Podcast (Audio) Former NHL Exec: Draft Lottery 'Tragic' For Detroit, 'Disgrace' For League

[Mlotek]

1. If the last place team owns pick 4 and so on multiple teams would own the same pick.

2. NIt sure what you’re saying here.

3. Playoffs are a series of games where the winner moves on to continue pursuing the championship and the loser goes home. Having had that opportunity they no longer are eligible for the draft lottery. Playins=playoffs, but with draft lottery eligibility, which is stupid.

4. the Pittsburgh Penguins could have theoretically been a 100+ point team. They are in the running for the best u18 player in the world.

number 4 is all that matters

1. Yes Armchair, technically until the lottery 3 teams would own pick #15. However, that is the worst position they would be drafting until lottery determined the actual order. 2 of those teams would 'move up' in the draft. There is no 'dropping'

2. Placeholders had same odds that teams 8-15 would win the lottery.

3. It may be stupid, however, that is how the league devised the rules. They chose to keep the playoffs limited to 16 teams.
Again, how do you make it fair to the teams that had a chance to make the playoffs?
It also doesn't affect the lottery odds of the bottom 7.

Keep in mind that the regular season is a series of games. Where the teams with most points qualify for the playoffs and the teams on bottom go home. I know that's not what you mean by the bold. Just making a counter argument based on the chosen words.

4. Pittsburgh theoretically could have missed the playoffs as well. They also lost 7 of their last 11 games when the regular season was cancelled.

 

[avssuc]

Just go back to a one-team lottery.
The NHL wanted a TV event on the calendar. It's a shitshow anyway.

I don't care about Buffalo tanking for Eichel or McDavid. I don't. Why shouldn't they if they think that's what's best?
Look how shitty it's been for them when they try to compete. What's worse? Trying to lose for a season and losing? Or trying to improve for 3 seasons and losing?

Don't worry, the Wings might be so bad over the next decade that they force the NHL to change to something less diabolical. Look for that ray of hope!

 

[EXTRAS]

[MOD]

Unfortunate it goes to a non-trash team, but those are the odds. Detroit is still a top 4 pick, and frankly, if they are the bottom team next year they likely finish with a top 3 pick.

No one is guaranteed the 1st overall. And I think that's a good thing.

 

[ArmChairGM89]

[MOD]

Unfortunate it goes to a non-trash team, but those are the odds. Detroit is still a top 4 pick, and frankly, if they are the bottom team next year they likely finish with a top 3 pick.

No one is guaranteed the 1st overall. And I think that's a good thing.

I think the odds are screwy. I don’t mind the lottery I just feel like where you end the season should be your highest probable outcome. If you end last your most likely pick should be last if you end third your most likely pick should be third. Still get an exciting lottery where there is a 50% chance someone else gets that pick.

 

[EXTRAS]

I think the odds are screwy. I don’t mind the lottery I just feel like where you end the season should be your highest probable outcome. If you end last your most likely pick should be last if you end third your most likely pick should be third. Still get an exciting lottery where there is a 50% chance someone else gets that pick.

If you want 15 teams in the lottery, then the 31st team will always be the most likely team to move back (as they have 14 potential teams to jump them), and if you put the 31st team at 50% to stay as 1st, then the 8th-15th will combine for maybe 5-10% and a situation like this will still happen every 10ish years. I guess you could make the lottery 3 teams each get to jump up a maximum of 4 spots, to prevent late teams from getting 1st, or something like that.

 

[Winger98]

Exactly. And if the fans of those teams are upset and disgruntled with the product, the owners are going to press the issue with the league.

A struggling team failing to land a star player in the draft is a direct hit to their financial bottom line. This isn't only wins and losses, but millons of dollars at stake in playoff revenue and merchandising.

Owners aren't going to just take it on the chin if their fans lose interest in the product.

Something about the Wings being on the losing side of this deal seems really ironic considering how the league loved them on the west coast because all of those games in places with struggling teams suddenly became sellouts. I still remember Arizona drastically upping prices for Wings games because they knew they'd sell out anyway.

Even with the success of teams like Chicago and Pittsburgh, I don't see them having that same sort of ubiquitous power on the road.

 

[MBH]

[MOD]

Unfortunate it goes to a non-trash team, but those are the odds. Detroit is still a top 4 pick, and frankly, if they are the bottom team next year they likely finish with a top 3 pick.

No one is guaranteed the 1st overall. And I think that's a good thing.

