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

You mean after just one more year though right?

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

The odds are pretty long that a bottom 7 team would end up 14th in this system. They would have to lose out on the 1st and 2nd picks, the 3-5th picks, and then be the best of the rest (just missing out on a playoff spot) to end up with the 14th pick.

The #3-5 pick lottery could be weighed more evenly among the 12 teams, promoting the chances for a middle to high "bad team" to end up with a top 5 pick.

Wouldnt this mean that LA would have gotten Jack Eichel last year?

That would not fix anything.

The odds are pretty long that a bottom 7 team would end up 14th in this system. They would have to lose out on the 1st and 2nd picks, the 3-5th picks, and then be the best of the rest (just missing out on a playoff spot) to end up with the 14th pick.

The #3-5 pick lottery could be weighed more evenly among the 12 teams, promoting the chances for a middle to high "bad team" to end up with a top 5 pick.
- Thomas Gidlow

I still have no idea if he was referring to your blog or my "bell curve" suggestion, but you could certainly weight the teams below the median to have a slightly better chance than the ones above it. (Based off my "proposal")

So the teams that need to rebuild have to sell off their future to get a better pick that they likely just gave away
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

haha good point, but not necessarily. Say a team is only getting offers in the 2-3 round for a player, but a team at the bottom might have a second 1st rounder, something late, to offer.

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.
- nikel

Agreed that GM's will always look for the advantage in any system. That is their job.

Team X in your example would be competing for winning percentage, so losing on purpose effectively kills their chance at a top 2 pick in either the 1-7 or 8-14 non-playoff team sections.

The point is that you wouldn't have a set idea where you fell among the 14 non-playoff teams until the end. Playing to lose any game with just 16-20 left in the deadline-to-end-of-season timeframe could push you out of the section where you would have had a #2 pick, at least.

The odds are pretty long that a bottom 7 team would end up 14th in this system. They would have to lose out on the 1st and 2nd picks, the 3-5th picks, and then be the best of the rest (just missing out on a playoff spot) to end up with the 14th pick.

The #3-5 pick lottery could be weighed more evenly among the 12 teams, promoting the chances for a middle to high "bad team" to end up with a top 5 pick.
- Thomas Gidlow

I like the lottery balls approach.
Give last place 14balls (~13% chance of winning lotto)
Give 29th palce 13 balls (~12% chance of winning lotto)
.
.
.
Give 17th place 1 ball (~1% chance of winning lotto)

I think that this evens things out a bit.
You can even put a rule in place that no team could pick in the top 3 more than 2 times in 4 years.

Recently the team that is being "rewarded", as in the Oilers, are still garbage after picking the ace of the draft multiple years in a row. A team is built from the net out so we can see why the Oilers are stagnating while proving at the same time that tanking for the best player isin't always the best choice. If we take a look at the Hawks, sure they finished last a few years and got guys like Keith, Kane and Toews but no way they get multiple cups if they don't make the savvy trades and drafting to keep them under the cap and remain atop the league.

Teams are rewarded for loosing now on an every night basis. What is this being a 2 point game if it does not go into overtime, once it gets there it becomes a 3 point game and now a team is being rewarded for loosing. I agree with the concept of getting tanking out, but then along with that bring in 3 point games in that there is always something extra to play for.

Rather than have dead-last place receive the highest odds, it should be distributed so that the median-two non-playoff teams receive the highest odds of winning the lottery.

This rewards the teams that didn't just miss the playoffs ("better" non-playoff teams). The lowest percentage chance of winning the lottery goes to a) the teams good enough to just miss out on a playoff spot and b) the teams who were so terribly non-competitive that they finished at the bottom of the league.

This discourages tanking without giving teams on the fringe of making the playoffs any added benefit.

So with 14 teams missing the playoffs each year, that means the teams that finish 23rd and 24th overall would receive the highest percent chance of winning the lottery, with the percentage of lottery balls diminishing incrementally as you approach both the playoff "threshold" and the bottom of the league. Basically, it's a bell curve.
- eichiefs9

I was speaking of the system I proposed in the blog.

I like the competition it would bring. Most of the Top 20 to 23 teams in the league at the deadline are still competing for playoff spots anyway.

