GDT Coyotes at Sabres 3-26-2015 7PM MSG, WGR

[Hoss]

Which would give a borderline playoff squad an incentive to get to 9th/10th in their conference rather than give a real bad team an incentive to get extremely bad. To my view, that is worse for competitive balance.

Exactly.

 

 

One simple step that I think should be made: tiebreakers. Reverse them. The tiebreaker for a higher pick in the draft should start with whoever got more points head-to-head. Then whoever had more ROWs.

 

If they're going to tinker with the lottery more than they already are for next year make a major change... Something entirely out of the box.

[Neo]

What about a lottery, but only for the bottom three teams? 1/3, 1/3, 1/3? You'd have little reason to tank "every point, all season long" and no reason at all among the really bad. I guess you could have the 4 and 5 teams trying to tank to 3, but I don't see that as a season long commitment for a 33% shot. Just thinkin' out loud ....

 

I believe that putting everyone in the lottery was designed to create a television event and not to maintain competitive balance. It made "securing 30" critical. Did it magnify tanking?

Edited March 28, 2015 by Neo

[stenbaro]

Weber and Team have an easy answer to the fans then, WIN WHEN IT MATTERS. The team sucks and Weber is one of the key elements why....Go away....

[Robviously]

Which would give a borderline playoff squad an incentive to get to 9th/10th in their conference rather than give a real bad team an incentive to get extremely bad. To my view, that is worse for competitive balance.

Couldn't disagree more.  The players on the borderline playoff squad won't care about the draft pick, and is any GM going to pass up a chance to make the playoffs over a 7.1% chance at the first pick?  Of course not.  People's jobs and futures are on the line.

 

Keep in mind how unusual this year is.  We get a Connor McDavid-type player maybe once every 10 years.  A 7.1% chance at the first pick in a normal draft year is nothing to plan around.

 

Plus, let's never forget that this is showbusiness.  Imagine if the NHL held this lottery one hour before the draft: 14 balls in the hopper and you draw 14th overall first, 13th overall second, etc.  Fans in 14 NHL cities would be glued to the TV before the draft even began.

 

And no one would ever cheer against their team.

[Eleven]

I would go with all 14 non-playoff teams having an equal chance. Make it a true lottery. All top 14 draft positions are decided at random.

 

Why not address all of his post?

[Hoss]

I still think they should do "pockets" if they're going to have a lottery. Either groups of 3 or 5 where you can only move through your group, but all picks in each group are up. So you could go 3-2-1 or 1-3-2 or any other combination. Same for each pocket...

 

Something like:

Pocket 1: 1-2-3 with odds at 38-34-28

Pocket 2: 4-5-6 with odds at 38-34-28

And so on...

 

Obviously there's no way to divide 3 into 14 so the last group would be two or you could make the last group five.

Either way I like this model if you must have a lottery.

[TrueBlueGED]

Scrap the lottery entirely and just go back to picking by final place in the standings. No, it doesn't deter tanking, but I really don't care because I don't see it as enough of a problem to offset the effects of lotteries or other systems on league parity. My priority is parity and helping the worst teams get better if at all possible. Our fan base should be especially appreciative of how much it sucks to have a terrible team and still manage to draft 8th instead of 1st. Obviously there are no guarantees, but I'm just totally against a system which makes it more likely bad teams stay bad based on nothing other than luck. 

[Eleven]

I still think they should do "pockets" if they're going to have a lottery. Either groups of 3 or 5 where you can only move through your group, but all picks in each group are up. So you could go 3-2-1 or 1-3-2 or any other combination. Same for each pocket...

 

Something like:

Pocket 1: 1-2-3 with odds at 38-34-28

Pocket 2: 4-5-6 with odds at 38-34-28

And so on...

 

Obviously there's no way to divide 3 into 14 so the last group would be two or you could make the last group five.

Either way I like this model if you must have a lottery.

 

I'm more and more thinking that there's really no need for a lottery at all.   This has nothing to do with this season, McEichel, the misperceived "tank" or anything like that.  It's just silly to have a draft lottery. 

