tank. Also teams cannot get top picks year after year after year.  All games become relevant, even at the end of the season, teams would have something to play for.  It is simple.  Everyone can understand the concept.

For the sake of illustration this season Edmonton finished with 103pts, last season, they had only 70pts, a net gain of 33pts. Columbus finished with 108 pts and last year had 76pts, a net gain of 32pts.  So they get the top 2 picks. We may not like it, but lets face it, they deserve it for not sucking .

Dallas had 109 pts in 2016 and fell back to 79pts, a net loss of 40pts.  So they would pick 31st.

I'm open to any thoughts as to why this wouldn't work, but I cannot think of any.

Let's first talk about why it is inherently wrong to help (not reward) the bad teams with high draft picks. That's the whole purpose of the system, otherwise you could have forever bad teams who can't break the top 20 in the league and continue to get sub par draft picks that worsens their situation vs. teams they're trying to catch. 

 

I'm all for completely changing the system to the European league with demotions and promotions, where there is major incentive not to tank, cuz if you finish last you are demoted to the lower league! You definitely need the salary cap system tho to avoid having the top teams getting richer from being top and continue to increase the gap between themselves and the teams trying to catch them.

 

But separately, I'm more interested in balancing out the level of top picks every NHL team gets over time. Doesn't matter if you reward bottom finishers or give every team an equal chance for each draft pick.

 

A nice and simple system would be each team randomly is assigned a draft position, but once you've had that position, you won't have it again until you've had all other positions. So there are 31 teams now, every 31 years each team would have picked all of 1st 2nd 3rd down to 31st at some point. This would be the fairest and simplest system. But still the timing of your high picks could you give you an advantage/disadvantage (like if you get your 1st 2nd and 3rd in 3 consecutive years, or instead get 1st 31st 30th).

 

The improvement measure you mentioned is actually interesting, but we need to understand all of its potential effects. Like if you expect a good draft in 2 years, you tank hard this year so you maximize your improvement rating for that all important 2nd year draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2017 at 2:19 PM, westvandude said:

I've come up with a number of different draft system adjustments over the past few years as I hate the concept of rewarding teams based on pure luck as opposed to strategic decisions. So here's another one that I think solves a lot of the issues:

  • Doesn't reward tanking
  • Significantly reduces chance of multiple top draft picks, and distributes top prospects in a more fair and more strategic way
  • Adds a layer of strategic decision making for the GMs
  • Adds a new piece fans and analysts can spend time on analyzing
  • [Could be considered a positive or negative, but I think it's a positive:] Reduces the value of 1st round picks in trades, so potentially more trades involving 1st round picks (you'll see what I mean by the end)

 

Here are the main features:

  • Each team has a "draft point" count, which is what they can use to bid on their 1st round pick ranking
  • 2nd+ round draft picks are assigned as they are under current system
  • Each year, each team gets some draft points added to their draft point count based on how they finish the season:
    • Out of playoffs: 10 points
    • 1st round exit: 6 points
    • 2nd round exit: 4 points
    • Conf final exit: 2 points
    • Finalist loser: 1 point
    • Champ: 0 points
    • These numbers should be adjusted with lots of analysis to make sure they provide the right amount of reward to the teams based on where they finish
  • Before draft (so instead of the lottery), each team has to submit how many of their draft points they're willing to bid to get the highest draft pick (silent auction system, so all bids are revealed at the same time in a live show with lots of coverage)
    • The draft picks are distributed from 1st to 31st based on the bids
    • Any tied bids will have a random draw to determine ranking amongst them
      • Another feature that's not necessary but adds much more fairness at the cost of more complexity: there is a "tie-breaker ranking" that determines how the tied bids are resolved, with teams that had won tie-breakers before having a lower chance of winning future tie-breakers (I have some ideas on how this would work, but for now, let's not go into more details.. maybe another post later)
    • You can bid all or some or none of your draft points, since you can carry your remaining points forward to next year (the strategic analysis element)

 

That's it! Here are some ways it makes NHL draft more interesting and more fair:

  • If teams know a McDavid type is coming up in a year or two, they will then save up their points to have a chance at getting the highest bid possible, which means if other teams are strategically thinking, they could get a high pick in the current draft with a small bid, since they expect most are saving up points for a McDavid next year
  • Teams that go all in in one year to get a high pick, will likely not have enough points for another high pick again for a year or two until they fill up their draft point count (a much better Oiler Rule than the current one!)
  • Since if you trade your 1st round pick, you won't bid any points to win a high pick for someone else, all 1st round pick trades (unless trade is done after the bidding process) are going to be bottom 1st rounders, so teams can value them easier and more trades would happen (in the business world, less uncertainity = more interest)
  • No more benefit from tanking in one season... teams that are bad will miss playoffs multiple seasons and will have more points for higher picks, so still crappier teams are provided a way to improve their teams, but you don't have a case like Oilers that get McDavid, and get lucky with an injury to him that effectively tanked them again next year to draft #4 Pulliorvy 
  • In years like this year, where the draft is not perceived to be as good as other years, teams can save up points for future drafts... so the random luck of sucking at the right or wrong time is taken out of the game
  • Rebuilds can be planned more effectively by saving up points in years where you're good to have more bidding power in years where you need those high picks
  • If you allow trading for draft points, you now have another currency and lubricant for trades!

 

Issues:

  • Only one I could think of is collusion amongst friendly GMs as to what they should bid, but not sure if this would be a big issue or if GMs can even trust each other to do this

 

Love to hear you guys thoughts... pros, cons, anything but lame one-liners please!

 

 

 

 

I vote for the system I outlined in your other thread

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take the average of the last three seasons point totals and generate the draft order based on that.  This means a team with one bad season (like Philly) won't draft high because the average is better than a high pick.  It prevents tanking because one bad season will not get you first pick.  It gives the best draft positions to the teams who have done the worst in the last three seasons, meaning these teams probably actually suck and need that help.  No lottery, everything is easily calculated by the public so it prevents stupid conspiracy theories.  

Best way IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cpt.Clutch said:

Take the average of the last three seasons point totals and generate the draft order based on that.  This means a team with one bad season (like Philly) won't draft high because the average is better than a high pick.  It prevents tanking because one bad season will not get you first pick.  It gives the best draft positions to the teams who have done the worst in the last three seasons, meaning these teams probably actually suck and need that help.  No lottery, everything is easily calculated by the public so it prevents stupid conspiracy theories.  

Best way IMO

This is a good system that requires quite a bit of planning and sacrifice to land an upcoming McDavid. I like it. But still like to limit number of top 2-3 picks handed out to a single team over a 3-5 year period of time (the proper oiler rule!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...