NHL proposes lottery draft for non-playoff teams...

[Bnhershy]

You definitely make some sound arguments, but i'm going to have to agree to disagree. the NHL simply has no desire to lose any franchise no matter how poorly run it is or how brutal the market for hockey is. i just don't see the league putting struggling franchises further at risk. in a perfect world, a loser tourney has a lot of benefits like you've stated. but once again, I just don't see it happening anytime soon. not with the current state of the league or what it projects to look like in the next 5 years.

That being said, Rep to you for some very eloquent arguments. (not that you need any :P)

[Filadelphia]

I would follow the loser tourney avidly, it sounds like a fun idea. As a draft eligible rookie it would be especially cool because these established NHL'ers are giving it their all to earn the right to draft them. It would definitely help the team dynamic that some players are destroying [see Schultz, Russia].

However, I can't see the players liking this idea. Would they be paid? Would the league still make money from the tourney if they had to pay the players? If not paid, why would the players agree to put their bodies at risk for nothing but a shortened off-season? This prevents basement teams from tanking but what if an 8th seed team throws a couple games to finish 9th thinking they don't have a chance at the cup. LA could have tanked last year to beat up on Columbus and Edmonton to win Yakupov. As an owner in LA's position it wouldn't make sense to go for the cup. This basically stops basement teams from tanking and instead encourages 10th-6th place teams to tank which has a much more drastic effect on the league.

[Filadelphia]

Also, and this is an entirely different topic but if a team cannot survive because it continues to fail well odds are that's going to happen regardless of getting first overall selections or not

No.

Nordiques with their string of 1st overall picks in 89, 90, and 91 went from 52 points in 91-92 to 104 points in 92-93. From 20 wins to 47 due to drafting Sundin, Noaln, and Lindros first overall. Penguins with Malkin, Crosby, and Fleury turned their franchise around. Oilers with Yakupov, RNH, and Hall are VERY LIKELY to turn their franchise around. Basement teams can turn around with first overall picks, while at the same time, missing out on picks can leave a team in the basement [NYI, CLB, TOR].

[metaldude26]

No.

Nordiques with their string of 1st overall picks in 89, 90, and 91 went from 52 points in 91-92 to 104 points in 92-93. From 20 wins to 47 due to drafting Sundin, Noaln, and Lindros first overall. Penguins with Malkin, Crosby, and Fleury turned their franchise around. Oilers with Yakupov, RNH, and Hall are VERY LIKELY to turn their franchise around. Basement teams can turn around with first overall picks, while at the same time, missing out on picks can leave a team in the basement [NYI, CLB, TOR].

Absolutely teams can turn themselves around with a string of first overall picks but they can also do so without any top picks at all. Look at Nashville. They've had one top five pick in the history of their franchise, which was David Legwand second overall in 1998, their first year in existence. They sucked for a long time since then picking in that 6-10 range for quite some time but they built themselves a formidable franchise with good scouting, smart drafting, great coaching and excellent development.

The Minnesota Wild pulled a similar trick until recently.

The Philadelphia Flyers hit rock bottom in 2006-07, lost the lottery and missed out on Patrick Kane first overall taking JVR instead and having to wait for him but still turned their team around in one off-season because they had previously drafted well and then made some intelligent free agent signings. They haven't looked back since.

Take any recent Stanley Cup winner and you'll probably find a high draft pick or two but you'll also find quite a few unsung heroes who were either free agent pickups, trade acquisitions or late round draft choices. The reality is that there is more than one model to rebuild a franchise. A lot of people seem to think that rebooting things by stripping the team of all the valuable players and getting high picks is the way to go but all high picks ensure you is a better chance at getting good players.

All the high picks in the world can't overcome incompetence though. What happens if the years you decide to tank are lean years where there are no franchise changing talents to be had? What happens if the so called can't miss prospect at the top of the draft falters? What if your franchise somehow screws him up? High picks will never replace the need for good scouting and development. If you scout well at all levels (meaning the NHL too) you will find undervalued or underappreciated players that can become important pieces of your team and you can add them without needing to draft first overall.

I think that the current system for distributing draft choices is a crutch. Teams look at the Pittsburgh "model", the Colorado "model" and they forget that teams can be built in other ways. That you don't need to draft first to rebuild. It's a total cop-out for people who may simply not be all that good at their jobs. I'd rather we didn't offer that crutch or that we forced them to earn it because there is nothing worse than watching your franchise intentionally throw in the towel because "there's always next year". It's as much a smack in the face to the fans as this whole lockout.

