Trading off players for multiple draft picks

[Disturbed]

In the GEFL 2 there is a discussion going on about trading away players for multiple picks, loading up on 1sts, and then building a team that way.

It came up during a roll call thread, here are some quotes. (just for reference this is a Historical league that it is in the 1974 season) Nemesis and myself were interested to see what the general community felt on this topic.

Trying to maintain interest, despite teams with 3 or 4 first round picks each draft making things unrealistic in an already thin talent pool

I don't plan on getting into a war of words on this subject, but what I think people tend forget about teams who have multiple 1st round picks is that they had to get those picks somehow. Detroit gave up 2 first round worthy WRs (which seems fair to me), Minnesota gave up a 1st round RB (without looking, I'm not sure how they got the other 1st rounders).

Point is, just because they have more than one 1st round pick, just remember what they're now missing as a result.


Its the same problem in many leagues
A GM takes a team and deals off good players to stockpile Picks, and then as he is drafting players...he always deals a pick or two into the future so that he always has an extra 1st or so....in the meantime his own 1st is almost guaranteed to be a top 10 pick and he can deal down and add additional picks from that pick. This goes on for 3 or 4 seasons and then theres a dynasty for 10 or more seasons.
While many teams are using starters that are rated in the 30s, these teams eventually have so many stars on them its like playing Fantasy Football.
In this particular case we have how many Open teams? add in the very thin talent pool and now have some teams with multiple 1sts for 3 or 4 seasons in a row and the ability to compete disappears for some teams.

I'm missing the argument here. I'm in both types of leagues and see multiple 1st's thrown around to a few teams just as ----- is talking about in all of them. Any league you get in, teams will build certain ways. I've been looking for a stud WR for 3-4 seasons, but I know there are only going to be one or two tops in each draft until the late 70's, which is due to the transition to QBs and the passing game. Getting back to the thread. I'm ready for '74, let's just play ball here.

If I understand well, the argument is that some owners like ------ and myself (I hope there are others but I doubt) like to see a more "realistic way" to approach the construction of a team. It's impossible in reality for a GM to take a team and destroy it to accumulate picks. They say "rebuilding" but for me this is "legal tanking" because you are playing to lose but with the alibi of the poor roster. I see the same GMs who use this strategy go around for forum and talk about "I like to see more realism in the simulation". Eh Eh ...
Frustration? Of course. I like to fight on equal terms (based on realism) but I know that all are free to play like they want if is not against the rules.

I understand it can be frustrating when people do it but on the flip side..

if someone is coming in and taking over a team, I always expect them to blow it up because it is a lot more fun for most owners to have "their" players. I've had this discussion with several owners and most agree with me that they would prefer to blow things up so they can draft the kind of players they like in a quick rebuild instead of waiting for several seasons to build the team they would like.

I agree with Disturbed's point. I just took over the Falcons and we happened to have the top pick that very same off-season so I was lucky enough to get Fouts but had a mediocre roster otherwise. When I look into joining a league I look for teams with limited talent and the ability to build as then I am not just showing up and winning with a team that was built for me already.

The obvious solution to not allowing owners to scrap their players for multiple draft choices is to not trade draft picks for veterans. Clearly, if your team is close to competing, in your mind, you are willing to pull a trade for a pick (assumed to be later in round 1) to acquire an impact player that may put you over the top. I don't see why this would be such a horrible thing.

this is just part of it.. if you want to read the whole thread that is jumbled between roll call and this discussion feel free to at ..

1974 Roll Call (http://www.fof-gefl2.com/forums/showthread.php?1148-1974-Roll-Call)

[Disturbed]

My team there is one of the teams that they are talking about.

I had Fran Tarkenton and a 2nd year OJ Simpson, both the highest rated players at their positions I believe. I decided I was bored with the typical load up on offense way of building a team so I traded them off for lots of picks.

With those picks I've drafted mostly Oline and a few defensive players, trying to build a team that way to see if I can win long term with it. I know I can win with the QB/RB/WR/ trio or the QB/WR/WR.. so why not try another way and load up on picks to make it a quick build?

[Prinzar]

I've always wanted the option to fire GMs for continued poor performance, and this destroying a team usually leads to that.
Taking an ageing 9-7 team and going 2-14 should mean you lose the job, not get rewarded over and over for "legal tanking" as a quote says.