Scrap the lottery entirely and just go back to picking by final place in the standings. No, it doesn't deter tanking, but I really don't care because I don't see it as enough of a problem to offset the effects of lotteries or other systems on league parity. My priority is parity and helping the worst teams get better if at all possible. Our fan base should be especially appreciative of how much it sucks to have a terrible team and still manage to draft 8th instead of 1st. Obviously there are no guarantees, but I'm just totally against a system which makes it more likely bad teams stay bad based on nothing other than luck. 

 

Beat me to it and said it more convincingly.  Jerk.

[Hoss]

There's a reason I kept saying "if" they must have a lottery. If you're going to do it to deter tanking then go all out. Otherwise get rid of the lottery.

[bunomatic]

Scrap the lottery entirely and just go back to picking by final place in the standings. No, it doesn't deter tanking, but I really don't care because I don't see it as enough of a problem to offset the effects of lotteries or other systems on league parity. My priority is parity and helping the worst teams get better if at all possible. Our fan base should be especially appreciative of how much it sucks to have a terrible team and still manage to draft 8th instead of 1st. Obviously there are no guarantees, but I'm just totally against a system which makes it more likely bad teams stay bad based on nothing other than luck. 

I like this. Let the worst team pick first. The only drawbacks are the Edmontons but historically they don't come along very often.

[beerme1]

Scrap the lottery entirely and just go back to picking by final place in the standings. No, it doesn't deter tanking, but I really don't care because I don't see it as enough of a problem to offset the effects of lotteries or other systems on league parity. My priority is parity and helping the worst teams get better if at all possible. Our fan base should be especially appreciative of how much it sucks to have a terrible team and still manage to draft 8th instead of 1st. Obviously there are no guarantees, but I'm just totally against a system which makes it more likely bad teams stay bad based on nothing other than luck. 

 

 

I like this. Let the worst team pick first. The only drawbacks are the Edmontons but historically they don't come along very often.

 

 

I like this also but don't think the Edmontons lol are drawbacks because they have proven the point. Tank every year and still suck. Wow!

In this the year of bizarro world and thinking of the Edmontons and all of their cups compared to none of ours and the current state of each team and how they got to where they are right now, I'm pretty comfortable in my Sabre skin and see no reason why any fan wouldn't be compared to them over the last say ten years. We have competed they have competed. Who has so many first overalls and is languishing. Make your own destiny Buffalos! One Buffalo. This is our decade +

[deluca67]

Why not address all of his post?

How do you argue against made up percentages? I guess I can make up my own percentages, what would really be the point.

Couldn't disagree more.  The players on the borderline playoff squad won't care about the draft pick, and is any GM going to pass up a chance to make the playoffs over a 7.1% chance at the first pick?  Of course not.  People's jobs and futures are on the line.

 

Keep in mind how unusual this year is.  We get a Connor McDavid-type player maybe once every 10 years.  A 7.1% chance at the first pick in a normal draft year is nothing to plan around.

 

Plus, let's never forget that this is showbusiness.  Imagine if the NHL held this lottery one hour before the draft: 14 balls in the hopper and you draw 14th overall first, 13th overall second, etc.  Fans in 14 NHL cities would be glued to the TV before the draft even began.

 

And no one would ever cheer against their team.

To add to this is a team foregoing the millions on dollars in playoff revenue for that 7.1% chance. Teams that finish 9th or 10th are focused on making it to 7th or 8th not drafting 1st or 2nd. It's an invalid and unreasonable concern.

 

The existence of the lottery in it's self is a admittance of a problem by the NHL. The current system today and what will be used next season are nothing more than a token gesture that doesn't sufficiently address the problem. A system needs to be in place to ensure what has happened this season never happens again. The integrity of the drafting process has forever been sullied, it must be addressed.

Edited March 28, 2015 by DeLuca1967

[deluca67]

I like this. Let the worst team pick first. The only drawbacks are the Edmontons but historically they don't come along very often.