[metaldude26]

You definitely make some sound arguments, but i'm going to have to agree to disagree. the NHL simply has no desire to lose any franchise no matter how poorly run it is or how brutal the market for hockey is. i just don't see the league putting struggling franchises further at risk. in a perfect world, a loser tourney has a lot of benefits like you've stated. but once again, I just don't see it happening anytime soon. not with the current state of the league or what it projects to look like in the next 5 years.

That being said, Rep to you for some very eloquent arguments. (not that you need any :P)

I agree with you that the NHL doesn't want to lose any franchises but I simply don't think that having a tournament decide who gets what pick would really be the death of a franchise. Odds are there were many other factors in play that were killing that franchise before the lack of a top pick came into play. That also ignores the fact that there is no saying that team couldn't earn the top pick AND it ignores the fact that this deserving team could lose the top pick either through the current lottery or the new lottery proposed by the NHL.

But I still really don't see how a loser's tournament would cause the death of a franchise because any GM with any sense at all would to take stock of the fact that under a system that doesn't simply reward the top pick to the worst team would make endeavours to improve his team and if you really think that some teams are beyond saving then clearly you've ignored what's occurred in Florida and Phoenix these past couple of years.

If there was to be a casualty of this tournament I'd suspect it would be trade deadline day but that day is already kind of disappointing as is so who knows.

I'd also point out that my vision for what the NHL should be does not involve 30 teams so I am fairly unsympathetic to any line of thinking that says we have to save all these teams.

But I also agree that the NHL would never go for it because they haven't had any outside the box thinking for a long time and that's because they've all got their heads stuck up each others' asses.

[horrorfan]

Interesting idea about a tournament but I do wonder about the players' interest in it - would they want to risk injury just so that the team gets a top pick (as Filadelphia mentioned)? Also, depending on the format, will the tournament also decide who picks 3rd, 4th ... to 14th? How many games would have to be played?

[metaldude26]

Interesting idea about a tournament but I do wonder about the players' interest in it - would they want to risk injury just so that the team gets a top pick (as Filadelphia mentioned)? Also, depending on the format, will the tournament also decide who picks 3rd, 4th ... to 14th? How many games would have to be played?

You could have players rewarded money a la the NHL playoffs. Granted the payout for playoffs is pretty small but you could do this as some incentive. Personally, I think the incentive would be to not finish in "dead last". Also, it would be part of the psychology of it for coaches to have to get their players fired up to play to get a better pick. It would be interesting.

As for how things get decided in terms of 2nd, 3rd, 4th picks etc. well that could go a number of ways. You could still do a lottery based on the regular season standings for the second pick after the winner gets the first or you could go based on tournament finish so if you lose in the finals you pick second if you lose in the semis you pick 3rd or 4th or you could simply have everyone who doesn't win ranked based on regular season finish so only the 1st overall pick would change hands.

[horrorfan]

You could have players rewarded money a la the NHL playoffs. Granted the payout for playoffs is pretty small but you could do this as some incentive. Personally, I think the incentive would be to not finish in "dead last". Also, it would be part of the psychology of it for coaches to have to get their players fired up to play to get a better pick. It would be interesting.

As for how things get decided in terms of 2nd, 3rd, 4th picks etc. well that could go a number of ways. You could still do a lottery based on the regular season standings for the second pick after the winner gets the first or you could go based on tournament finish so if you lose in the finals you pick second if you lose in the semis you pick 3rd or 4th or you could simply have everyone who doesn't win ranked based on regular season finish so only the 1st overall pick would change hands.

I think the fairest way to determine the order is for the tournament to decide it entirely. I don't think they'd agree to having to play a bunch of games just to find out that the regular season standings will still end up deciding your position if you're not amongst the top 3/4 in the tournament. Also, to ensure equal opportunity, you'd probably have to do a full round robin, which would be 13 games. You can't have some teams not playing others, which would ensure that the winner doesn't properly earn it. And then a playoff? It seems like a lot of games to be played, and considering at what stage of the tournament will the majority of teams be out of the running already, so will they want to play any more games?

[metaldude26]

I think the fairest way to determine the order is for the tournament to decide it entirely. I don't think they'd agree to having to play a bunch of games just to find out that the regular season standings will still end up deciding your position if you're not amongst the top 3/4 in the tournament. Also, to ensure equal opportunity, you'd probably have to do a full round robin, which would be 13 games. You can't have some teams not playing others, which would ensure that the winner doesn't properly earn it. And then a playoff? It seems like a lot of games to be played, and considering at what stage of the tournament will the majority of teams be out of the running already, so will they want to play any more games?

Well teams also play a full 82-game season only to have playoffs decide the winner.