Your "bell curve" is an interesting idea though.

Rather than have dead-last place receive the highest odds, it should be distributed so that the median-two non-playoff teams receive the highest odds of winning the lottery.

This rewards the teams that didn't just miss the playoffs ("better" non-playoff teams). The lowest percentage chance of winning the lottery goes to a) the teams good enough to just miss out on a playoff spot and b) the teams who were so terribly non-competitive that they finished at the bottom of the league.

This discourages tanking without giving teams on the fringe of making the playoffs any added benefit.

So with 14 teams missing the playoffs each year, that means the teams that finish 23rd and 24th overall would receive the highest percent chance of winning the lottery, with the percentage of lottery balls diminishing incrementally as you approach both the playoff "threshold" and the bottom of the league. Basically, it's a bell curve.
- eichiefs9

I was speaking of the system I proposed in the blog.

I like the competition it would bring. Most of the Top 20 to 23 teams in the league at the deadline are still competing for playoff spots anyway.

Your "bell curve" is an interesting idea though.

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.
- systemtool

No, they were the easy example at hand because we get their opinions blasted at us nationwide. If they finish 30th overall I honestly believe that they should pick first overall. That being said, in the context of the last 5 years of their collective complaining about Edmonton, I would not pretend not to enjoy the irony of watching them get screwed by a rule change that they thought would correct the perceived injustice.

Playoff teams should have zero chance at the top picks.

Shorten the season by a week or 2, and have all non-playoff teams play against one another in a mini "playoff" with the overall winner getting the 1st overall pick.

1st round is a single game knock out (then lottery draws between losers and repeat as necessary)

2nd round Same
3rd round 2 of 3
4th round 3 of 5

Boom goes the dynamite - you can be bad, but if your too bad your getting one of the "worst" pics of the non-play off teams.

Playoff teams should have zero chance at the top picks.

Shorten the season by a week or 2, and have all non-playoff teams play against one another in a mini "playoff" with the overall winner getting the 1st overall pick.

1st round is a single game knock out (then lottery draws between losers and repeat as necessary)

2nd round Same
3rd round 2 of 3
4th round 3 of 5

Boom goes the dynamite - you can be bad, but if your too bad your getting one of the "worst" pics of the non-play off teams.

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.
- systemtool

No, they were the easy example at hand because we get their opinions blasted at us nationwide. If they finish 30th overall I honestly believe that they should pick first overall. That being said, in the context of the last 5 years of their collective complaining about Edmonton, I would not pretend not to enjoy the irony of watching them get screwed by a rule change that they thought would correct the perceived injustice.

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.
- systemtool

No, they were the easy example at hand because we get their opinions blasted at us nationwide. If they finish 30th overall I honestly believe that they should pick first overall. That being said, in the context of the last 5 years of their collective complaining about Edmonton, I would not pretend not to enjoy the irony of watching them get screwed by a rule change that they thought would correct the perceived injustice.

Playoff teams should have zero chance at the top picks.

Shorten the season by a week or 2, and have all non-playoff teams play against one another in a mini "playoff" with the overall winner getting the 1st overall pick.

1st round is a single game knock out (then lottery draws between losers and repeat as necessary)

2nd round Same
3rd round 2 of 3
4th round 3 of 5

Boom goes the dynamite - you can be bad, but if your too bad your getting one of the "worst" pics of the non-play off teams.
- Cush29

Playoff teams would not have any chance at a top 14 pick in the system I proposed in the blog. I've read up about a "non-playoff playoff" but the downside being the players aren't playing for anything - save for a better pick for their club, which could ultimately cost them a job.

I was speaking of the system I proposed in the blog.

I like the competition it would bring. Most of the Top 20 to 23 teams in the league at the deadline are still competing for playoff spots anyway.

Your "bell curve" is an interesting idea though.
- Thomas Gidlow

I just think it would discourage the "fire sales" to stockpile draft assets, which (intentionally or not) results in teams "tanking".

It takes away the incentive for finishing last overall. Organizations will have to continuously put forth a stronger effort to ice an, at the least, reasonably competitive team.

Level the odds more and open up the lottery to the top 5 or even all 14 positions. Something like the following nullifies the tank.

