Official 2014 NHL Draft thread

[shrader]

I was relieved to read today that expansion is unlikely to ###### away our top pick(s) in 2015. But then I saw the DBTHB blog suggest that, owing to the McDavid factor, changes could be afoot for the NHL lottery system. Big surprise: The changes aren't expected to benefit teams at the bottom.

 

http://www.diebytheb...-no-coincidence

 

edit: a word that rhymes with "patch" and can mean to swipe something away from someone is barred by the filters? but dick is not?

 

If they seriously want to change the draft process, they need to take that decision out of the hands of the GMs. There is way too much bias there. Of course teams finishing right in the middle of the pack would favor a system that puts more weight to those mid-level teams. We could be quickly heading to a time where they change the rules on a yearly basis based on what kind of players are available and that would be ridiculous. If they seriously want to modify the system, find an impartial source to work on it.

[Robviously]

If they seriously want to change the draft process, they need to take that decision out of the hands of the GMs. There is way too much bias there. Of course teams finishing right in the middle of the pack would favor a system that puts more weight to those mid-level teams. We could be quickly heading to a time where they change the rules on a yearly basis based on what kind of players are available and that would be ridiculous. If they seriously want to modify the system, find an impartial source to work on it.

There should be NO benefit to bottoming out. The first 14 picks of the draft should be completely random among the 14 non-playoff teams. Even if you win zero games all year long, your chance of drafting first overall would still be just 7.1% (1 in 14) -- the same as your chances of drafting 14th overall.

 

Also, this is show business. If they want to make the draft a bigger event and, especially, a TV event, do the lottery for picks 1 through 14 about 90 minutes before the first team is on the clock. (Figure this would leave one hour between all the picks being settled and the beginning of the draft.) How glued to the TV would you be if the show was "The 14th pick goes to _____, the 13th pick goes to ______, the 12th pick....., etc."?

 

It's stupid that the current system basically rewards incompetence (even if that system should benefit us this year).

[shrader]

There should be NO benefit to bottoming out. The first 14 picks of the draft should be completely random among the 14 non-playoff teams. Even if you win zero games all year long, your chance of drafting first overall would still be just 7.1% (1 in 14) -- the same as your chances of drafting 14th overall.

 

Also, this is show business. If they want to make the draft a bigger event and, especially, a TV event, do the lottery for picks 1 through 14 about 90 minutes before the first team is on the clock. (Figure this would leave one hour between all the picks being settled and the beginning of the draft.) How glued to the TV would you be if the show was "The 14th pick goes to _____, the 13th pick goes to ______, the 12th pick....., etc."?

 

It's stupid that the current system basically rewards incompetence (even if that system should benefit us this year).

 

Why are you limiting it to just the non-playoff teams though? As long as it is based on the standings in any form, there is still going to be some level of rewarding incompetence. I personally have no problem with things the way they are today. If they want parity, this is the only way they're going to get there. I don't think removing the incentive to tank is really going to make teams try all that much harder to improve.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I'm not convinced that the NHL wants true parity. There always seems to be a group of 5 "elite" teams (and it seems the same 5 pretty much each year). Then a middle group of 20 teams, again pretty much the same ones each year. And then a group of 5 "crappy" teams.

 

The draft structure is not the only way to work towards parity, although it is a pretty good way. The cap, IMO, was viewed as a way to parity too, but it is kind of a flawed thought.

 

Look at Edmonton. They have drafted the best (?) talent in many of the most recent drafts and they are only slightly better than the Sabres this season. I think we all know the reason why that is.

[Hoss]

 

There should be NO benefit to bottoming out. The first 14 picks of the draft should be completely random among the 14 non-playoff teams. Even if you win zero games all year long, your chance of drafting first overall would still be just 7.1% (1 in 14) -- the same as your chances of drafting 14th overall.

