[lebrun] NHL Considering Changes to Draft Lottery System

It is still not clear when exactly the next NHL Draft will be held, but it sounds like whenever that is a tweaked draft lottery format could be in place.

 

During an October GMs virtual meeting, the NHL, in response to a bit of grumbling about the existing draft lottery format, decided to do some informal polling of team executives to gauge ideas on how to tweak it.

 

NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly confirmed Thursday that the draft lottery format is being worked on and will be discussed with the Board of Governors when the time is right.

 

Beyond that, Daly didn?t want to hint at any other details, mostly because it?s still in the works.

 

But I think it?s safe to say there are probably going to be changes to the lottery format for the second time in seven years.

But I will say that from the dozen or so team executives I heard from Thursday, there was one idea that popped up more than others:

 

1. Improve the odds of winning the lottery for the bottom-ranked teams.

 

2. But in doing so, this caveat: Any team drafting in the top three one year can?t do so again the following year. Or some version of that, limiting repeat customers at the top.

 

As one GM put it, he?s very much open to improving the draft lottery to protect the teams that are rebuilding without rewarding teams for purposely tanking.

 

As another GM said, the lowest-place teams should have a better chance at the top picks but he also doesn?t believe they should be able to ?sit? on those top spots year after year.

 

This is not a new idea.

https://theathletic.com/2382569/2021/02/12/lebrun-nhl-considering-changes-to-draft-lottery-system/

Maybe a wee bit devils advocate here, but what exactly is wrong with this system? It explicitly does not reward tanking, it provides weighted odds based on season finish...I'm failing to see what's wrong here.

Some limits on who can win multiple times is fine, but at the end of the day the problem isn't the lottery; it's that the same teams are in the same space for extended periods of time because their options for improving their teams (or in the case of teams like the Senators and Panthers, their lack of motivation to do so) are extremely limited. RFA rules and offer sheets aren't justifiable risk-reward setups, the cap places a premium on young, cost-controlled talent, and the means to get out from under contracts that have gone bad aren't desirable.

Obviously, the PA would heavily object to a lot of this, but changing the draft lottery doesn't fix competitive balance.

I disagree with not letting teams back in the top 3 multiple years. Like fine, don't let edmonton get 5 first overall picks in 7 years. but if the goal is to get teams out of the basement, you cant expect it to happen overnight with one draft pick. especially how we're seeing, in recent years, that these higher picks aren't immediately jumping in and having amazing success out of the gate, the way guys like Crosby and Ovechkin did.

so the top 3 all immediately drop out of the top 3 next year. that immediately means that teams that are better get rewarded with higher picks, as the three worst teams aren't always going to get out of that position in one year.

this is a solution in search of a problem. it's been a couple of years where a team that didn't 'deserve' a top 3 pick got in but overall the system is working

I disagree with not letting teams back in the top 3 multiple years. Like fine, don't let edmonton get 5 first overall picks in 7 years. but if the goal is to get teams out of the basement, you cant expect it to happen overnight with one draft pick. especially how we're seeing, in recent years, that these higher picks aren't immediately jumping in and having amazing success out of the gate, the way guys like Crosby and Ovechkin did.

 

so the top 3 all immediately drop out of the top 3 next year. that immediately means that teams that are better get rewarded with higher picks, as the three worst teams aren't always going to get out of that position in one year.

this is a solution in search of a problem. it's been a couple of years where a team that didn't 'deserve' a top 3 pick got in but overall the system is working

The bolded really speaks to my post earlier - the problem is not with the draft lottery so much as it is access to cost controlled talent (or a means of escaping high cost, low output talent)

Rangers win it once and everyone?s a baby. Where were the critics when Edmonton was winning them?

With that said I think if you get the first one year you should be excused from getting it again for 2-3 years- but I wouldn?t knock you out of the top 3 or 5 or whatever. How many teams actively tank? It?s not a real thing.

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

Rangers win it once and everyone’s a baby. Where were the critics when Edmonton was winning them?