How many times in real life has a team had 3+ firsts?

[Disturbed]

On the firing part..

I would love to see a league that did that.. and then was able to keep a full 32 owners long term. It would be a fun and different approach to the game!

As far as the 3+ firsts... you can't compare FOF trading to real life trading. Players like Randy Moss have been traded for a 4th rounder. Prices in the NFL are generally much lower than what the going prices of players are in FOF.

[Nemesis]

How many times in real life has a team had 3+ firsts?

In 2001, the St Louis Rams had 3 firsts. That's the most recent that I can remember.

[Disturbed]

In 2001, the St Louis Rams had 3 firsts. That's the most recent that I can remember.

Actually 2013 (this year) Minnesota had 3.

[weboes]

I have talked to a couple people about my idea for a league where gms get fired. My thought was if you dont have a winning season in like 3 or 4 years you would be fired from your team. Since leagues are never full and most people wouldnt want to be booted from a league you would be able to move to another team after being fired.

[weboes]

In 2001, the St Louis Rams had 3 firsts. That's the most recent that I can remember.

Jets had 4 in that draft where they took Chad Pettigan. Two they got from TB in the Keshawn trade.

[scorp]

I an owner trades away first round caliber players for future firsts and has several 1sts I don't really see an issue with that.

Yes in the NFL the HC and GM would likely be fired before using the picks, but in FOF we are really more an owner like Jerry Jones who plays GM, and he won't fire himself.

Also in the NFL you have teams like the Pats that almost always have extra 1st and 2nd round picks, the trade down or out for future picks. As long as the team wins or the fanbase is happy its ok.

[isaccoubaldi]

Another example is the team who goes 0-4 in regular season and after that, and before deadline, sells all the good players except the star QB or the star WR to stockpile 1st round pick plus the 1st they gain because they will lose all the remaining games. Why no one says this is a form of tanking? It's possible in reality to do this?

[weboes]

I an owner trades away first round caliber players for future firsts and has several 1sts I don't really see an issue with that.

Yes in the NFL the HC and GM would likely be fired before using the picks, but in FOF we are really more an owner like Jerry Jones who plays GM, and he won't fire himself.

Also in the NFL you have teams like the Pats that almost always have extra 1st and 2nd round picks, the trade down or out for future picks. As long as the team wins or the fanbase is happy its ok.

You said it before I could. I think we are all more owner than gm in these leagues. One of the reasons teams wont start a rebuild in real life is the gm/coaches know they wont be around to see the turn around. So you get teams that need to rebuild signing old guys to try and stay around .500 so they can get a paycheck another year. I also think people bring a baseball/moneyball mentality to leagues. Why hold onto a player after his value starts to fall if you arent in a position to win a title?Older guys get traded off all the time in baseball.

[weboes]

Another example is the team who goes 0-4 in regular season and after that, and before deadline, sells all the good players except the star QB or the star WR to stockpile 1st round pick plus the 1st they gain because they will lose all the remaining games. Why no one says this is a form of tanking? It's possible in reality to do this?

Cowboys started bad in Jimmy Johnsons first year so he traded Walker.

[weboes]

My team there is one of the teams that they are talking about.

I had Fran Tarkenton and a 2nd year OJ Simpson, both the highest rated players at their positions I believe. I decided I was bored with the typical load up on offense way of building a team so I traded them off for lots of picks.

With those picks I've drafted mostly Oline and a few defensive players, trying to build a team that way to see if I can win long term with it. I know I can win with the QB/RB/WR/ trio or the QB/WR/WR.. so why not try another way and load up on picks to make it a quick build?

With OJ you gave me 3 or 4 first to move up to get him. So its not as though you were flipping a guy who you got for cheap. I think you ended up getting less than you gave me.

[aston217]

I'll chip in since in my leagues I typically have multiple extra 1s and 2s in multiple years in the future on winning teams with consistently #1 roster ratings, or close to it. I do this by accumulating an extra one somehow -- some quality guard, end, linebacker, etc that I don't want to give an expensive 2nd contract to --and then deferring picks in the draft whenever I can to hang on to the spare part(s) in perpetuity.

