Uhh no, the worst record should get the best player, end of story.

Thomas Gidlow: It's time to eliminate tanking and the race to the bottom
- Thomas Gidlow

They've already begun this process. They've changed the lottery structure and or odds a couple of times in recent years. It's a good start too with this year's new format. Just limit the amount of times a team can win the lottery that's all. In the end you can only change it so many times.

The worst teams rightfully should have the best odds and teams won't stop stripping rosters down when they know they aren't going anywhere. Teams don't just trade roster players to tank. Sure its a bonus but I don't see how you can stop teams, like the Leafs for example, from trading the Dion and Phil type players with bigger contracts tan they deserve.

The tank for a pick is one thing, but GMs aren't operating their team on the hopes of winning a lottery in which at best they have a 20% chance to win. They also have to manage assets and the salary cap too. You can't stop it and it isn't fair to somewhat punish teams looking to restart from previous regimes messes.

Doesn't work for everyone. Just ask Edmonton.

Not original and one of the more stupider ideas out there. There's nothing wrong with the worst team of the previous year getting the first overall pick. Why should teams who underachieve in the first part of the season be rewarded?

What happens if your team is just bad and they get the 14th pick because they didn't have a hot streak during the second half of the season. How would you like to be a fan of a bad team that never gets a top pick because they only go to teams who underachieved during the first half of the season?
- Hunkulese

Now that I got that out of the way...

I assume that, despite your disregard for quoting the post you are responding to, you are referring to my suggestion. Is this correct?

- BINGO!

I lost it when I got to that point.

What if your team actually sucks and are not trying to tank but finish near the basement? Not fair for that team.

Except that cant work because if a team is bad and has a bad record, they are being punished for being bad. How does a team that sucks on its own suppose to get better if they finish repeatedly at the bottom? They can't. We dont want to punish bad teams we want to ensure GMs arent trying to lose on purpose.

Uhh no, the worst record should get the best player, end of story.
- Bullot

Buffalo had the worst record last year...

Now that I got that out of the way...

I assume that, despite your disregard for quoting the post you are responding to, you are referring to my suggestion. Is this correct?
- eichiefs9

Unfortunately for you it's grammatically correct and illustrates my point perfectly.

I lost it when I got to that point.
- eichiefs9

so good.

You're going to have GMs "legally" manipulate the system to their advantage whenever it's possible......because it's their job.

You're never going to eliminate tanking or similar actions simply because its in the best interest of the team to do so.

Let me give you an example using your proposed system. OK, it's the last game day of the regular season, team X is ranked 23rd in the standings, or 8th worst so if they drop one more spot they secure a spot in the bottom 7. Let's also say there's a McDavid/Crosby type player headlining the draft. So, what stops the coach/GM from riding his worst players to throw that game and steal the top pick?....I mean, if I'm understanding your plan, you actually just made it easier to secure the top pick, at least in the current Sys it's a lottery so nothing's certain.

Team with the highest mental mistake % gets the best odds of the #1 pick

Unfortunately for you it's grammatically correct.
- Hunkulese

What? No, it's not even close.

Would you say that Dylan Larkin is "more faster" than Raffi Torres too?

MLB doesn't have a hard salary cap. The luxury tax means nothing to the teams that can afford it. THAT'S the big difference to me.
- BINGO!

Correct, but there is also massive revenue sharing measures in place that haven't changed anything either. Along with multi-billon $ TV deals.

If a franchise struggles to fill seats, meet payroll, keep vendors, etc. drafting middle/low end talent while the rich get richer will lead to "for sale" signs for sure. I think it's a slippery slope, that's all.

Unfortunately for you it's grammatically correct and illustrates my point perfectly.
- Hunkulese

Stupider is a word. "More stupider" is grammatically atrocious. At best, it's a redundancy. Would you say "Most stupidest?"

I think that the rules have already been changed too much. They should scrap the lottery and award the draft as a direct inverse to the standings. We don't see many tank jobs in the NHL. Last year we had the example of the Sabres shooting for the bottom and this year we can see the returns on that action. The only question is did the addition of Eichel offset the frustration and attrition to the fanbase? What about this year's results? I don't see any positive reinforcement for the tank at all.
A bunch of whiners out of Toronto are going to see the term 'careful what you wish for' in action this year when they finish 30th place and somehow lose the draft lottery. The media hype around high draft picks skew their value and the Torontocentric 'it's not fair that the best players never come here...' crap skews it further. Connor McDavid is not entering the draft every year. SOmetimes the first over all pick is going to be Nail Yakopov or Patrick Stephan or Alexandre Daigle. You can only build a team by building a team. There are no saviours.