Is it really in the best interest of the league to continue to have the worst run teams have the best shot at drafting high end talent? I would offer it doesn't create the parity in the NHL that it was intended to. Draft position doesn't create parity, a quality front office does. Connor McDavid isn't going to turn the Sabres around, Tim Murray is. If Tim Murray fails than what ever Connor McDavid does on the ice will be wasted.

 

Looking at it from a different angle, wouldn't adding top end talent to playoff bubble teams increase the parity quicker than having a high skilled prospect waste away on a bottom feeder? Expanding parity from the top instead of feeding into from the bottom seems like a more efficient way of getting closer to true parity.

[Claude_Verret]

How about instead of citing single variables as the absolute, we acknowledge that it's usually some combination of high drafting, a savvy GM making trades and FA acquisitions, stable ownership and a little luck that creates great teams?

 

If we're interested in true parity and eliminating incentive to tank why not also address the final straw that ultimately led the Sabres down the tank road and create a level free agency playing field? Of course there's no way to do this, but the Sabres have always been playing shorthanded in FA for one reason or another.

[TrueBlueGED]

Is it really in the best interest of the league to continue to have the worst run teams have the best shot at drafting high end talent? I would offer it doesn't create the parity in the NHL that it was intended to. Draft position doesn't create parity, a quality front office does. Connor McDavid isn't going to turn the Sabres around, Tim Murray is. If Tim Murray fails than what ever Connor McDavid does on the ice will be wasted.

 

Looking at it from a different angle, wouldn't adding top end talent to playoff bubble teams increase the parity quicker than having a high skilled prospect waste away on a bottom feeder? Expanding parity from the top instead of feeding into from the bottom seems like a more efficient way of getting closer to true parity.

You're assuming that finishing at the bottom is evidence of incompetence. It may be incompetence, but it also may be luck or incompetence of the previous regime. Why should the current GM be held accountable for the failure of his predecessor? Furthermore, what if a prospect like McDavid busts, in spite of everyone on the planet thinking he'll be a superstar? That's not incompetence, that's bad luck. Tampa Bay drafted 3rd two years ago and now they're a Cup contender. Their GM is the same guy. Has he morphed from incompetent to genius? Should Murray be held accountable for the hand he was dealt by Regier?

 

I could do this all day.

 

Edit: And Claude beat me to it on leveling the playing field elsewhere. Let's not pretend every team has equal resources, which is a contributing factor to where they draft as much as raw competence is.

Edited March 28, 2015 by TrueBluePhD

[deluca67]

You're assuming that finishing at the bottom is evidence of incompetence. It may be incompetence, but it also may be luck or incompetence of the previous regime. Why should the current GM be held accountable for the failure of his predecessor? Furthermore, what if a prospect like McDavid busts, in spite of everyone on the planet thinking he'll be a superstar? That's not incompetence, that's bad luck. Tampa Bay drafted 3rd two years ago and now they're a Cup contender. Their GM is the same guy. Has he morphed from incompetent to genius? Should Murray be held accountable for the hand he was dealt by Regier?

 

I could do this all day.

 

Edit: And Claude beat me to it on leveling the playing field elsewhere. Let's not pretend every team has equal resources, which is a contributing factor to where they draft as much as raw competence is.

Tampa was also a Conference finalist four seasons ago. I would argue Tampa had a strong base than most for a GM to work with.

 

A new GM absolutely inherits and owns the failures of his predecessor. He is brought in to correct past mistakes and change the direction of the team. It's all part of the job. A new GM should not be rewarded for the previous GM's failures. It's up to fans and ownership to give any new GM a free pass, not the NHL.

 

There will always be portion of luck involved no matter what system is used. There will always be a good team that for some bad luck or injuries will end up in the bottom 14, I have no issues with giving that team an equal chance at the best player available in the draft.

 

I could also do this all day. It is much more fun to actually hockey and hypothetical situations than the draining "tank" garbage that has dominated this board for the past two a seasons. A return to actual hockey talk can not come back too soon.

 

If you are an owner in the NHL, where would you rather see Connor McDavid end up, Boston, LA, Dallas or Buffalo, Arizona, Edmonton? For the overall success of the NHL I woudl think consistently putting the best young talent on the worst franchises is bad for business.