Drafting can really help, but if you take 2-3 players in round 1 in one year, you're losing important flexibility. I'm a Patriots fan so my whole thing has always been to play pretend Belicheck in this area. Ammo is important for the long-term health of your roster, and no healthy roster should require multiple round 1s routinely. (I'm not opposed to doing this, but typically only if I still have the future ammo anyway -- if you trade a 60s T/DE/LB for a 1st and then use that first to draft another T/DE/LB, what have you done, really?).

Building a team is all about balancing the long vs the short term. Where you draw the line is the question, because I agree that it can tip too much in one direction. On the other hand, not focusing EXCLUSIVELY on the short term isn't tanking, because with the value of draft picks any GM should be mindful about maintaining an adequate stockpile, if they can, and only deviating from that if it's really worth it.

It's entirely possible to win a great deal and still obtain an obscene stockpile, because teams with good rosters rarely are going to need to make all their picks (and would be wise not to; don't get too old at once). In FOF, there's less turnover than in the NFL, and less 'misses' from the draft (if drafted well). Playoff bound teams will value 60-rated non-impact players more than you'll miss them; you can accumulate, accumulate, accumulate, and eventually burn through the ammo for an impact player, winning all the while.

I can see how that's frustrating but I've always thought of it as just good asset management, which is all GMing is. Knowing how and when to use your top picks, and on what. I suppose you could ban trading altogether, largely to save people from themselves. Competitive balance wise, that may not be a bad idea, but most players enjoy trading too much. I know I do, and while I'm OK with the idea these days, there was a time when I was more into this game and that would've been an outrageous thought to me.

Conversely, teams that tank to do this might get more top picks and impact players, but they also need to use more of their picks over the years to fill all the holes they created elsewhere. It's a trade off that people will try, but I don't understand why, since it seems like a lot of losing just to get back to the middle of the pack unless you're lucky. As in real life, I think it's (largely?) true that tankers just don't win.

In the end: I think no amount of instituted rules is going to stop a very good GM. The best tool we have for evening the playing field is an extremely open community that shares all of both our knowledge about how the game works, and strategies for how to play GM (drafting, trading, etc). Places like FOFC should get a lot of credit in this regard.

[aston217]

Actually 2013 (this year) Minnesota had 3.

They sort of had three. They had two to start with and traded in to get their third one without giving up any future picks.

I know there was one year the Patriots had 2 1's, and four 2's. There's been more than one year where they've had similar, including the year they inherited the #7 pick from Oakland for trading Richard Seymour. I think they might've started with 3 2's that year.

They even had a first round pick confiscated by the league through all of this.

[isaccoubaldi]

In the end: I think no amount of instituted rules is going to stop a very good GM. The best tool we have for evening the playing field is an extremely open community that shares all of both our knowledge about how the game works, and strategies for how to play GM (drafting, trading, etc). Places like FOFC should get a lot of credit in this regard.

+1. I'm with Aston on this. And even if it seems that I'm very interested on this topic in reality I'm more permissive and in the end I think all the strategy is good if they are not against the League rules. All are free to play like they want but, at the same time, all are free to say what they think ...

[Disturbed]

Nemesis and I have talked a bit and we both believe that some people just have decided that I tank and no matter what I do , I'm trying to tank.

It makes me laugh really to know how stupid that is though. Anyone who truly knows me knows the truth.

[Hammer]

I might be wrong Tim, but was it you that said you weren't that bothered about winning? Sorry if it wasn't. But it demotivated me whoever said it. I want to play people who are as hungry to win as I am. No point in me trying against someone who isn't giving their best themselves. It's like when someone says opps better do a file this week haven't done one for a month. Why spoil it for the everyone else who just put their all into a plan and squeeked a win. It pisses all over their effort.

I don't think experimentation sits well in a MP, probably best left for SP. Again, it kind of conflicts with the spirit of everyone giving their best to me.

The problem we have is there is no motivation to fight for your job or .500 in this game. The rebuild is the easy way to win and there are no consequences in doing so.

[Firefly]

The problem we have is there is no motivation to fight for your job or .500 in this game. The rebuild is the easy way to win and there are no consequences in doing so.

This is true. You know what could be a great idea? A set of two leagues set up just like the typical soccer league: division I, division II, worst two teams (GMs) descend to division II, Bowl winners ascend to division I. That way you get fired but still have a team and you have great motivation not to draft 1st or 2nd overall in division I.

It would be so awesome. Count me in if anyone tries it.