 

With that said I think if you get the first one year you should be excused from getting it again for 2-3 years- but I wouldn’t knock you out of the top 3 or 5 or whatever. How many teams actively tank? It’s not a real thing.

 

 

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

to be fair there was plenty of criticism about that. it's kind of how we ended up with the rules that gave other teams better chances of jumping up, but now people are pissed about that

I hope the Rangers win the lottery again.

I think they would trade it if they won, top picks are defense heavy

Link:

What's the fucking point of any of that?

Look, at the end of the day the draft is so disputed and so valued because the salary cap exists without means of exceeding it and the control period for drafted talent can extend to 9 years (an 18 year old who doesn't debut in the NHL until 21 would have their RFA status until 27, no). What's worse is that there's little to no fluidity in the young talent market - cost control has almost unfathomable value, and the cost to offer sheet a legitimate RFA is both too high and often pointless.

Not that it would ever be on the table, but the three things you could actually do to fix the problems we're just blaming on the draft are the introduction of a salary cap, making serious changes to offer sheet compensation rules, and reducing the service period to UFA status.

What's the fucking point of any of that?

 

Look, at the end of the day the draft is so disputed and so valued because the salary cap exists without means of exceeding it and the control period for drafted talent can extend to 9 years (an 18 year old who doesn't debut in the NHL until 21 would have their RFA status until 27, no). What's worse is that there's little to no fluidity in the young talent market - cost control has almost unfathomable value, and the cost to offer sheet a legitimate RFA is both too high and often pointless.

 

Not that it would ever be on the table, but the three things you could actually do to fix the problems we're just blaming on the draft are the introduction of a salary cap, making serious changes to offer sheet compensation rules, and reducing the service period to UFA status.

This is clearly a 1-sided perspective of a big market team.

The NHL doesnt want young guys moving around. They want them in a market, becoming local icons. Unlike the NBA, NHL stars gain notoriety staying, growing, succeeding in their home market. Crosby, Ovechkin, Kane, Stamkos, McDavid. And all of those teams were in financial trouble before those guys. Now, successful teams, and all but 1 has a cup. Your top guys that jump around the league dont have the same marketing pedigree. Hossa before Chicago? Hall?

Jersey sales:

1 Crosby

2. Connor McDavid

3. Alex Ovechkin

4. Auston Matthews

6. Nathan MacKinnon

7. Patrick Kane

8. David Pastrnak

9. Artemi Panarin

10. Elias Pettersson.

1 player changed markets - and he went to a big market team.

Fans in big market teams will spend regardless - you dont need to force good young players, or stars to these markets, as the jersey sales dont shift much as it would creating a franchise player like Crosby for the Florida Panthers. That's going to get fans in the seats, buying merchandise, investing in the team/sport and creating more casuals. If a new name in a big market mattered, Panarin would be far and away the top selling jersey.

Why even have a lottery then?

If they want the best player to go to the worst team, then just do that lol.

Why even have a lottery then?

 

If they want the best player to go to the worst team, then just do that lol.

Not the worst team in the standings.

This is clearly a 1-sided perspective of a big market team.

 

The NHL doesnt want young guys moving around. They want them in a market, becoming local icons. Unlike the NBA, NHL stars gain notoriety staying, growing, succeeding in their home market. Crosby, Ovechkin, Kane, Stamkos, McDavid. And all of those teams were in financial trouble before those guys. Now, successful teams, and all but 1 has a cup. Your top guys that jump around the league dont have the same marketing pedigree. Hossa before Chicago? Hall?

 

Jersey sales:

1 Crosby

2. Connor McDavid

3. Alex Ovechkin

4. Auston Matthews

6. Nathan MacKinnon

7. Patrick Kane

8. David Pastrnak

9. Artemi Panarin

10. Elias Pettersson.

 

1 player changed markets - and he went to a big market team.

Fans in big market teams will spend regardless - you dont need to force good young players, or stars to these markets, as the jersey sales dont shift much as it would creating a franchise player like Crosby for the Florida Panthers. That's going to get fans in the seats, buying merchandise, investing in the team/sport and creating more casuals. If a new name in a big market mattered, Panarin would be far and away the top selling jersey.