But in any case, you'd simply set it up playoff style so the best two non-playoff teams get first round byes and then the math adds up to a full elimination tournament with two teams in the finals at the end. It could be one game, two game or three game series' depending on what you favour.

[horrorfan]

Well teams also play a full 82-game season only to have playoffs decide the winner.

But in any case, you'd simply set it up playoff style so the best two non-playoff teams get first round byes and then the math adds up to a full elimination tournament with two teams in the finals at the end. It could be one game, two game or three game series' depending on what you favour.

I meant a playoff after the full round robin, not in comparison to the real playoffs. So in my scenario that would be 82 + 13 + playoff, which would be too much. That is, if considering the argument that everyone should play each other, but I doubt that would happen since it's too many games.

In your example, by giving the top non-playoff teams a bye, you are giving them a better shot at the top pick already. I don't agree that the two 9th placed teams (arguably) have an easier start to the playoff. The better teams should not be advantaged in this case. Perhaps the two worst teams should have a bye. Or maybe have the format so that the better teams have to play each other first, so that the weaker teams have better odds (by standing) at getting the top pick.

[metaldude26]

I meant a playoff after the full round robin, not in comparison to the real playoffs. So in my scenario that would be 82 + 13 + playoff, which would be too much. That is, if considering the argument that everyone should play each other, but I doubt that would happen since it's too many games.

In your example, by giving the top non-playoff teams a bye, you are giving them a better shot at the top pick already. I don't agree that the two 9th placed teams (arguably) have an easier start to the playoff. The better teams should not be advantaged in this case. Perhaps the two worst teams should have a bye. Or maybe have the format so that the better teams have to play each other first, so that the weaker teams have better odds (by standing) at getting the top pick.

I'm saying no round robin. You seed the teams in a playoff scenario based on regular season finish, therefore teams fight for wins to the very end of the year regardless of standing.

And yes, I do think the better teams should earn an advantage. The point of sports is to win so that should be rewarded. It's the whole point of the tournament from the get-go.

[horrorfan]

I'm saying no round robin. You seed the teams in a playoff scenario based on regular season finish, therefore teams fight for wins to the very end of the year regardless of standing.

And yes, I do think the better teams should earn an advantage. The point of sports is to win so that should be rewarded. It's the whole point of the tournament from the get-go.

Fair enough. In that case, in your scenario the tournament should determine the entire draft order, since the argument of having to earn it should be for everyone. In this case, those that lose in the earlier rounds should go into a consolation bracket or placing games to determine the order. They'd likely have one or two extra games at most.

Anyway, it's an interesting idea worth brainstorming, and certainly would be more exciting than the draft lottery. Food for thought.

[arctic_rogue]

Well teams also play a full 82-game season only to have playoffs decide the winner.

But in any case, you'd simply set it up playoff style so the best two non-playoff teams get first round byes and then the math adds up to a full elimination tournament with two teams in the finals at the end. It could be one game, two game or three game series' depending on what you favour.

Interesting idea for sure. I like the idea of a one game approach. Top teams get a bye while the other teams line up for a 1 game elimination and then run the bracket that way. When it gets down to the finals, run a best of 3.

It would force teams to be as competitive as possible year in year out.

[STONE.]

But in any case, you'd simply set it up playoff style so the best two non-playoff teams get first round byes....

They wouldn't need byes -- don't forget about Quebec City and Toronto 2.0 coming in 2014!

This would be a sweet and completely original idea. If my team missed the playoffs, I'd be excited to watch it. You'd arguably see teams stocking up at the trade deadline in order to compete in this mini-tourney.

If you're gonna do it, do it completely -- have every pick determined this way. Use goals for as the determining factor for those elminated at the same time. Bettman wants more goals; you'd see teams trying to score 9 in round I in order to ensure that if they get knocked out in the second round, they'd still get the best of the consolation picks.

The only problem is it might deter from the first round of the playoffs a bit?

[metaldude26]

They wouldn't need byes -- don't forget about Quebec City and Toronto 2.0 coming in 2014!

This would be a sweet and completely original idea. If my team missed the playoffs, I'd be excited to watch it. You'd arguably see teams stocking up at the trade deadline in order to compete in this mini-tourney.

If you're gonna do it, do it completely -- have every pick determined this way. Use goals for as the determining factor for those elminated at the same time. Bettman wants more goals; you'd see teams trying to score 9 in round I in order to ensure that if they get knocked out in the second round, they'd still get the best of the consolation picks.

The only problem is it might deter from the first round of the playoffs a bit?

You could either delay the playoffs by a week and have the tournament held during that week or you could wait until those nights during the first and second round when most series have wrapped up and therefore the schedule is light/non-existent. It's not perfect but it works.