[isaccoubaldi]

This is true. You know what could be a great idea? A set of two leagues set up just like the typical soccer league: division I, division II, worst two teams (GMs) descend to division II, Bowl winners ascend to division I. That way you get fired but still have a team and you have great motivation not to draft 1st or 2nd overall in division I.

It would be so awesome. Count me in if anyone tries it.

With OOTP it's possible to do a league like this. Probably the only thing we "really" need in a new FOF version is a major level of customization ...

[Hammer]

This is true. You know what could be a great idea? A set of two leagues set up just like the typical soccer league: division I, division II, worst two teams (GMs) descend to division II, Bowl winners ascend to division I. That way you get fired but still have a team and you have great motivation not to draft 1st or 2nd overall in division I.

It would be so awesome. Count me in if anyone tries it.


Isn't that what the vNFL does with the main league and the House?

[Nemesis]

Isn't that what the vNFL does with the main league and the House?

I think that was the purpose of it, but with the lack of GM's these days, hard to be picky.

[Disturbed]

I might be wrong Tim, but was it you that said you weren't that bothered about winning? Sorry if it wasn't. But it demotivated me whoever said it. I want to play people who are as hungry to win as I am. No point in me trying against someone who isn't giving their best themselves. It's like when someone says opps better do a file this week haven't done one for a month. Why spoil it for the everyone else who just put their all into a plan and squeeked a win. It pisses all over their effort.

I don't think experimentation sits well in a MP, probably best left for SP. Again, it kind of conflicts with the spirit of everyone giving their best to me.

The problem we have is there is no motivation to fight for your job or .500 in this game. The rebuild is the easy way to win and there are no consequences in doing so.

Yep at one point I didn't care about winning. That was when I was winning a lot using just the "load up on QB/WR's" method.

I try hard to win now building with defense or around running games.. I've proved I can win with the cookie cutter team as I like to put it. So yeah, I do experiment with other ways to build teams hoping to find another way I can win and stay competitive without just hoping to land the best QB / WR I can.

[Disturbed]

I don't think experimentation sits well in a MP, probably best left for SP. Again, it kind of conflicts with the spirit of everyone giving their best to me.

See I have to disagree with you there. I have no issues with someone experimenting if their end goal is to try to win.

I'll use my GEFL 2 team as an example. I am , on purpose, not taking any offensive studs with my 1sts ( I had 6 over the past two seasons ) and 3 more this year. I'm only drafting defense and Oline. My goal is to win with a great online and a really good defense. We took this team to a 8-8 record last season in probably the leagues best division. This season coming up, I'm hoping to land 2-3 more defensive players and continue from there.

As I said in my previous post. My hope is to find a different way , with my game planning and roster building, for me to shape a team and make it into a playoff team year after year.

[Hammer]

I guess I never saw the best of your ability in the vNFL Tim. It has always seemed neither you or your brother really give your best. Which I think is a shame. Neither of you have cracked Bear or I, I would of thought that would be motivation to win by any means you think gets it done.

Nemesis, just winding up Firefly ;-)

[Firefly]

Nemesis, just winding up Firefly ;-)

Ha! Mission accomplished! :p

[Yoda]

I guess I never saw the best of your ability in the vNFL Tim. It has always seemed neither you or your brother really give your best. Which I think is a shame. Neither of you have cracked Bear or I, I would of thought that would be motivation to win by any means you think gets it done.


Up until my recent misfortune, I think I've done pretty well in the vNFL. Of the last 5 bowl games in the v, the NFC has had 2 different reps.... you (3) and me (2).

But, you are right-- other than here and there, I haven't given the v my best efforts. Mixture of too many leagues, only 2 game sims a week and other stuff.

[Subby]

Up until my recent misfortune, I think I've done pretty well in the vNFL. Of the last 5 bowl games in the v, the NFC has had 2 different reps.... you (3) and me (2).

But, you are right-- other than here and there, I haven't given the v my best efforts. Mixture of too many leagues, only 2 game sims a week and other stuff.
Waiting for an update at GEFL, my friend.

[Yoda]

Done.

[alrith72]

This "legal tanking" is happening in the league i play in too, it is very annoying just wouldn't happen in the NFL and is firmly against the spirit of the game and the league :(

[Yoda]

This "legal tanking" is happening in the league i play in too, it is very annoying just wouldn't happen in the NFL and is firmly against the spirit of the game and the league :(

Tanking does happen in the NFL. Just not necessarily the same way people do it in fof.