Edited March 28, 2015 by DeLuca1967

[carpandean]

A system needs to be in place to ensure what has happened this season never happens again. The integrity of the drafting process has forever been sullied, it must be addressed.

 

This year is exceedingly rare.  The best prospect in 10 years is coming out in combination with another one of the top prospects in the same generation (if not 2nd best, close to it.)  The closest thing to that before was 2004 when Malkin and Ovechkin came out. 

 

Despite all of that, only two teams - Sabres and Coyotes - really made an effort to degrade their on-ice performance through player moves.  The Oilers did a little, but not nearly as much (their best players were much too young), and the Maple Leafs' players have checked out, but I wouldn't accuse their front office of purposefully tanking.

 

We haven't seen anything approaching what just those two teams have done since pre-2004-05 lockout, despite higher odds than what they have now.  This is a perfect (s**t) storm that is unlikely to be repeated even without any changes to the system.

Edited March 28, 2015 by carpandean

[Weave]

I still think they should do "pockets" if they're going to have a lottery. Either groups of 3 or 5 where you can only move through your group, but all picks in each group are up. So you could go 3-2-1 or 1-3-2 or any other combination. Same for each pocket...

 

Something like:

Pocket 1: 1-2-3 with odds at 38-34-28

Pocket 2: 4-5-6 with odds at 38-34-28

And so on...

 

Obviously there's no way to divide 3 into 14 so the last group would be two or you could make the last group five.

Either way I like this model if you must have a lottery.

 

 

Bottom 5 only in the lottery.  Equal odds.  You only get to improve your draft position once every 5 years.

[bunomatic]

Bottom 5 only in the lottery.  Equal odds.  You only get to improve your draft position once every 5 years.

This makes sense. Also what Carp says. Generationals only comes along once in a generation so to me changing the rules is reactionary and so this leagues way of handling things. 

[Stoner]

Reverse order of playoff teams. Number 16 has the best chance, but the Cup champion also gets a shot, albeit a small one. Reward the franchises that are trying to make the playoffs (and do), give them a shot to make it to the elite level. Parity is still achieved. A hand up, not a handout. No rewards for sucking. No tanking. And if you can't make the playoffs in a league where half the teams do, tough. Pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps. (But the 30th place team still picks 17th.) A little progressive, a little conservative.

[Marvelo]

Edited March 28, 2015 by 716

[Claude_Verret]

Reverse order of playoff teams. Number 16 has the best chance, but the Cup champion also gets a shot, albeit a small one. Reward the franchises that are trying to make the playoffs (and do), give them a shot to make it to the elite level. Parity is still achieved. A hand up, not a handout. No rewards for sucking. No tanking. And if you can't make the playoffs in a league where half the teams do, tough. Pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps. (But the 30th place team still picks 17th.) A little progressive, a little conservative.

Sure, let's give the teams that finish at the top a higher salary cap to play with while were at it.

[Stoner]

Sure, let's give the teams that finish at the top a higher salary cap to play with while were at it.

But I'm not really trying to help the rich get richer (or the poor). I'm really trying to help the middle class.

[bunomatic]

But I'm not really trying to help the rich get richer (or the poor). I'm really trying to help the middle class.

Like a true politician. :P

[TrueBlueGED]

Tampa was also a Conference finalist four seasons ago. I would argue Tampa had a strong base than most for a GM to work with.

 

A new GM absolutely inherits and owns the failures of his predecessor. He is brought in to correct past mistakes and change the direction of the team. It's all part of the job. A new GM should not be rewarded for the previous GM's failures. It's up to fans and ownership to give any new GM a free pass, not the NHL.

This is where I stopped reading. Regier gets canned after stripping the franchise to the bones, and you think the fans don't at least deserve some hope in the form of a high pick? That's insanity. And yes, given the league is a business, fans having hope matters. Giving the bottom feeders a high pick is as much about actual parity as it is keeping those fan bases interested and spending money.

But I'm not really trying to help the rich get richer (or the poor). I'm really trying to help the middle class.

You may not be trying to, but you are doing so.