No. We just finished last and we're picking fourth.
There's more than a 50 percent chance if you finish last, you pick 4th.

And all these people crying about "whining" and "entitlement."
There's a reason only "non-playoff" teams are in the lottery.
There's a reason bad teams have the best odds.

I don't think I've seen anyone here suggest last place should get first overall.

 

[Winger98]

No. We just finished last and we're picking fourth.
There's more than a 50 percent chance if you finish last, you pick 4th.

And all these people crying about "whining" and "entitlement."
There's a reason only "non-playoff" teams are in the lottery.
There's a reason bad teams have the best odds.

I don't think I've seen anyone here suggest last place should get first overall.

I'll straight up say it and have been saying it since this lottery was introduced. Being awful, one way or another, is still the best way to build a competitive team. It's not removing the incentive to tank, it's just likely ensuring that rebuilds take longer.

Want to increase parity/remove tanking then just up the cap floor.

 

[MBH]

I'll straight up say it and have been saying it since this lottery was introduced. Being awful, one way or another, is still the best way to build a competitive team. It's not removing the incentive to tank, it's just likely ensuring that rebuilds take longer.

Want to increase parity/remove tanking then just up the cap floor.

I don't think spending money does enough.
We're seeing the league get younger. The draft hasn't been this important in a long time.
Even an older team like the Caps was filled with players drafted by the organization.

I agree our lottery has really stifled teams' ability to turn things around. But I can see the need for a lottery.

Just a one team lottery.
Or a lottery with 3 teams - where the teams can move up a few places.
But the last place team drafting 4th? That's dumb.

 

[Mlotek]

I don't think spending money does enough.
We're seeing the league get younger. The draft hasn't been this important in a long time.
Even an older team like the Caps was filled with players drafted by the organization.

I agree our lottery has really stifled teams' ability to turn things around. But I can see the need for a lottery.

Just a one team lottery.
Or a lottery with 3 teams - where the teams can move up a few places.
But the last place team drafting 4th? That's dumb.

How do you have a 1 team lottery?

 

[MBH]

How do you have a 1 team lottery?

One winner, I should have said.

 

[Mlotek]

One winner, I should have said.

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

But if you wanna hear a really dumb idea.

#1 pick goes to non-playoff team with most points and so on down the line. Draft position for playoff teams stays as is.

No gimmicks just straight up points with row/GF as the differentiatiors.


That way you aren't rewarding the losers.



Would it work? Probably not.





Some really good players have been drafted in that 15-20 region though. Plenty of chances for those bottom feeders to get better.



Although teams that are on the bottom typically have a bigger issue than just being 'bad'.

Mismanagement is the first thing that comes to mind. Or rather, mismanagement.
Toronto was in a whirlwind for a decade after firing Quinn. Bad decision after bad decision.
Buffalo was strapped for cash than their new owner was too impatient to let anyone 'fix' the team. Let's skip the part they threw money at FAs to make everything better.
Edmonton couldn't build a team under Lowe/MacTavish due to poor asset/cap management. Replaced Chirelli who did an even worse job.
Florida had financial issues plus incompetent ownership who took the team back half a decade. Literally gave a pair of top 6 forwards to Vegas cause they were being cheap.
Detroit held off rebuild in a bid to keep ownership. Nothing remotely in place to replace the vacuum left by Lidstrom retirement. Weighed down with big money to underperforming veterans.

 

[Ulysses31]

Pretty high on Rossi but that aside i may be the minority here but I like the lottery. maybe they could increase odds for teams at very bottom a bit.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

But if you wanna hear a really dumb idea.

#1 pick goes to non-playoff team with most points and so on down the line. Draft position for playoff teams stays as is.

No gimmicks just straight up points with row/GF as the differentiatiors.


That way you aren't rewarding the losers.



Would it work? Probably not.





Some really good players have been drafted in that 15-20 region though. Plenty of chances for those bottom feeders to get better.



Although teams that are on the bottom typically have a bigger issue than just being 'bad'.

Mismanagement is the first thing that comes to mind. Or rather, mismanagement.
Toronto was in a whirlwind for a decade after firing Quinn. Bad decision after bad decision.
Buffalo was strapped for cash than their new owner was too impatient to let anyone 'fix' the team. Let's skip the part they threw money at FAs to make everything better.
Edmonton couldn't build a team under Lowe/MacTavish due to poor asset/cap management. Replaced Chirelli who did an even worse job.
Florida had financial issues plus incompetent ownership who took the team back half a decade. Literally gave a pair of top 6 forwards to Vegas cause they were being cheap.
Detroit held off rebuild in a bid to keep ownership. Nothing remotely in place to replace the vacuum left by Lidstrom retirement. Weighed down with big money to underperforming veterans.