[alrith72]

Tanking does happen in the NFL. Just not necessarily the same way people do it in fof.

Maybe so. Doesn't stop this player being a complete "Tanker" and ruining the spirit of the league for me (and i know i'm not alone in the league feeling this way). Doesn't help that he's been in the league twice before and just buggers off if it doesn't go his way, if this strategy doesn't work for him he'll probably do the same

[Yoda]

People tank in all different ways. Trading off stud players, making special teams really bad, reducing play time of stud players, putting in the worst possible defense- while making it look ok.

Just because someone doesn't trade off all their players doesn't mean they aren't tanking. Are you saying that version of tanking is the one that bothers you because it's the most noticeable?

My PC is busted and has been for a while. Some of my teams are going in the tank (others are doing ok). Does that mean I am tanking? Since the teams are effectively on AI? Why or why not? Does it matter that I don't have the ability export at the moment? Why? The end result is the same.

As for the 'spirit' of the game and league. I find that more of a personal view point. Much like unwritten rules. Just because you view it that way, doesn't mean other people do. If it truly bothers you that much, I suggest finding another league, starting one of your own or trying to implement rules to prevent it.

But imo, implementing rules just because something doesn't feel right isn't the right way to go.

[isaccoubaldi]

People tank in all different ways. Trading off stud players, making special teams really bad, reducing play time of stud players, putting in the worst possible defense- while making it look ok.

Just because someone doesn't trade off all their players doesn't mean they aren't tanking. Are you saying that version of tanking is the one that bothers you because it's the most noticeable?

My PC is busted and has been for a while. Some of my teams are going in the tank (others are doing ok). Does that mean I am tanking? Since the teams are effectively on AI? Why or why not? Does it matter that I don't have the ability export at the moment? Why? The end result is the same.

As for the 'spirit' of the game and league. I find that more of a personal view point. Much like unwritten rules. Just because you view it that way, doesn't mean other people do. If it truly bothers you that much, I suggest finding another league, starting one of your own or trying to implement rules to prevent it.

But imo, implementing rules just because something doesn't feel right isn't the right way to go.

Yeah, probably there isn't a solution for this (I hope Jim find a solution in the new game) but why he need to keep quiet if he don't like what other GMs do? I really don't understand this ...

[Carman Bulldog]

I would find some sort of league with "firings" quite interesting. I think you would need to keep it so that the amount of people fired was an even number and people were not actually kicked out of the league but rather rotated throughout.

I'm not sure if you would use some formula or something as simple as 1. Four years in a row with five wins or less
2. Four regressions in your record without improvement (ie. 11-5, 9-7, 9-7, 6-10, 6-10, 5-11)

Something with set criteria could really make things interesting. If I go 10-6, 8-8, 6-10, I'm not just going to say fuck it, time to rebuild if I know that anything less than six wins gets me fired (and at that, six only buys me another year). Obviously though, everyone in the league would need to be on board though. I just thinking guys pushing to save their jobs could be an interesting addition to a league.

[MRL17]

I'd be on board for a tiered group of leagues if there was ever enough interest.

That sounds neat

[ozias]

I'm not sure if you would use some formula or something as simple as 1. Four years in a row with five wins or less
2. Four regressions in your record without improvement (ie. 11-5, 9-7, 9-7, 6-10, 6-10, 5-11)

The problem with something like this though is injuries. What if you lose your star QB and then the team goes into the tank? It's not like you are trying to lose, but without the QB playing your team suffers.

Also the other problem with this I've had a MP team do exactly this with the same guys. We had a very good offense, and kept the same game plan. we went from 12-4, to 10-6, and then some injuries killed me the next year so we went 6-10. So it's not like I was tanking, the team just didn't play as well the following year and in the 3rd year injuries hurt the team. Granted, it's not 4 regressions in a row, but by looking at the record, you could say I was trying to tank when in fact I wasn't.

[Carman Bulldog]

The problem with something like this though is injuries. What if you lose your star QB and then the team goes into the tank? It's not like you are trying to lose, but without the QB playing your team suffers.

