Quoting: AK_tune
Taking the twitter discussion here: should we slightly revise the way that the draft order / lottery should be determined? This has nothing to do with power rankings or determining manager of the year, or whatever.
I don't think the changes below would change the strategy that any player has been using thus far.
UFA Signings - they don't matter this year since there was no offseason. And since the waiver priority rules over signing any FA that were still around after 9/15, it shouldn't affect draft position.
Trade Ratings - I think the main object of the game is to make good trades. If you improve your team, whether it is short-term or long, you should be rewarded. The team with the best trade ratings should get a score of 1 and the score should be multiplied by 60%
Win-Now Roster - the BOE should rank teams in order of best 23-man roster to worst. The best team should get a score of 31 and the score should be multiplied by 40%.
The team with the lowest score would draft 1st (or have the best lottery odds, if we are doing a lottery)
With this approach, the teams that put together great teams will have exactly that, great teams. And the teams that make the right moves, but didn't have a good situation to begin with are rewarded with a better draft position.
I'd love to hear thoughts on this. If people are onboard we can bring it to the BOE's attention. Full disclosure, I'm not sure how different this is from the current draft formula.
I think the best way to be fair to all teams is to have a best of both worlds scenario. Basing it solely off the GM game isn't fair IMO . My Coyotes suck IRL but since I'm a competent GM I won't be able to draft a better pick as a result. My roster isn't that different than the IRL one. In fact it's probably worse...
Honestly I think if we are going to do a formula of some sort, it should be based on the teams quality of players and overall fit. (How many quality players at each position and how many holes the team has). A GM may have made bad value trades but improved his immediate team therefore giving his roster a higher chance to win now even though the trade in the long term/mid term is bad. Example: adding an expensive rental. Give up a 1st rounder would be foolish but what if that player scored a lot in the playoffs and highly contributed to the team winning a cup? We don't have an In game playoff to base anything on so we can only use IRL events. Unfortunately that's not necessarily fair either. OEL may be exactly what the Habs need to win a cup this year but we'll never know because IRL he's staying in Arizona and they always suck.
That way it's being based on the quality of the GMs roster and its potential to finish higher in the standings which is in many cases leads to how good the team actually is. In order to be unbiased, it could be voted upon by all the GMs themselves. The BOE could then adjust a couple picks accordingly if some seem be off due to illogical choices.
John Chayka is a good GM, can't fault him for his team not performing and award him a lousy pick. Same should apply here. MB has made some bad moves and we don't see Bettman awarding him McDavid or Matthews.
KSIxSKULLS liked this.
Reply
CapFriendly
CapFriendly