Given the embarrassing appearance of a handful of NHL clubs seemingly “tanking the season” to improve their odds of winning the draft lottery, some observers suggest doing away with the draft. Here’s why that’s a bad idea.
First, there’s the blatantly obvious: abolishing the draft will never happen under NHL commissioner Gary Bettman’s watch, nor that of his hand-picked eventual successor Bill Daly. Second, the NHL draft has been around for over 50 years, and in its current form (apart from a few tweaks over the decades) since the early 1970s. It’s now an indelible part of the league. Third, and most importantly, it’s a key pillar for building a roster and ensuring parity among NHL teams.
The NHL Draft should be improved, not abolished.
Landing the top available young prospects via the draft doesn’t guarantee franchise success, as current fans of the Edmonton Oilers can attest. But, in the hands of capable management (especially the scouting department), the draft can certainly help a struggling team acquire young talent upon which to build a potential championship roster. The Detroit Red Wings, Pittsburgh Penguins, Chicago Blackhawks and Los Angeles Kings are recent examples of teams which became Stanley Cup champions in part because of their solid draft records.
That’s not to suggest the draft doesn’t have its flaws. There’s the perception the current format rewards failure and is too heavily favors the worst teams. Critics suggest the way the draft lottery is weighted doesn’t go far enough to discourage tanking. Indeed, some argue the draft only encourages rebuilding teams to tank. It’s been suggested top picks are wasted on poorly managed teams (sorry, Oilers fans, but your team has become Exhibit A in that argument). Some suggest the draft punishes successful teams by forcing them to pick lower in the draft order.
Some of the complaints are valid, and some are just whining (especially the “punishes the successful teams” argument). The fact is, the draft is a necessary way to ensure a measure of parity among NHL teams.
Before the implementation of the NHL draft, promising young players were signed to contracts which essentially bound those players to their NHL teams for life or until traded or released from their deals. It also resulted in a form of regionalism, whereby the best Quebec-born players belonged to the Montreal Canadiens and the top Ontario-born players to the Toronto Maple Leafs almost by divine right. Little wonder the Original Six era was dominated by those two teams from 1946 to 1967.
It’s been suggested the NHL do away with the draft and simply resort to free agency, allowing the young prospects to sign with whatever team they want. The salary cap, of course, ensures there won’t be any contract bidding wars for rookies, so such a system would essentially come down to prospects signing with their favorite NHL teams.
The problem with that, however, is it creates a significant imbalance among the 30 NHL clubs. It puts less-popular clubs at a distinct disadvantage, creating what would essentially be a two-tiered league of perennially-dominant franchises and those with slim hopes for success. Sure, it’s great if you’re a fan of one of those dominant franchises, but not so much if you’re a fan of a less-popular one.
Toronto Maple Leafs fans were excited when Eric Otters center Connor McDavid, considered by most observers the NHL’s next great young superstar, said it would be a dream come true if he got drafted by the Leafs. If you’re a Leafs fan, right now you’d probably prefer a system whereby a top prospect like McDavid could choose where he wanted to play.
But what if McDavid was a fan of the New York Rangers? Under a free-agent system, the currently-moribund Leafs could forget about any opportunity to land this kid because his heart would be set on joining the Rangers. The league’s worst teams wouldn’t stand a chance of landing a potential franchise player.
Just because a team lands one of the top young prospects via the draft doesn’t mean they’re automatically going to be Cup contenders as a result. The draft is just one option for building a successful roster. Trades and free agency are every bit as important.
Even with the draft in this current form weighted in favor of bad teams, it’s still largely a crapshoot, especially beyond the top-10 in the first round. NHL draft history is littered with first-round draft busts and superstars selected in the later rounds. Ultimately, it still comes down to the strength of a team’s scouting department, and even then they need some luck on their side.
Perhaps the best solution to prevent the notion of “tanking” is to allow every team which doesn’t make the playoffs an equal shot of winning the draft lottery. Maybe the lottery should be conducted among the 14 non-playoff club for each of the first fourteen picks in the first round, after which subsequent rounds will be determined by placement in the standings.
The league will undoubtedly continue tweaking the draft lottery system to avoid the embarrassing perception of teams throwing the season to improve their lottery odds. Don’t expect them to abolish a system which, despite its flaws, continues to contribute to league parity.
I can see some compromise where the bottom 5 teams will all have x% followed by the next 5 as a group with y% followed by the final 4 at z% chance at winning the first overall pick. This way you give bottom feeding teams the same chance at top pick then lessen the odds for bubble teams but not alienating the teams which are neither.