I think you took my suggestions to the nth degree and ran with an exorbitant scenario. Jersey sales as a proxy for homegrown talent is purposefully deceptive - you know what else all those players have in common? They're really good at hockey. You know what else? Most of them play in big markets. And you know what else? I bet if Crosby or McDavid landed on the Red Wings tomorrow, it'd still be the best selling jersey, because it's the player, not the market, selling those shirts. Further, it's of note that the NBA might be great at homegrown talent - they're also really good at moving it around. Because their RFA rules aren't draconian and designed to allow for cap flexibility for all eternity, so when the endlessly inept teams make trades to send actual stars to actual markets, it matters. And the other side of that is that once in a while, a smaller market can align the stars and make lemonade from lemons.

The NHL stands a much better chance with Jack Eichel not rotting in Buffalo, with McDavid not being wasted in Edmonton, with Laine not playing his entire career to date in Winnipeg and Columbus, and with Florida and both of their franchise players actually being relevant on a larger stage. Sticking marketable talent in perpetually inept markets is a self-wounding growth strategy, and giving those teams endless chances to fix their on ice and off ice issues by continually streaming top talent does nothing more than create the illusion of competitive balance while stunting the growth of the sport.

It's by no means a bad idea to limit RFA status to a maximum of five or six years post-draft. It's by no means a bad idea to do what every other sport does and have a luxury tax for teams that want to spend over the cap. And if they benefit the 20 markets that are keeping the other 11 afloat, oh well. Do better. *shrug*

Why not just have some sort of system where once you are eliminated from playoffs, yourself they point total then adds against other teams eliminated as well, certain team get eliminated later becauthey are more competitive ...but still. Maybe ga e those three to 5 yteams play a tourney for the first overall.

I hate suits making this....

Why not just have some sort of system where once you are eliminated from playoffs, yourself they point total then adds against other teams eliminated as well, certain team get eliminated later becauthey are more competitive ...but still. Maybe ga e those three to 5 yteams play a tourney for the first overall.

 

I hate suits making this....

Were you drinking with ozzy prior to making this post?

Were you drinking with ozzy prior to making this post?

Lol no but I was half asleep

Why not just have some sort of system where once you are eliminated from playoffs, yourself they point total then adds against other teams eliminated as well, certain team get eliminated later becauthey are more competitive ...but still. Maybe ga e those three to 5 yteams play a tourney for the first overall.

 

I hate suits making this....

I’ll clarify what I meant. Lol. When you get mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, the team’s point total starting the day eliminated goes into a separate category of points. Of those eliminated teams, the one with the most points gets the first overall pick. Teams get eliminated at different times, but the worst team gets the most incentive to keep fighting for wins.

Teams eliminated very late in the season have nearly no shot of getting the first since they won’t have enough games to generate points.

If two teams are eliminated with a months left in the season, it really gives them and their fan base reason to still watch and care. Also gives management reason to still try to win. It’s slightly “unfair” because the worst team eliminated first gets the most games to generate points, but they also are the worst so have the hardest time getting points. A team eliminated two weeks later likely has less games to play but clearly are a slightly better team so a win might be easier.

It’s kind of a version of soccer relegation style. You may suck, but your fans still have very important reasons to care when you are in the suck zone.

Anyone else find it a little funny that Edmonton picks first overall 4 times in 6 years, three of which in a row, and NJ picks first overall twice in 3 years, but they change it after the Rangers win for the first time in their history (that Andre Veilleux auxiliary draft doesn't count)? And even then, we only picked first overall because of pandemic extenuating circumstances?

they had to make sure garbage teams like the oilers and NJ are relevant again

I hate the draft lottery. Bring back the old system where the worst team in the standings gets the first overall. If it’s the same team the following season, then they drop to number 5 and all of those teams behind them move up a spot.

No, dont need another McDavid draft where teams are intentionally losing.