 

Also, this is show business. If they want to make the draft a bigger event and, especially, a TV event, do the lottery for picks 1 through 14 about 90 minutes before the first team is on the clock. (Figure this would leave one hour between all the picks being settled and the beginning of the draft.) How glued to the TV would you be if the show was "The 14th pick goes to _____, the 13th pick goes to ______, the 12th pick....., etc."?

 

It's stupid that the current system basically rewards incompetence (even if that system should benefit us this year).

 

It's called parity. They want parity and it's working EXTREMELY well.

[WildCard]

 

 

It's called parity. They want parity and it's working EXTREMELY well.

agreed. There are those top 5 teams but remember they were terrible for a long time. There are plenty of cases where a last place team(avalanche, Montreal, Tampa, etc. ) have gone from bad to an immediate contender because of this drafting format. Personally, I like it

[Robviously]

Why are you limiting it to just the non-playoff teams though? As long as it is based on the standings in any form, there is still going to be some level of rewarding incompetence. I personally have no problem with things the way they are today. If they want parity, this is the only way they're going to get there. I don't think removing the incentive to tank is really going to make teams try all that much harder to improve.

I'd be fine making the entire first round random. We shouldn't incentivize failure in any way. And if we want to give struggling frachises a leg up, that can happen in the later rounds.

It's called parity. They want parity and it's working EXTREMELY well.

Both of you mentioned parity. Is it really working "EXTREMELY well"? The same franchises are either competent or incompetent year-in and year-out. Some teams bottom out one year and don't need to do it again for 10 seasons; then there's Edmonton or NYI.

 

Wouldn't the league be better if every team only wanted to win every single game and there were no mixed incentives. We're facing an off-season where we are openly talking about the Sabres only spending enough money to get to the cap floor (and to do so by signing over the hill veterans) because we WANT TO LOSE next season. Is that what sports should be about? That's sad.

 

Would it be fair if a team won the Stanley Cup in June and then also landed the first overall pick through a randomly generated first round? Nope. But it's not really fair now either. The "reward" for only being good enough to make the playoffs but not contend is to draft in the no man's land of no.11 to 20. I don't want to punish those teams any more than I want to reward the incompetent teams.

 

agreed. There are those top 5 teams but remember they were terrible for a long time. There are plenty of cases where a last place team(avalanche, Montreal, Tampa, etc. ) have gone from bad to an immediate contender because of this drafting format. Personally, I like it

The Habs drafted 3rd overall (Galchenyuk) in 2012 and made the playoffs last year. But it wasn't *because* of Galchenyuk. Same with Columbus. They took Ryan Murray 2nd that year and they're a good team now -- only Ryan Murray isn't the reason for that (yet).

 

These are teams that turned it around without relying on those very top picks.

 

I've spent years on this board saying that bottoming out helps. It does. But it's NOT the only way to win and it shouldn't be the a strategy for getting better. Unfortunately, losing on purpose actually IS a good strategy in this league. I'd rather it wasn't and teams had to act like Montreal and Columbus have.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Robviously

[shrader]

Both of you mentioned parity. Is it really working "EXTREMELY well"? The same franchises are either competent or incompetent year-in and year-out. Some teams bottom out one year and don't need to do it again for 10 seasons; then there's Edmonton or NYI.

 

Outside of those obvious suspects like the ones you mentioned, the standings do seem to fluctuate quite a bit from year to year. They playoffs teams turn over pretty well from year to year. Since 2010, the only teams to not make the playoffs are Carolina, WInnipeg, Columbus, Dallas, Calgary, and Edmonton. Most of that list falls directly under the incompetent management label. Sure, a lot of teams make the playoffs each season, but making that cut does seem reasonable as the line for calling a team competitive.

[Hoss]

In the NHL only three teams have playoff droughts of five seasons or longer.

The NFL has eight.

The NBA five but uses a lottery draft system.

The MLB has nine (including two over 20).

 

Not saying that's 100% proof, but that's part of it.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Tankalicious

[Assquatch]

Draft order should be alphabetical by team nickname.