I don't hate that idea but a lot of people would. All the whining about "a playoff team getting the top pick" that is bad enough already would get 100x worse.

I think a simpler lottery that would get less hate all around would be this:
The bottom 8 teams in point percentage are entered in a lottery for the top 8 picks with equal odds. Then the rest of the teams pick in reverse order.
Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like this would satisfy every side without generating strong opposition.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Get rid of the lotto entirely. Never liked it, and I don't see a point to it. Some team wants to sell off and make a joke of themselves for a year? Okay, go for it. Have a crap team, and likely set yourself back five years with the hope you draft the type of guy who can make it worth it. Unless the team has a level of competence that goes beyond the ability to make the easiest selection in the draft, they are going to be a lousy team for awhile and that's the punishment for it. Yeah, Buffalo got Eichel, he's a great player. And? They are still a lotto team. Edmonton has been awful for years. Arizona? Same.

If you really want to dissuade tanking then just raise the cap floor a bit and force teams to spend.

And if the major concern is having a television event, which I would guess that is the case, market these f***ing prospects to the masses in the time slot. Parade around some of these analysts, have them breakdown highlight film for WHY the kids are so good, and live interview the kids briefly. You can fill the void of the television intrigue and not operate in such an embarrassing fashion where you are more interested in a one night lottery special than you are in giving organizations the path and opportunity to go from the bottom to being a contender.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Get rid of the lotto entirely. Never liked it, and I don't see a point to it. Some team wants to sell off and make a joke of themselves for a year? Okay, go for it. Have a crap team, and likely set yourself back five years with the hope you draft the type of guy who can make it worth it. Unless the team has a level of competence that goes beyond the ability to make the easiest selection in the draft, they are going to be a lousy team for awhile and that's the punishment for it. Yeah, Buffalo got Eichel, he's a great player. And? They are still a lotto team. Edmonton has been awful for years. Arizona? Same.

If you really want to dissuade tanking then just raise the cap floor a bit and force teams to spend.

This is the one thing that bothers me. If there is a player who has the potential to become a franchise talent and make your team millions upon millions of dollars (Ovechkin, Crosby, McDavid), you are telling me that no matter the lottery odds a team isn't going to try and maximize those odds to acquire such a player?

Tanking will never be completely removed, there is no evidence that tanking was a problem before, and now they are just punishing teams that are actually bad with these new lottery odds. All because the Oilers had arguably the worst management group in the last several decades.

 

[izlez]

As soon as the rules are changed, people will learn to complain about the new way.

If they change it so it's weighted by points all of a sudden someone's complaining "this was our first chance at a high pick in forever, but we have less chance than team X last year because team Y sucks so bad? That's not fair!"

If they change it so your previous draft picks change your current odds... wow that would create headaches. Ottawa's pick actually has a higher chance at 1st because they picked lower than us last year? I can't imagine how a fan base would become upset with that.

Don't expect to be rewarded for being bad and move on

 

[ArmChairGM89]

I don't hate that idea but a lot of people would. All the whining about "a playoff team getting the top pick" that is bad enough already would get 100x worse.

I think a simpler lottery that would get less hate all around would be this:
The bottom 8 teams in point percentage are entered in a lottery for the top 8 picks with equal odds. Then the rest of the teams pick in reverse order.
Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like this would satisfy every side without generating strong opposition.

So Detroit would fall to 8 lmao hell no

 

[Hen Kolland]

I don't hate that idea but a lot of people would. All the whining about "a playoff team getting the top pick" that is bad enough already would get 100x worse.

I think a simpler lottery that would get less hate all around would be this:
The bottom 8 teams in point percentage are entered in a lottery for the top 8 picks with equal odds. Then the rest of the teams pick in reverse order.
Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like this would satisfy every side without generating strong opposition.

You would give the Wings 12.5% chance with a 17-49-5 record (.275 P%) to pick 1st, as you do 8th. The same 12.5% chance you give the Canadiens (at the pause of the season) with a 31-31-9 record (.500 P%) to pick first.

That to me is more offensive than the current lottery system. I understand what you are trying to do, but I just don't think that this is the way to get to that point.