Also the other problem with this I've had a MP team do exactly this with the same guys. We had a very good offense, and kept the same game plan. we went from 12-4, to 10-6, and then some injuries killed me the next year so we went 6-10. So it's not like I was tanking, the team just didn't play as well the following year and in the 3rd year injuries hurt the team. Granted, it's not 4 regressions in a row, but by looking at the record, you could say I was trying to tank when in fact I wasn't.

Yeah, I wasn't even referencing tanking, just speaking in general terms as I think it could add a real element of fun. Injuries happen and they cost people their jobs (just ask Bill Polian).

Sometimes you know your team is not going to be great, but it makes it more interesting if you are playing for your job and need, for example six wins, to keep it.

[Dutch]

I would find some sort of league with "firings" quite interesting. I think you would need to keep it so that the amount of people fired was an even number and people were not actually kicked out of the league but rather rotated throughout.

It would be really tough to keep interest since you can't bring your team with you (like in soccer). I don't want to get my team to 13-3 in a "lower league" and get promoted to take over the team of the dude that just went 0-16....then get relegated by the next season and have to take over some other team.

[Nemesis]

Unless you find a way to make losing actually matter to the GM, there will be no fix for tanking of any kind.

[aston217]

Well, it's a game, and because of that, losing will never really matter. However, you could make it a less attractive option for winning in the long run. But, you have to balance that with punishing losing teams and letting the rich get richer.

To some degree, though, in the NFL, losing begets losing. It's lessened a bit with the new rookie contract scale (something not reflected in game).

It *would* be fun if the top 5 teams just hope that they have a cornerstone type player to pick, preferably a franchise QB, but depending on the class it's likely to not even be there. And if it is, it's still a hell of a big risk -- what's he gonna be, Matt Ryan or Jamarcus Russell? In FOF, no GM other than a very inexperienced player is going to be taking any Jamarcus Russells in the top 5, barring the very low percentage volatility stick of death.

And any player that isn't a franchise QB is not that much of a cornerstone, even if they are absolute beasts at their position for a number of years.

[The other side to this is, you don't want the FOF game environment to be reduced to, teams that luck out and get Brady or Rodgers type QBs just dominate for the next decade and a half in sim time, and everyone else is just standing by watching. Again, the current "QB/WR/WR lethal combo being typically only obtainable by the most losing teams" model is not so bad a concept.]

[Darkside]

I guess I never saw the best of your ability in the vNFL Tim. It has always seemed neither you or your brother really give your best. Which I think is a shame. Neither of you have cracked Bear or I, I would of thought that would be motivation to win by any means you think gets it done.

Nemesis, just winding up Firefly ;-)

Nick you should have joined the GEFL, you could have faced Tim's monster team after he got 3 consecutive 1.1's.

[Hammer]

Just having a browse on the GEFL site. Subby has done well over the years.

Three 1.1's huh. I would find that frustrating to see a GM of Tim's ability perform like that and get gifted presumably three superstars by having the worst record 3 years in a row. It isn't really what the game is about in my view - to finish last three years in a row and get gifted superstars. Any subsequent success is a bit of a farce.

Having said that I guess its an important variable as to how he got hold of those 1.1's. Maybe there was some skill involved? Trading? I have no idea. Did the team finish last each year, or was there more to it?

[Darkside]

I believe it was 1-15, 1-15 and 2-14 or if you prefer 4-44 over the 3 years.

[tej2101]

This is one of my favorite things to do. When I start a single player franchise I always trade away my most marketable players for draft picks, even 3rds and 4ths, and hope that my team will be bad enough to get a top-5 pick.

Unfortunately, the draft never yields the guy I want and I get stuck with a 5-9 QB from Robert Morris or a 220-pound pass rushing WLB who is rated an 80+ but never produces anything in my 3-4.

[Marmel]

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=5496

This is a unique idea for getting rid of tanking in pro-sports leagues. It would obviously work much better for NHL, NBA and MLB due to the length of those seasons, but I am not seeing too much of a downside.

[Marmel]

Today's Grantland puts it in English, read this excerp:


The NHL determines draft position in roughly the same way as the NBA, MLB, and NFL do, which is to say it gives the best picks to teams that do the worst. There's a weighted lottery for the first-overall pick, but otherwise, the picks are handed out in reverse order of the final standings.

North American sports fans are so used to this approach that we barely question it. It appeals to our basic sense of fairness, since it feels like we should want to help bad teams catch up with the pack. Parity is a good thing, right?

