[friedman] Some GMs Calling for Changes to NHL Draft Lottery

A number of the NHL's general managers are calling for the league to once again tweak its draft lottery format.

 

During a virtual meeting Friday, multiple executives around the league argued to increase the odds for the teams that finish lowest in the standings, according to Sportsnet's Elliotte Friedman.

The Detroit Red Wings were "incredibly upset" this year after dropping to the fourth pick despite having the best odds for the No. 1 selection. Detroit has support for its position but the league asked for specific proposals, Friedman adds.

https://www.thescore.com/news/2042915

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Where is this being posted from? We need sources. Links to articles, tweets, whatever.

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Too bad. It's a lottery it's not guaranteed. Would I be saying something different if we dropped? Maybe, but it is what it is.

Sent from my Z981 using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Probably the Pens. Whaaaaa we need more Crosby?s and Malkin?s.

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

The Knicks say hi

Sure, change it now that the Rangers hit the lottery despite a 1.5% chance followed by a 12.5% chance thanks to the Winnipeg Jets and Covid.

Remember Tampa? Too bad Yzerman.

I think it should probably be changed, even though the Rangers have been the beneficiaries for once lately.

I would say any team that has placed top 3 in the draft is disqualified from top 3 the following year. Bottom dwelling teams may still get hopped by another team, but they can't be allowed to sit in the cellar and draft top 3 every year. Likewise, a team like the Rangers shouldn't have been able to hop up top 3 two years in a row.

I think it should probably be changed, even though the Rangers have been the beneficiaries for once lately.

 

I would say any team that has placed top 3 in the draft is disqualified from top 3 the following year. Bottom dwelling teams may still get hopped by another team, but they can't be allowed to sit in the cellar and draft top 3 every year. Likewise, a team like the Rangers shouldn't have been able to hop up top 3 two years in a row.

I do t k ow if that is fair. I mean if a team sucks they just suck. Can’t punish them further. Rangers winning was just pure luck. Can’t go changing crap just because of that.

I do t k ow if that is fair. I mean if a team sucks they just suck. Can?t punish them further. Rangers winning was just pure luck. Can?t go changing crap just because of that.

That said, I don't know if we can say if a team sucks they just suck. If a team sucks it's because of a bad front office or a bad roster, there should be no benefit of that. It should incentivize the owner to make a change.

I'm going controversial hot take here.

Detroit crying about being record-shattering awful and not getting their "just reward" for a machinated decision to be that awful isn't a good reason to change the system.

That said, the general spirit is right - the lottery, and possibly even the draft, needs significant change. I'd look to Connor McDavid and Jack Eichel, among others, anyway, as better reasons for change. All too often, the lottery puts exceptional or game-changing talents in places where they're completely unable to positively impact the game at large. Connor McDavid wasting away in the mismanaged miasma that is Edmonton, Jack Eichel and Rasmus Dahlin trapped in Buffalo, Patrik Laine probably stuck in Winnipeg, Barkov fucking stuck in Florida...

The "crime" of the lottery is not it's fairness outcome - it's that it precludes top talent from meaning a goddamn thing to the league for years on end. Once in a while, you get lucky, and Auston Matthews goes to Toronto, or Alexis Lafreniere goes to New York, or Nathan Mackinnon goes to Colorado, but all too often, it's "great player goes to mismanaged shithole". If the game is ever going to grow beyond it's current walls, that has to meaningfully change.

I'm going controversial hot take here.

 

Detroit crying about being record-shattering awful and not getting their "just reward" for a machinated decision to be that awful isn't a good reason to change the system.

 

That said, the general spirit is right - the lottery, and possibly even the draft, needs significant change. I'd look to Connor McDavid and Jack Eichel, among others, anyway, as better reasons for change. All too often, the lottery puts exceptional or game-changing talents in places where they're completely unable to positively impact the game at large. Connor McDavid wasting away in the mismanaged miasma that is Edmonton, Jack Eichel and Rasmus Dahlin trapped in Buffalo, Patrik Laine probably stuck in Winnipeg, Barkov fucking stuck in Florida...

