No different than rushing someone back for a playoff push, that one seems fine to me.

It would be interesting to watch
- NorthNuck

Exactly, the incentive always is there to ice your best lineup and try to win. Just would be more interesting than it has been watching the last decade of NHL tanking

The standings already are clear cut. 3 point games only confuse idiots in the FO and corporate buying base.
- Lindenis#1

I don't see it as a major issue, but the system they use in international tourneys seems better to me

I think it’s quite the opposite. You are giving them the credit. I’m saying it would be too complex a process to dip to 17th, when there are so many teams in the running. Loosing down the stretch would have a team falling to 23rd, and the 6th pick.
- 1970vintage

I think you'd find those last 5-6 games of the year would become an embarrassment where some teams are throwing it while others are trying. The last day of the season you might find 2 teams locked into a battle of shooting the puck into their net. The last thing the NHL wants is the playoff race to become "less important" and the 17th place team getting the #1 odds would do that.

Would an up and coming team try and work their way to that 17 spot? Doubt it. If you're the Canucks or a team that has talent and just needs maturity then the guys up top probably want that playoff spot instead. But if you're Minnesota or Carolina or St Louis, then you're way better off to work your way into 17th place.

You'd also have GMs complain that the "17th place" team getting the #1 pick isn't fair because sometimes that team might be a playoff team in the other conference. You'd get some whiner with a rich owner throwing a fit.

I don't see it as a major issue, but the system they use in international tourneys seems better to me
- NorthNuck

Every year around the TDL/playoffs someone re-seeds the league based on the 3-2-1-0 system and there's generally no more than marginal movement.

The big 'scary' thing is that the team that only finished 4 points out actually finished 9 points out and that gap looks worse for the GMs and owners who are probably trying to sell tickets and advertising with a "look how close we were!" approach

Every year around the TDL/playoffs someone re-seeds the league based on the 3-2-1-0 system and there's generally no more than marginal movement.

The big 'scary' thing is that the team that only finished 4 points out actually finished 9 points out and that gap looks worse for the GMs and owners who are probably trying to sell tickets and advertising with a "look how close we were!" approach
- Lindenis#1

It's not about whether it would change positioning per se, it's more that it could mathematically eliminate teams earlier, giving them a better chance to improve their draft positioning

Under the system proposed obviously not the current system

It's not about whether it would change positioning per se, it's more that it could mathematically eliminate teams earlier, giving them a better chance to improve their draft positioning
- NorthNuck

The NHL doesn't want that. Bettman has more or less said those exact words. It wants the teams to look closer than they are.

It doesn't do anyone much good when 10 teams are basically out by mid-January and the bubble teams are 40points behind the teams at the top of the conference.

Remember the last 2 January's for the Canucks, some people were talking playoffs because they managed to find themselves only 4 points out? The NHL wants that no matter how bad the teams are. Based on ROW, fancy stats, etc. the demise of those teams was clear as day. In a 3-2-1 system they would have been a half a mile out at that point, but a 2-1 system made them look like they weren't that bad at the time.

The NHL doesn't want that. Bettman has more or less said those exact words. It wants the teams to look closer than they are.

It doesn't do anyone much good when 10 teams are basically out by mid-January and the bubble teams are 40points behind the teams at the top of the conference.

Remember the last 2 January's for the Canucks, some people were talking playoffs because they managed to find themselves only 4 points out? The NHL wants that no matter how bad the teams are. Based on ROW, fancy stats, etc. the demise of those teams was clear as day. In a 3-2-1 system they would have been a half a mile out at that point, but a 2-1 system made them look like they weren't that bad at the time.
- Lindenis#1

I know they see dollar signs and they want everyone to feel like they're still in it at that point, but under this alternate system I think you'd see that revenue come back if your team was trying to win out and earn the #1 pick. People would show up to games to watch their team play to win a McDavid

Eliminate the draft all together and allow all teams to sign players instead ....no more tanking as teams would want to look better to high end non nhlers, but with a cap you can’t go too crazy ...so teams with good management and cap could be rewarded and bad GMs etc would not essentially

Eliminate the draft all together and allow all teams to sign players instead ....no more tanking as teams would want to look better to high end non nhlers, but with a cap you can’t go too crazy ...so teams with good management and cap could be rewarded and bad GMs etc would not essentially
- Redmile247