And maybe it is. But the NHL has already bent over backward to ensure parity. We have a salary cap to prevent the good teams from stockpiling talent, and revenue sharing to help the smaller markets compete. Given how valuable high draft picks are in today's NHL, shouldn't we have a better distribution system than simply handing them over to the league's losers?

Let's be honest. These days, there are only two reasons an NHL team might finish dead last: tanking and outright incompetence. Neither one of those should be rewarded. Last month, a columnist in the NHL's biggest market criticized its team for not losing enough. That sentence should be ludicrous, but under the current system, he was absolutely right. It's the same logic that has given rise to fan slogans like "Fail for Nail" and "Stop Winnin' for MacKinnon." The NHL has taught its fans to root for failure. And it's why the current system has to change.

So we're going to institute Adam Gold's idea, presented at the 2012 Sloan Conference, which rewards winning while also ensuring that the league's worst teams aren't left behind.7

Here's how it works: The top draft positions will be awarded based on points earned after playoff elimination. Once a team is officially out of the playoff race, it starts the clock on amassing points toward its draft position. Bad teams still get an advantage (because they're eliminated earlier), but now the emphasis is on winning, not just on riding out the string. It's relatively simple, and it's brilliant.

You're telling me you wouldn't be excited the day the "no. 1 overall pick points" column appeared in the standings? If we were lucky, we could even have late-season showdowns for the top picks. And fans watching those games would actually be cheering for their own teams to win. Imagine that.

The only downside to the system that I can see is it's slightly more complicated and would take some getting used to. But if fans could figure out OTL and ROW, I'm pretty sure they can handle this. And a little bit of early confusion will be more than worth it in exchange for the new burst of late-season excitement.

[Autumn]

Bear was talking about doing something similar, but simpler, in a league where you simply reverse the draft order of non-playoff teams. Those who just miss out on the playoffs would get the top picks. Therefore there would be no incentive to lose and every team would be fighting tooth and nail to the end.

[MIJB#19]

Bear was talking about doing something similar, but simpler, in a league where you simply reverse the draft order of non-playoff teams. Those who just miss out on the playoffs would get the top picks. Therefore there would be no incentive to lose and every team would be fighting tooth and nail to the end.It isn't a new idea, it bounced around years ago, and got countered by that it might cause teams* that are close to the playoffs and feel too weak to go all the way, could still tank their last games to get a top pick and as a result become a real contender in the next season. At the same time, the really crappy teams end up with picks in the 12-20 range, year after year, where they'll be stuck adding some 80ish guard or 70ish safety, rather than acquiring that much needed talented wide receiver.

* Personally I'd never prefer a better draft pick over making the playoffs, but apparently some of us have an all or nothing attitude.

[Nemesis]

Bear was talking about doing something similar, but simpler, in a league where you simply reverse the draft order of non-playoff teams. Those who just miss out on the playoffs would get the top picks. Therefore there would be no incentive to lose and every team would be fighting tooth and nail to the end.

Yeah, and the legitimately bad teams get screwed by not getting the best players.

I think Ben has it as close to right as possible with CCFL.

[Autumn]

It isn't a new idea, it bounced around years ago, and got countered by that it might cause teams* that are close to the playoffs and feel too weak to go all the way, could still tank their last games to get a top pick and as a result become a real contender in the next season. At the same time, the really crappy teams end up with picks in the 12-20 range, year after year, where they'll be stuck adding some 80ish guard or 70ish safety, rather than acquiring that much needed talented wide receiver.

* Personally I'd never prefer a better draft pick over making the playoffs, but apparently some of us have an all or nothing attitude.

I'm not suggesting it's the only time the idea's come up, just giving an instance of it.

I think granted that we know that teams that suck often aim for the best draft pick, I'd rather take the clearly lesser possibility that a near-playoff team would tank. I'd guarantee that would happen less often. It would definitely be stricter on bad teams, but would be nice to see the real competition outside of the contenders.

[Ben E Lou]

I think Ben has it as close to right as possible with CCFL.
CCFL has a couple of openings, too, if any of y'all want a league that has a solid rule set in place to keep teams from gaining any advantage by tanking.

The CCFL Has Two Openings, Good Draft Pick, Great FA Class (Updated Aug 2013.) - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=83979)