 

The "crime" of the lottery is not it's fairness outcome - it's that it precludes top talent from meaning a goddamn thing to the league for years on end. Once in a while, you get lucky, and Auston Matthews goes to Toronto, or Alexis Lafreniere goes to New York, or Nathan Mackinnon goes to Colorado, but all too often, it's "great player goes to mismanaged shithole". If the game is ever going to grow beyond it's current walls, that has to meaningfully change.

You also have to look at the Washington's Pittsburgh's and Chicago's.

I agree with some of this, the lottery has worked as intended. It was pure luck that the Rangers benefited from it two years in a row.

 

That said, I don't know if we can say if a team sucks they just suck. If a team sucks it's because of a bad front office or a bad roster, there should be no benefit of that. It should incentivize the owner to make a change.

I just mean in terms of tanking. If something doesn’t work and they have attempted to get better, a team shouldn’t be punished saying “well you got top pick last year so too bad.” That’s punitive just to be punitive. I understand the get better part is the key there but get better could just be as simple as letting the kids play and get experience/grow. That might not look it to the casual eyes so where would anyone draw the line anyway? I think the lottery is fine.

I don't think that's true at all. it's just the recency bias of top picks continually going to places like Edmonton and Buffalo.

 

You also have to look at the Washington's Pittsburgh's and Chicago's.

Back then, the lottery was just 1 pull and there were limits on the length of the jump to 4 spots. So teams tanked for bottom 5 - and oh, were those early post-lockout Caps/Pens/Hawks teams awful - and hoped for the bounce. It's not quite analogous. Then there was Pittsburgh's stupid luck in the Crosby lottery, but we're not going there.

Now, any pick below 15 is a wildcard shot at #1, #2, or #3, and there are a number of teams who seem completely unable to get out of that range regardless of how many top picks they have (or their endlessly shitty lottery luck in a few cases).

It's at least arguable that there are some teams that no matter how many high picks they get are not reaping the value of the draft in a way that moves the needle - Edmonton, Buffalo, Florida, Minnesota, Ottawa, the Islanders, the Thrasherjets franchise, the Coyotes, perhaps, CBJ, Calgary, and Montreal. It's not even cyclical with these teams - they're just always somewhere between playoff hopeful and lottery hopeful with the occasional lucky as hell deep playoff run, but there's only so long that you can keep sending these teams excellent talent and see nothing for it without considering a change to either the draft, the CBA, or imposing some sort of competition requirement.

I'm going controversial hot take here.

 

Detroit crying about being record-shattering awful and not getting their "just reward" for a machinated decision to be that awful isn't a good reason to change the system.

 

That said, the general spirit is right - the lottery, and possibly even the draft, needs significant change. I'd look to Connor McDavid and Jack Eichel, among others, anyway, as better reasons for change. All too often, the lottery puts exceptional or game-changing talents in places where they're completely unable to positively impact the game at large. Connor McDavid wasting away in the mismanaged miasma that is Edmonton, Jack Eichel and Rasmus Dahlin trapped in Buffalo, Patrik Laine probably stuck in Winnipeg, Barkov fucking stuck in Florida...

 

The "crime" of the lottery is not it's fairness outcome - it's that it precludes top talent from meaning a goddamn thing to the league for years on end. Once in a while, you get lucky, and Auston Matthews goes to Toronto, or Alexis Lafreniere goes to New York, or Nathan Mackinnon goes to Colorado, but all too often, it's "great player goes to mismanaged shithole". If the game is ever going to grow beyond it's current walls, that has to meaningfully change.

Well that’s not fair at all to say anyway. If that’s the stance and the reason to change, why do we have franchises in Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Buffalo?

Might as well drop the league down to like 12 teams if getting elite talent in smaller markets is a problem.

Just ask guys that have been around hockey for decades how mismanaged Toronto was under Ballard. Hell in the last handful of years prior to the lockout we were a freaking mess of a franchise lol

Sure, but why are we still rewarding endlessly shitty management with great talent?