30th = 13%
29th = 13%
28th = 13%
27th = 11%
26th = 10%
25th = 9%
24th = 8%
23rd = 7%
22nd = 6%
21st = 3%
20th = 3%
19th = 2%
18th = 1%
17th = 1%

Who is tanking?

Edmonton and Buffalo have lost over 220 man games each. I am quite sure both teams didn't expect to lose so many players for so long, and not to be sitting in lottery pick territory this late in the year.

Columbus, with over 200 man games lost sits in 4th and again, there was an expectation of performance this season as well.

Winnipeg and Calgary also, higher expectations than where they sit right now.

Now, out of these teams who has actually been tanking? Who has traded NHL assets for draft picks and bad contracts? None of these teams have.

Toronto has however. They have been gearing up for a tanked season the last 2 years. Should they really be penalized heavily for taking the chance at a top draft pick while moving out bad contracts and aging players to help build a strong foundation for the future?

Parity has also helped here, perhaps paralyzing teams to hold on before 'selling' given how close everyone is to a wild car spot.

So, this year at least, I really don't see this as a problem that needs to be fixed. It is a system that is maturing and doing what was intended.

Playoff teams would not have any chance at a top 14 pick in the system I proposed in the blog. I've read up about a "non-playoff playoff" but the downside being the players aren't playing for anything - save for a better pick for their club, which could ultimately cost them a job.
- Thomas Gidlow

It's up to the teams to get the players motivated....or maybe like us normal folks the fact they are being paid to do their job will motivate them? Such a crazy thought I know.....lol

I'd say the season should be shortened to accomplish this to avoid the PA balking at the extra games for no pay....maybe another bonus for playoff teams. A week to week and a half of rest prior to playoffs.

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.
- eichiefs9

It would all even out. There'd be other overage players trey would be competing against.

Level the odds more and open up the lottery to the top 5 or even all 14 positions. Something like the following nullifies the tank.

30th = 13%
29th = 13%
28th = 13%
27th = 11%
26th = 10%
25th = 9%
24th = 8%
23rd = 7%
22nd = 6%
21st = 3%
20th = 3%
19th = 2%
18th = 1%
17th = 1%
- magmoo

If it was a true lottery for all positions, maybe. I've never been a fan of one spot being determined and the other 13 just stay where they are basically (or move down a spot). This year with 3 spots available it's more towards an "all-in" system, but it still doesn't address how the bottom 3 teams with the best odds got there.

I proposed the idea that they should raise the draft age akin to NFL reasoning, where the players develop their bodies and the NHL gets to see a better forecast on how they were playing. I wrote a blog on this a year or two ago:

http://my.hockeybuzz.com/...t_id=16738&user_id=146200

The TL;DR:

1: Transition over 4 years by increments of six months in age. (year one, draft age = t + 6 months, year two draft age = t + 12 months where t is current age of eligibility)

2: Reduce draft to 3 rounds first year, and 5 rounds second year to tighten up the crop. If teams lose 4th+ picks, no big deal.

3: Allow a small group of players to be allowed "exceptional" draft status, supposing they're as good as Connor McDavid or Aaron Ekblad when they're 18 sort of like they have "exceptional" draft status in CHL.

The system would fix the "marginalized" drafting from 5th overall to 14th overall that leaves teams who just miss the playoffs constantly missing the playoffs every year (Florida, Toronto, Dallas at a time, Atlanta, NY Islanders before they got Tavares)...

The problem of "the margins" is why teams are tanking in the first place. If all the players are 20, you're definitely drafting more reliably (which means your chances of getting all star players will effectively triple past the 3rd overall pick to 14th overall; your chances of drafting a 2nd liner will also increase dramatically and your chances of drafting a loser will almost die completely).

This is a solution looking for a problem. There will always be bad, struggling teams that need to rebuild. There will always be crappy, boring games between bottom-feeding teams late in the season. Not everything in sports is perfectly scripted like it's the end of Teen Wolf or something. There are just bad teams, you can rejig draft rules all you want, their games are still going to be utterly brutal to watch. Trust me, I'm a Leafs fan. A team doesn't need to be tanking to be horrible. Where's the problem?