System has already been revamped but interestingly gotta say seems more the issue is in "tanking" and "rooting for a team to lose to finish at the bottom". Already stated was GM, Coach, and players are not playing to lose, they compete they just don't have enough talent/depth to win consistently. So really the argument is against fans cheering for losses and to finish low?! Honestly good luck in making anything change that.

Stupider is a word. "More stupider" is grammatically atrocious. At best, it's a redundancy. Would you say "Most stupidest?"
- BINGO!

He is just illustrating his point "more perfecter".

I think that the rules have already been changed too much. They should scrap the lottery and award the draft as a direct inverse to the standings. We don't see many tank jobs in the NHL. Last year we had the example of the Sabres shooting for the bottom and this year we can see the returns on that action. The only question is did the addition of Eichel offset the frustration and attrition to the fanbase? What about this year's results? I don't see any positive reinforcement for the tank at all.
A bunch of whiners out of Toronto are going to see the term 'careful what you wish for' in action this year when they finish 30th place and somehow lose the draft lottery. The media hype around high draft picks skew their value and the Torontocentric 'it's not fair that the best players never come here...' crap skews it further. Connor McDavid is not entering the draft every year. SOmetimes the first over all pick is going to be Nail Yakopov or Patrick Stephan or Alexandre Daigle. You can only build a team by building a team. There are no saviours.
- OilyJay

I'm going to be honest with you. After reading your opinion, I was wondering whether you're discussing the issue with tanking or just really upset with the Leafs and it's fans and it's media. I won't lie. You give off the impression that you really don't care about this topic as long as the Leafs lose the lottery in a triple bad way.

Im not a fan of tanking.

but giving the team that has the best record from the trade deadline to the end of season with the first overall pick is foolish.
Playoff teams should not have a chance at number 1 overall.
But to avoid selling off assets to get worse at the deadline.
Maybe have the 5 teams with the worse record from the deadline to the end of season lose percentage points off the current system's chances at the number the 1 overall?
- Fakepartofme

Playoff teams would not have a shot at a 1-14 pick. Only non-playoff teams would.

System has already been revamped but interestingly gotta say seems more the issue is in "tanking" and "rooting for a team to lose to finish at the bottom". Already stated was GM, Coach, and players are not playing to lose, they compete they just don't have enough talent/depth to win consistently. So really the argument is against fans cheering for losses and to finish low?! Honestly good luck in making anything change that.
- Roadrunner75

Taking away the greatest odds from the teams that finish last will force their hand to stay at least marginally competitive. Rather that, and this isn't criticism of your team, having a fire sale like the Leafs (just one example) are doing currently. It will force GM's of all teams to take into consideration that simply selling off all their assets, sucking for 3-5 years, and stockpiling draft picks is no longer an effective strategy.

I don't see how that makes it more accurate. You already can't pull kids out of juniors to put them in the AHL until they're 20. So they'll just get drafted later and you'll still have to see how they do when they're tossed into the professional game. It doesn't change anything as far as I can see.
- eichiefs9

There would be more data available on the individual playersr and more projectable skills. There are still a lot of early pick draft busts and some of that would be avoided with a later age for entry draft.

So, using the idea presented in this blog makes me think that the lowest few teams before the trade deadline would actually become buyers, not sellers, since they would actually want the best record. Would that make for more competition for UFAs at the deadline? This could also help the teams that are sitting around the 20-22 mark in the standings who may not get a decent pick in the draft.

I like it.

There would be more data available on the individual playersr and more projectable skills. There are still a lot of early pick draft busts and some of that would be avoided with a later age for entry draft.
- jfkst1

But my contention is that you're still using data from their overage years when they're more physically and mentally mature than a good number of players in the league. The data is skewed, so I don't think they will be any more accurate than drafting them at 18.

You rarely see a top pick go back to juniors and steadily regress.

So, using the idea presented in this blog makes me think that the lowest few teams before the trade deadline would actually become buyers, not sellers, since they would actually want the best record. Would that make for more competition for UFAs at the deadline? This could also help the teams that are sitting around the 20-22 mark in the standings who may not get a decent pick in the draft.

I like it.
- JayArr

So the teams that need to rebuild have to sell off their future to get a better pick that they likely just gave away