I have zero issue with what the Kings did, or what the Lightning did, what we're doing, or what Detroit is doing, or even what Philly did for a little there. I have issue with continuing to see the same damn teams in the lottery every single year with no progress, and I have issue with Edmonton, Buffalo, and Florida continually getting spoonfed talent and doing nothing with it.

It's just ebs and flows and there literally is no way to determine a team doing anything with talent x until we are in hindsight territory.

You say you have no problem with what Tampa did but they were spoon fed talent too. In 08 they had 1st overall, 09 second overall and in 10 6th overall. 5 out of 6 years then they had a top 10 pick during that time. We just disregard it because it was a good while ago now.

Back then, the lottery was just 1 pull and there were limits on the length of the jump to 4 spots. So teams tanked for bottom 5 - and oh, were those early post-lockout Caps/Pens/Hawks teams awful - and hoped for the bounce. It's not quite analogous. Then there was Pittsburgh's stupid luck in the Crosby lottery, but we're not going there.

 

Now, any pick below 15 is a wildcard shot at #1, #2, or #3, and there are a number of teams who seem completely unable to get out of that range regardless of how many top picks they have (or their endlessly shitty lottery luck in a few cases).

 

It's at least arguable that there are some teams that no matter how many high picks they get are not reaping the value of the draft in a way that moves the needle - Edmonton, Buffalo, Florida, Minnesota, Ottawa, the Islanders, the Thrasherjets franchise, the Coyotes, perhaps, CBJ, Calgary, and Montreal. It's not even cyclical with these teams - they're just always somewhere between playoff hopeful and lottery hopeful with the occasional lucky as hell deep playoff run, but there's only so long that you can keep sending these teams excellent talent and see nothing for it without considering a change to either the draft, the CBA, or imposing some sort of competition requirement.

There are plenty of teams who get a couple of high picks and become top teams.

I do t k ow if that is fair. I mean if a team sucks they just suck. Can’t punish them further. Rangers winning was just pure luck. Can’t go changing crap just because of that.

There's suck, then there's tanking. If a team finishes at the bottom of the standings and picks top 3 one year and 4th the next year, I'd hardly call that punishment.

There's suck, then there's tanking. If a team finishes at the bottom of the standings and picks top 3 one year and 4th the next year, I'd hardly call that punishment.

But those are two very different things. Tanking is intentionally trying to lose. Being a crappy team for several years not not equate to intentionally losing.

Telling a team they forfeit the chance for a top pick because thry had one the year before is punishing them. What if their top pick blows his knee out gave 7 of his career? What if he’s being taunted as a can’t miss like Daigle? What if it’s an incredibly weak draft? Etc.

Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel here when it’s not broken in the first place? There isn’t some league wide problem where it’s been decades of the same team with the 1st overall every year and isn’t the NBA where you only need 1-2 players to turn a franchise around either.

But those are two very different things. Tanking is intentionally trying to lose. Being a crappy team for several years not not equate to intentionally losing.

 

Telling a team they forfeit the chance for a top pick because thry had one the year before is punishing them. What if their top pick blows his knee out gave 7 of his career? What if he’s being taunted as a can’t miss like Daigle? What if it’s an incredibly weak draft? Etc.

 

Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel here when it’s not broken in the first place? There isn’t some league wide problem where it’s been decades of the same team with the 1st overall every year and isn’t the NBA where you only need 1-2 players to turn a franchise around either.

Probably because the GMs want to blame the draft/draft lottery and started this discussion because they can't say that five or six teams have shitty owners and poor front offices and disproportionately benefit from the draft because they won't actually compete.

Probably because the GMs want to blame the draft/draft lottery and started this discussion because they can't say that five or six teams have shitty owners and poor front offices and disproportionately benefit from the draft because they won't actually compete.

Doesn’t the article say owners want higher odds to get the better picks if they have a team with a worse record?

During a virtual meeting Friday, multiple executives around the league argued to increase the odds for the teams that finish lowest in the standings, according to Sportsnet's Elliotte Friedman.

 

The Detroit Red Wings were "incredibly upset" this year after dropping to the fourth pick despite having the best odds for the No. 1 selection, Friedman adds. Detroit reportedly has support for its position but the league asked for specific proposals.