Nobody would ever want to play in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary

Eliminate the draft all together and allow all teams to sign players instead ....no more tanking as teams would want to look better to high end non nhlers, but with a cap you can’t go too crazy ...so teams with good management and cap could be rewarded and bad GMs etc would not essentially
- Redmile247

I've read a few compelling arguments for this as well. With a cap ELC and team salary caps, it would even the playing field a bit, but I think without having draft picks as currency it would be much harder to make deals and stock pipelines

Not convinced. So many teams aren’t eliminated until so late in the season. If the Canucks are eliminated on the final day they have no chance, or a 100% chance. That doesn’t make sense.
- 1970vintage

I think you're missing something. The teams would be seeded based on point accrued after they were eliminated. So if the Canucks are eliminated on the last day (before their final game) but still win, they'd have two points. If the Oilers were eliminated earlier in the week, and went 1-2-1 over their last 4, they'd have three points, and be seeded in a better draft position than the Canucks. There's incentive to win even after you're eliminated. Yes, some teams may tank to be "eliminated" earlier, but then they'd have a harder time to gain points after that if they have such a crap team.

I've read a few compelling arguments for this as well. With a cap ELC and team salary caps, it would even the playing field a bit, but I think without having draft picks as currency it would be much harder to make deals and stock pipelines
- WhiteLie

I think the draft format is fine, but like Donny said, there needs to be incentive for teams not to finish at the bottom. Give the current odds (for the bottom teams) to teams that finish close to the playoffs but don't make them. The Oilers have been soo bad for x amount of the years that they needed the lottery implemented. They continue to be so bad and continue to be at the bottom despite a generational talent, that it needs to be revised again. Would love to see teams that finish 17th -31st get the best odds based at 1st overall, starting with the best odds for 17th overall placed team. Draft position for the 16 playoff teams is determined by their elimination.

I think the draft format is fine, but like Donny said, there needs to be incentive for teams not to finish at the bottom. Give the current odds (for the bottom teams) to teams that finish close to the playoffs but don't make them. The Oilers have been soo bad for x amount of the years that they needed the lottery implemented. They continue to be so bad and continue to be at the bottom despite a generational talent, that it needs to be revised again. Would love to see teams that finish 17th -31st get the best odds based at 1st overall, starting with the best odds for 17th overall placed team. Draft position for the 16 playoff teams is determined by their elimination.
- Codes1087

There already is an incentive. Repetitive losing kills your market. You can do it for a period and survive, but when you're at 3+ years you're not getting your contracts for suites renewed, STHs decide to sit on their wallet, sponsors become tightwads. Owners losing money is enough of an incentive.

Edmonton isn't every market, and adjusting your league rules because one team trips over its cock and faceplants into poop every year is absurd.

The lottery existed before the Oilers went on their run of futility. It dates back to the 90s or something.

There already is an incentive. Repetitive losing kills your market. You can do it for a period and survive, but when you're at 3+ years you're not getting your contracts for suites renewed, STHs decide to sit on their wallet, sponsors become tightwads. Owners losing money is enough of an incentive.

Edmonton isn't every market, and adjusting your league rules because one team trips over its cock and faceplants into poop every year is absurd.

The lottery existed before the Oilers went on their run of futility. It dates back to the 90s or something.
- Lindenis#1

- NorthNuck

The NBA doesn't give a poop how inept Sacramento or Charlotte is. The NFL hasn't changed a single rule for the Browns. Even baseball tries to nudge the Padres in the right direction.

There already is an incentive. Repetitive losing kills your market. You can do it for a period and survive, but when you're at 3+ years you're not getting your contracts for suites renewed, STHs decide to sit on their wallet, sponsors become tightwads. Owners losing money is enough of an incentive.

Edmonton isn't every market, and adjusting your league rules because one team trips over its cock and faceplants into poop every year is absurd.

The lottery existed before the Oilers went on their run of futility. It dates back to the 90s or something.
- Lindenis#1

I disagree that this is enough incentive, especially when the primary sources of revenue for most owners come from other businesses and having 100 other events each year in their facilities (which are way more profitable).