We want to achieve something that is fair, but the lottery has warped the minds of people to somehow make all non-playoff teams feel entitled to a shot to pick top 3. So when striving to make it "fair" the proposals are made in bad faith, to keep everyone happy in that instance, but that can never really be achieved. Nobody outside of the bottom 2 or 3 will ever agree to something that weighs the odds more in favor of the bottom 2 or 3 (this includes eliminating the lottery). And the bottom 2 or 3 will never be happy with the odds as they are designed. Considering that there is no balance that keeps everyone happy, there is only one system based in an absolute reality with no subjectivity, and that is a reverse of final standings draft with no lottery.

What you see is what you get. And if you want to remove the incentive to tank, you raise the cap floor, you lower the compensation cost of RFA offer sheets, you reduce the age/service time thresholds for players to hit the UFA market. Instead of the "27 or 7" rule (27 years old or 7 years of service time) you reduce it to the "25 or 5" rule. Players hitting UFA status as early as 23 (for NHL ready draft prospects) or for all players by 25, where a max term deal on the open market literally will buy 7 years of prime hockey.

Remove the incentive to tank by removing the dependency on drafting superstar talent to drive the rebuild.

Edit: the perceived incentive to tank. I don't think teams "tank" as much as they willfully choose to rebuild. Right now the only way is to try to acquire picks when you can, hope for a superstar, and in the meantime, avoid bad contracts. That is going to be viewed as tanking, and if you don't want that, then again, you need to make it feasible to do it in a different manner.

 

[ArmChairGM89]

You would give the Wings 12.5% chance with a 17-49-5 record (.275 P%) to pick 1st, as you do 8th. The same 12.5% chance you give the Canadiens (at the pause of the season) with a 31-31-9 record (.500 P%) to pick first.

That to me is more offensive than the current lottery system. I understand what you are trying to do, but I just don't think that this is the way to get to that point.

We want to achieve something that is fair, but the lottery has warped the minds of people to somehow make all non-playoff teams feel entitled to a shot to pick top 3. So when striving to make it "fair" the proposals are made in bad faith, to keep everyone happy in that instance, but that can never really be achieved. Nobody outside of the bottom 2 or 3 will ever agree to something that weighs the odds more in favor of the bottom 2 or 3 (this includes eliminating the lottery). And the bottom 2 or 3 will never be happy with the odds as they are designed. Considering that there is no balance that keeps everyone happy, there is only one system based in an absolute reality with no subjectivity, and that is a reverse of final standings draft with no lottery.

What you see is what you get. And if you want to remove the incentive to tank, you raise the cap floor, you lower the compensation cost of RFA offer sheets, you reduce the age/service time thresholds for players to hit the UFA market. Instead of the "27 or 7" rule (27 years old or 7 years of service time) you reduce it to the "25 or 5" rule. Players hitting UFA status as early as 23 (for NHL ready draft prospects) or for all players by 25, where a max term deal on the open market literally will buy 7 years of prime hockey.

Remove the incentive to tank by removing the dependency on drafting superstar talent to drive the rebuild.

Edit: the perceived incentive to tank. I don't think teams "tank" as much as they willfully choose to rebuild. Right now the only way is to try to acquire picks when you can, hope for a superstar, and in the meantime, avoid bad contracts. That is going to be viewed as tanking, and if you don't want that, then again, you need to make it feasible to do it in a different manner.

So much truth in this comment.

 

[TheOtherOne]

So Detroit would fall to 8 lmao hell no

You would give the Wings 12.5% chance with a 17-49-5 record (.275 P%) to pick 1st, as you do 8th. The same 12.5% chance you give the Canadiens (at the pause of the season) with a 31-31-9 record (.500 P%) to pick first.

That to me is more offensive than the current lottery system. I understand what you are trying to do, but I just don't think that this is the way to get to that point.

We want to achieve something that is fair, but the lottery has warped the minds of people to somehow make all non-playoff teams feel entitled to a shot to pick top 3. So when striving to make it "fair" the proposals are made in bad faith, to keep everyone happy in that instance, but that can never really be achieved. Nobody outside of the bottom 2 or 3 will ever agree to something that weighs the odds more in favor of the bottom 2 or 3 (this includes eliminating the lottery). And the bottom 2 or 3 will never be happy with the odds as they are designed. Considering that there is no balance that keeps everyone happy, there is only one system based in an absolute reality with no subjectivity, and that is a reverse of final standings draft with no lottery.

