Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑
Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:05 am
Madcombinepilot wrote: ↑
Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:36 am
Meds wrote: ↑
Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:17 am
Hockey Widow wrote: ↑
Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:56 pm
Meds wrote: ↑
Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:34 pm
I definitely think they need to change the draft lottery. Said it for years.
I like some of Burke's thoughts on it.
If you win the lottery you can't pick 1st overall again for 3-5 years.
You also can't pick in the top-3 the following season.
Only the bottom 10 teams should have a shot at the top-3.
I like the idea of a completely different seeding. Take all the teams that miss the playoffs. Rank them from best to worst winning percentage from the TDD to the end of the season. The team with the best winning percentage drafts first and so on. This completely takes away any notion of tanking. In fact it gives teams a huge incentive to win. It rewards GMs who make astute moves to keep their team competitive during the rebuild years. It takes 100% of the randomness out of it.
Handle rounds 2-7 the way you do now. But they have to fix the system. I don't know how it would have worked out for us over the last 4-5 years as I haven't done the math so this idea, which is not original to me, isn't based upon bias. It simply rewards teams that always try to ice the best line up and always try to be competitive and win. And I hate the randomness of the lottery. It still rewards incompetence and tanking.
The only problem I see with your idea there Wids is that it would absolutely punish a team like the we were this year.....decimated by injuries which probably tanked our winning percentage a fair amount. If they could somehow factor in an algorithm that could account for man-games lost to injury or something that tempered things.....i dunno.
... it wouldn't have made a lick of difference this year. We would have drafted about 10th...
We'd be around 8th.
Top 5 would be some mix of Florida/Arizona/Anaheim/Montreal/Edmonton.
No, I don't think this works either. As mentioned, take Montreal who only missed the playoffs by a shootout win by Columbus. They should be up near the top of the post TDD race because they aren't a bad team. Do they deserve, or need, the 1OA? Or imagine a scenario where you are improving, but you happen to be in a very strong division where 4-5 teams are fighting for their playoff lives. In that case you'll probably have a fairly mediocre record down the stretch, especially compared to a similar team in a bad division. Or perhaps you're decimated by injuries?
With the current system, luck is luck and you may get gifted OR screwed. Is the current system successful? Chicago, within a few years of a Cup, 'suffers' through maybe 1.5 years of mediocre and gets a #3? New Jersey has two #1s in three years, with a decent playoff appearance in the middle year. Yet a team could finish in the bottom ten for 20 years and never get a top-3 pick. This doesn't make much sense. While the league has addressed deliberate tanking, it also opened up the possibility to make things worse for the teams that actually need a high pick.
The system needs to correct for both too many lottery wins AND too few. Maybe the percentage chance should be additive, and the previous year's top-3 winners are reset and/or excluded. Clearly this would be considered the "Vancouver clause", but it might make some sense. No team is going to tank through multiple full seasons and the idea that if you're not crawling out of the basement after several years you'll get a top-3 might be reasonable.