Bad teams, and poorly located teams, all have attendance issues and hasn't altered the path they embark on to build their franchise. If it was, you'd have seen teams accelerating their perpetual rebuilds, but instead they continue to preach patience and growth of the kids

Apparently anything is possible once you get into the playoffs. I thought the Canucks were a dark horse to win this year.
- 1970vintage

Dare to dream vintsy, dare to dream..

I disagree that this is enough incentive, especially when the primary sources of revenue for most owners come from other businesses and having 100 other events each year in their facilities (which are way more profitable).

Bad teams, and poorly located teams, all have attendance issues and hasn't altered the path they embark on to build their franchise. If it was, you'd have seen teams accelerating their perpetual rebuilds, but instead they continue to preach patience and growth of the kids
- WhiteLie

^ this

not sure if credible, it's ESPN, but CHI still sells out more seats on the average night than any other team, and they are 2nd last in the west. NYI are last in attendnace but 1st in their division.

http://www.espn.com/nhl/attendance

They will win the lotto and take Hughes.

Rebuild over.
- 1970vintage

I've heard he's a generational player.

They'll need to trade McDavid so that Hughes can be captain. I wonder what defensive defender he'll get. Maybe tanev?

I think the draft format is fine, but like Donny said, there needs to be incentive for teams not to finish at the bottom. Give the current odds (for the bottom teams) to teams that finish close to the playoffs but don't make them. The Oilers have been soo bad for x amount of the years that they needed the lottery implemented. They continue to be so bad and continue to be at the bottom despite a generational talent, that it needs to be revised again. Would love to see teams that finish 17th -31st get the best odds based at 1st overall, starting with the best odds for 17th overall placed team. Draft position for the 16 playoff teams is determined by their elimination.
- Codes1087

I agree the draft system is fine, just was saying that the reasons the draft was implemented is no longer applicable thanks to the CBA.

And I care less about the incentive, but from a fan-interest level, I want more games to matter. I hardly watched Canuck games without Pettersson this season, because I don't believe they are a playoff team and they continue to straddle between being a bottom-feeder and playoff contender, its just boring. I want the league to give me a reason to watch this team, without certain players in the lineup, in March. It won't happen this year

Nah, whoever is the closest to the playoff spot (but misses) should be first overall...it will encourage intense and exciting hockey down the stretch by all teams
- CanuckDon

Nah, whichever team gets the most points after being mathematically eliminated from the playoffs gets the first overall pick.

I disagree that this is enough incentive, especially when the primary sources of revenue for most owners come from other businesses and having 100 other events each year in their facilities (which are way more profitable).

Bad teams, and poorly located teams, all have attendance issues and hasn't altered the path they embark on to build their franchise. If it was, you'd have seen teams accelerating their perpetual rebuilds, but instead they continue to preach patience and growth of the kids
- WhiteLie

Those teams try and accelerate their rebuilds all the time. Its just that their management is stupid and make bad decisions that flunk their team again.

Look at Florida. Talent out, grit in. Oh poop the team got worse.

Phoenix, signs tons of mid level UFAs, cash in prospects for useful players, still bad. Carolina's in a similar boat.

Buffalo, tanked intentionally, felt the heat on ticket sales, has tried to course correct spending assets and money to make their team better.

The Blues can't afford a long rebuild as they'll have an empty stadium.

The Ducks, Kings, Flyers, Stars, etc. can't afford to lose long term and be 4th, 6th, 8th, in their market.

Edmonton, got tired of the "rebuild" so they spent players and money to get "now" pieces, ended up back at the bottom. A lot of the panic this year is because the first batch of STHs, arena advertising and premium suites are up after this year and its tough to convince a company to pay 500k on a 3yr contract for their premium box to a team no one wants to watch.

^ this

not sure if credible, it's ESPN, but CHI still sells out more seats on the average night than any other team, and they are 2nd last in the west. NYI are last in attendnace but 1st in their division.

http://www.espn.com/nhl/attendance
- Codes1087

Lots of teams can handle one year and short term losing.

Once they get a reputation for being a "loser" its harder to get those fans back again.

Lots of teams can handle one year and short term losing.

Once they get a reputation for being a "loser" its harder to get those fans back again.
- Lindenis#1

i get what you are saying, and I don't disagree. I have less invested in ownership incentive though, as it has absolutely no influence on me as a fan.

Yup, was going to say the same thing! Probably the smartest, though somewhat complex. It goes something like this:
- NewYorkNuck