[WildCard]

Draft order should be alphabetical by team nickname.

My vote is to be called the Asshats then Edited March 13, 2014 by WildCard

[Robviously]

In the NHL only three teams have playoff droughts of five seasons or longer.

The NFL has eight.

The NBA five but uses a lottery draft system.

The MLB has nine (including two over 20).

 

Not saying that's 100% proof, but that's part of it.

Well, this is a wildly flimsy point.

 

1. The sports themselves are wildly different. The size of the roster, the number of players on the field/court/ice at a time, the relative importance of stars vs depth, relative importance of specific positions, etc.

 

2. Each league's playoff system is completely different. A majority of teams make the playoffs in the NHL.

 

3. The players being drafted are completely different. MLB is 18 year olds and college juniors/seniors. NFL is college players. NHL is 18 year olds. The NBA is guys with at least one year of college. So how close each athlete is to their prime at the day they're drafted is different.

[Hoss]

Sure. They're different so they use different methods of trying to create parity. The NHL's method is working the most (based on those stats).

 

But since the argument is that we can only judge the NHL's parity is to judge the NHL on its own completely... How do you suppose we do this?

 

It'd be tough. You could say 10 teams have won the last 13 championships which is a good variety. But compared to what? Older championships where there weren't nearly as many teams?

 

I guess, if we can't compare to other leagues, there is no way to say whether or not the NHL has actual parity.

 

 

If I could find that picture of teams picking first overall in recent years and how many years it took them to make the playoffs, would that apply? Because it's a pretty strong indicator...

 

Or I could list them...

 

2013 Colorado Avalanche made the playoffs the next season (this year).

2010 Edmonton Oilers have picked first overall three years and haven't made the playoffs yet.

2009 New York Islanders made the playoffs last year so that's four seasons.

2008 Tampa Bay Lightning made the playoffs three years later.

2007 Chicago Blackhawks made the playoffs in the second year afterwards.

2006 St. Louis Blues made the playoffs three years later.

2005 Pittsburgh Penguins made the playoffs in the second season after.

2004 Washington Capitals made the playoffs in the third season after.

 

 

So, with the exception of the Oilers, the lottery system has worked well for seven teams going back to 2004. Could go back farther, but I think you get the point.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Tankalicious

[Derrico]

In the NHL only three teams have playoff droughts of five seasons or longer.

The NFL has eight.

The NBA five but uses a lottery draft system.

The MLB has nine (including two over 20).

 

Not saying that's 100% proof, but that's part of it.

 

All of the sports teams I cheer for in each of the leagues mentioned are on that list (Sabres, Bills, Raptors, Blue Jays). :cry: :doh: Why God?? Why?!?!

[Assquatch]

Someone on WGR (probably Schopp) floated the idea of draft order being determined by points earned after mathematical playoff elimination. This should lead to every team trying to win every game, while still awarding the highest draft choices to the teams that need them most.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

All of the sports teams I cheer for in each of the leagues mentioned are on that list (Sabres, Bills, Raptors, Blue Jays). :cry: :doh: Why God?? Why?!?!

 

Well, at least the Raptors look pretty good right now to be the 3 seed in the East, which doesn't mean a whole lot except that they will be off that list.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Sabres Fan In NS

[Assquatch]

My vote is to be called the Asshats then

 

You'll draft second after my Aardvarks then.

[Weave]

Someone on WGR (probably Schopp) floated the idea of draft order being determined by points earned after mathematical playoff elimination. This should lead to every team trying to win every game, while still awarding the highest draft choices to the teams that need them most.

 

My initial reaction is, I like that concept.

[Assquatch]

The Sabres would do well in such a system with their recent history of late season runs of accruing meaningless points.

[Hoss]

All of the sports teams I cheer for in each of the leagues mentioned are on that list (Sabres, Bills, Raptors, Blue Jays). :cry: :doh: Why God?? Why?!?!

 

Sabres actually only have a four year drought currently. About to be five.