What you see is what you get. And if you want to remove the incentive to tank, you raise the cap floor, you lower the compensation cost of RFA offer sheets, you reduce the age/service time thresholds for players to hit the UFA market. Instead of the "27 or 7" rule (27 years old or 7 years of service time) you reduce it to the "25 or 5" rule. Players hitting UFA status as early as 23 (for NHL ready draft prospects) or for all players by 25, where a max term deal on the open market literally will buy 7 years of prime hockey.

Remove the incentive to tank by removing the dependency on drafting superstar talent to drive the rebuild.

Edit: the perceived incentive to tank. I don't think teams "tank" as much as they willfully choose to rebuild. Right now the only way is to try to acquire picks when you can, hope for a superstar, and in the meantime, avoid bad contracts. That is going to be viewed as tanking, and if you don't want that, then again, you need to make it feasible to do it in a different manner.

I hear you and I get your point. I don't agree that it's a problem because:
- All 8 bottom teams are undeniably bad teams and they all need top talent to rebuild.
- And while it may hurt us in an individual year, I think it works out better over time because EVERY year we end up in the bottom 8 we would have a decent chance at #1 (and a 38% chance at a top 3 pick). So right now we would also have an opportunity to improve our team, rise in the standings from dead last to bottom 8, and still have a decent shot at another top 3 pick next year.

Nonetheless, if this is a sticking point for others (and I understand why it may be), I'd also be happy just randomizing the bottom 4 instead (either straight up bottom 4, or last place in each division).

 

[ArmChairGM89]

I hear you and I get your point. I don't agree that it's a problem because:
- All 8 bottom teams are undeniably bad teams and they all need top talent to rebuild.
- And while it may hurt us in an individual year, I think it works out better over time because EVERY year we end up in the bottom 8 we would have a decent chance at #1 (and a 38% chance at a top 3 pick). So right now we would also have an opportunity to improve our team, rise in the standings from dead last to bottom 8, and still have a decent shot at another top 3 pick next year.

Nonetheless, if this is a sticking point for others (and I understand why it may be), I'd also be happy just randomizing the bottom 4 instead (either straight up bottom 4, or last place in each division).

I get your point about still having that top 3 chance as you improve but that is such a huge drop

 

[Henkka]

I wouldn't care to whine about this anymore.

This draft could be the most elite with forward talent, like it was at 2003. Many guys at 4-5-6-7-8-9-10 range could become better than some Top3 forwards at weaker drafts before. And next one seems the same. Moro of defenceman draft with equal options, where lottery win also doesn't matter.

 

[dangledangledeke]

I'll say it. The worst team should get the top pick.

Tanking is a tool that GM's have at their disposal. The idea behind tanking is to speed up your rebuild instead of taking 7+ years of picking in the 4 - 10 range. It shouldn't be penalized because ultimately, if the GM is competent, teams shouldn't be floundering at the bottom. Edmonton was the exception, not the rule. Pittsburgh, Chicago, Washington, Toronto, Tampa Bay. All good examples of teams that used the top picks to propel them out of the bottom of the league.

Look at the last... well forever. There is consistently a top 2-3 in every draft with an elite prospect. Penalizing bad teams by preventing them from getting the elite talent only hurts the bad teams and keeps them at the bottom. It lowers their chance of getting the elite skill necessary to win in the NHL. It's a viscous cycle and looking at the data since the lottery has been implemented only further proves this.

 

[TheOtherOne]

I get your point about still having that top 3 chance as you improve but that is such a huge drop

I don't mean to beat a dead horse but I'd like to expand a little on the philosophy behind my idea.

The way things are currently run, we acknowledge a "worst team in the league", and we give that worst team the best chance to improve for parity.

My philosophy blurs the lines a little more. I think there are playoff teams, there are mediocre teams, and there are bad teams. Within each of those groups, a few extra points are won here and there because of schedules, because of injuries, because of officiating, because of lucky hot streaks and cold streaks, and because of a bunch of other unpredictable circumstances. Essentially, you can't really say "team #28 is objectively better than team #29", but instead you say "teams 28 and 29 are in the same tier, but the former finished higher in the standings for a variety of reasons that are difficult to pin down."

With this in mind, I throw the bottom 8 teams into the blanket "bad teams" category, and give them all an equal chance to improve every year. And the longer you stay in the "bad teams" tier, the more likely it is you can draft a superstar or two.

It's certainly not a perfect description, but I think it's a reasonable working philosophy. But as I said I understand the objections to it as well. Just wanted to clarify my thinking.