IBatch Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 21 hours ago, drummerboy said: The reason for giving the last place team the first pick is improve the team and create a more equal level of competition throughout the league. your idea is no better than the government. Help the rich, screw the poor. All your plan does is insure the poor teams never get a fair chance to improve, and the top stays at the top. Exactimungo. I think they went too far, maybe just do the bottom eight or the worst teams in each division do a mini lottery, and the rest pick based on overall standings. I think the league might be trying to tweak things to create the ability to create a dynasty like condition under the cap, or make things a little less vanilla, but despite what they've done teams will still go tank mode once they are mathematically eliminated to get the best odds so it's not really discouraging it. Just go back to the way it was IMO. It doesn't gaurantee a rebuilding team gets back on track, but it gives them more opportunity to do so. EDM did nothing until their saviour arrived...but look what WNP did when they drafted Dale Hawerchuk, a league record 48 point improvement so there is the possibility ONE pick can completely turn the fortunes of a team....this year Dahlins name keeps coming up like he's better than Lidstrom which would help any teams fortunes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 I gave the OP a +1 for two reasons - too many downvotes for a decent idea - and I like the idea of there being merit at the base of a few of the top picks. The worst teams would still be picking 4,5, 6 etc - that is unless they step up and win those higher picks. It may not be quite the affirmative action process it currently is, but it's an interesting idea and would undermine some bad GMing and create some disincentive for dumping all assets. That last implication - of needing to retain a decent measure of talent in order to compete in this tournament would/could raise the price contenders have to pay for rentals (equalization in a different form) - and it would create a counterbalance - teams dumping assets might get better prices, but less chance of winning the high picks - so it would take some calculative thinking to maximize 'asset mngt'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 I still like the idea of having the best teams who didn't quite make the playoffs have the best odds at the lotto. Totally annihilates any benefit to tanking leading to a better product on the ice and more integrity to the whole purpose of sport. Rewards good play and competent management. 17th best team gets best odds,18th next best etc. So you end up picking 17, 18, 19 etc through to 31 and then pick 16, 15, 14 etc down to 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, aGENT said: I still like the idea of having the best teams who didn't quite make the playoffs have the best odds at the lotto. Totally annihilates any benefit to tanking leading to a better product on the ice and more integrity to the whole purpose of sport. Rewards good play and competent management. 17th best team gets best odds,18th next best etc. So you end up picking 17, 18, 19 etc through to 31 and then pick 16, 15, 14 etc down to 1. Short term is provides a good product but long term it would make it extremely hard for a bottom feeding team on a internal cap budget to make any ground in standings year over year. Eventually creating a wider gap between the best teams on the worst teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 31 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Short term is provides a good product but long term it would make it extremely hard for a bottom feeding team on a internal cap budget to make any ground in standings year over year. Eventually creating a wider gap between the best teams on the worst teams. They still have lotto chances to jump in to the top 3 like teams did last year. And otherwise they'd still be picking in the 4-15 spots where there are numerous good players. I don't see it as an insurmountable hurdle that can't be overcome. Especially with good drafting and reasonably competent management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 6 minutes ago, aGENT said: They still have lotto chances to jump in to the top 3 like teams did last year. And otherwise they'd still be picking in the 4-15 spots where there are numerous good players. I don't see it as an insurmountable hurdle that can't be overcome. Especially with good drafting and reasonably competent management. The hurdle would be the teams you are competing with to move up in standings are getting better odds at higher talent. If if you think about the typcial teams life cycle not many teams drop from contention to bottom feeders. The typically slowly regress and maybe struggle a couple years of being a bubble team before they decide to strip it down. That cycle is a good thing for the league as it helps bring rotation. Can you imagine a league where when the bruins, hawks and kings start there natural regression the are awarded with the best odds in which they likely win a Matthews mcdavid or dahlin the lottery is in place to help increase parity among the league and for the most part we have that now more so than years in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.