[Robviously]

Sure. They're different so they use different methods of trying to create parity. The NHL's method is working the most (based on those stats).

 

But since the argument is that we can only judge the NHL's parity is to judge the NHL on its own completely... How do you suppose we do this?

 

It'd be tough. You could say 10 teams have won the last 13 championships which is a good variety. But compared to what? Older championships where there weren't nearly as many teams?

 

I guess, if we can't compare to other leagues, there is no way to say whether or not the NHL has actual parity.

 

 

If I could find that picture of teams picking first overall in recent years and how many years it took them to make the playoffs, would that apply? Because it's a pretty strong indicator...

 

Or I could list them...

 

2013 Colorado Avalanche made the playoffs the next season (this year).

2010 Edmonton Oilers have picked first overall three years and haven't made the playoffs yet.

2009 New York Islanders made the playoffs last year so that's four seasons.

2008 Tampa Bay Lightning made the playoffs three years later.

2007 Chicago Blackhawks made the playoffs in the second year afterwards.

2006 St. Louis Blues made the playoffs three years later.

2005 Pittsburgh Penguins made the playoffs in the second season after.

2004 Washington Capitals made the playoffs in the third season after.

 

 

So, with the exception of the Oilers, the lottery system has worked well for seven teams going back to 2004. Could go back farther, but I think you get the point.

If you can draft 1st overall last year and make the playoffs this year, I think that's actually an argument that that franchise (the Avalanche) actually didn't *need* to draft first overall to turn it around. Unless you're saying Nathan McKinnon is the main reason they're suddenly good now.

 

Same with Montreal drafting 3rd in 2012 and making the playoffs last year. Same with Columbus drafting 2nd in 2012, just missing last year, and making it this year.

 

I'm sure it helps even out the league, but unless you're talking about a Crosby or Ovechkin, it doesn't magically make a joke franchise legit. Sometimes it just lands high picks with joke franchises. And incentivizes those joke franchises to stay terrible.

 

What about the other points? How this rewards failure. How it makes fans cheer against their own teams. How this actually punishes middle of the road teams trying to take the next step. Teams like the Sabres literally hurt their future by trying to take late runs at the playoffs. Is that a good system to you?

[Hoss]

That WGR idea is absolutely terrible. Depends too much on what division/conference you're in. If the last playoff spot in the East is worth ten points less than that in the West it would be completely unfair.

 

I'm sure it helps even out the league, but unless you're talking about a Crosby or Ovechkin, it doesn't magically make a joke franchise legit.

 

Or a McDavid...

 

What about the other points? How this rewards failure. How it makes fans cheer against their own teams. How this actually punishes middle of the road teams trying to take the next step. Teams like the Sabres literally hurt their future by trying to take late runs at the playoffs. Is that a good system to you?

 

The draft lottery it meant for parity and to keep bad markets from never getting great players. There are some markets (Buffalo included) that great players aren't going to willingly join. The draft lottery helps change that.

 

It doesn't "punish" anybody.

[Weave]

That WGR idea is absolutely terrible. Depends too much on what division/conference you're in. If the last playoff spot in the East is worth ten points less than that in the West it would be completely unfair.

 

 

I think the general idea is worth discussion. Maybe it doesn't have to be all non-playoff teams. Maybe it is just the bottom 10. Maybe you use points generated post-trade deadline to seed the draft order. I could readily be sold on the idea of something changing to encourage competition instead of encouraging a tank.

[shrader]

The draft lottery it meant for parity and to keep bad markets from never getting great players. There are some markets (Buffalo included) that great players aren't going to willingly join. The draft lottery helps change that.

 

This whole statement is a bit of a head scratcher. It's not the lottery that does these things but the draft itself.

[Claude_Verret]

We are lucky as Sabres fans to even have the tank option, for the soft hockey markets an outright tank is completely out of the question. Can you imagine if the Canes decided to be brutal on purpose? They have enough problems getting 10k people into their barn as a middling team.