Here’s an idea that may work. Have all 30 teams have balls for the lottery, with the non-playoff teams having 2 balls each. At the entry draft itself, have the lottery take place before each selection for the first 45 picks.
This way, it is possible for a team to have 2 terrific picks in the top 10, possibly even the top 2 picks which would fast-track their rebuild. Conversely, with the luck of the draw, there would be no guarantee that a lousy team would even get a half-decent high pick.
As an added benefit, a Stanley Cup winning team would have a 2% chance or so of landing the first overall pick.
This system would guarantee a lower chance of tanking as the difference from a draft perspective from top to bottom is one ball.
Not to mention the legal/labor aspects. It is a key part of the CBA — a negotiated instrument between the teams and players.
There would be many lawsuits — in two countries — if there was just a free agency system as with a draft there are many rules that provide guidance as to the whys and hows and whos and whens.
I like the idea of giving teams a certain number of balls. I think the best way would be to use the ball system for EACH of the non playoff picks, however worse teams get more balls.
For example, let’s say 30th gets 4, 29th and 28th 3, 27th and 26th 2, and the rest get one.
That would result in a first pick chance of 16.6% for 30th, 12.5% for 29th & 28th, 8.3 for 27th and 26th, and 4.2 for the rest.
If say the 26th team wins the first overal pick, their remaining ball is taken out, resulting in increased odds for everyone at the second pick, but more noticeably the lower teams. For example the 30th team would now have a 18% chance at the second pick.
Just to elaborate once more, let’s say the team in 29th wins the second pick. The other 2 balls belonging to them would be removed. This once again increases the odds for the other teams at pick #3. The 30th team would now have a 21% chance for example.
This system has too much uncertainty for teams to tank, but still gives worse teams better odds to recieve a high draft.
My brother and I have discussed this topic for a few years.
What if they reversed the current system ? The team closest to making the playoffs but missed it takes precedent over being 30th. Thus , the 17th place team would have the greater chance at 1st overall , then the 16th , 15th , etc. This would discourage tanking right away , and in a way deter teams from doing what Buffalo has done and encourage unlikely runs and great efforts like we have seen from the Senators and Flames this year.
I think this solves the issue in one simple adjustment , and tanking is gone forever.
The problem with any non random system is it just encourages a different form of tanking. If the best odds go to the 17th place team you could see a team throw the last game of a season, preferring to have the best shot at a franchise player over squeaking into the playoffs and losing in round one. If you do it based on how many points a team earns after they ve been eliminated, you would have seen the senators start tanking in February so they could get eliminated sooner and thus have a better chance to get a top pick. No draft would remove tanking but would mean LA and NY gets all the best players while Columbus gets the left overs. The only way I can see that would be fair and eliminate tanking would be something like the idea the NBA had for a wheel. Each team gets the number one pick once every thirty years. Though personally I hate that too. Probably doing a lottery for the first 3 or 5 draft picks is the best we can hope for.
No team in their right mind is going to throw games to miss the playoffs if they truly think they have a chance of making it in , there is too much money involved.
Even if there is a team or two that would , it would not be as flagrant and pathetic as we have seen this season.
Or just say to hell with it , all teams get one ball and draw them out each year like a bingo game.
This has its pitfalls, as well. You don’t think teams would position themselves at the end of the season to finish just out of the playoff spot? Sure, it wouldn’t be an issue til the last few games, but if management knew it was either between sneaking in as the last team (which rarely leads to success outside the 2012 Kings) or getting a generational talent like McDavid, they will make sure they “blow” those last couple games. Even if management (for some strange reason) didn’t, you’d have fans clamoring for their teams to lose that last regular season game to MISS the playoffs. I know I’d do it for my team. One quick playoff run vs. having a franchise cornerstone for 15 years that makes my team relevant each and every year? No brainer
FYI the Oilers suck because of management, not the draft. Take a look at the Oilers now without Eakins and see their record. Nelson with Hall in the line up has a record of 10 – 5 – 4 or something like that. Building through the draft works, its just the management of the oilers that doesnt. There should be a draft for management as well as players that way the Oilers would be playing for the playoffs and not for pride.
It’s too bad that the reforms in the draft lottery for 2016 aren’t in effect this year – that is, the top three picks are up for grabs rather than just the first pick. Can you imagine if every lottery team had a shot at both McDavid and/or Eichel and/or another top prospect?
After using the draft lottery simulator daily for a week or two now, I fully expect the first pick to go to a team not named Sabres or Oilers. The 2016 lottery will be even more unpredictable.
The long-term solution of course is to apply the weighted lottery to all picks for non-playoff teams.