stlhooked wrote: ↑06 May 2026 05:57 am
Good thing we kept winning all those games at the end or that could’ve been us with the first…
The Sharks had the same amount of points as the Blues. All this shows us is that once again lotteries are the dumbest way to decide draft picks.
Every system is going to have it's flaws. No matter the method someone is going to complain. This isn't picking on you specifically, just that there is no perfect method.
There is no perfect method, but there is one that makes the most sense.
To you. Which may not make the most sense to the next person. Or, more importantly, to the NHL Board of Governors & NHLPA, or whoever it is that approves the draft format.
No, I’m quite positive the worst team getting the best pick makes the most sense for everyone. It might not be everyone’s preferred method and that is fine. But in no world is a lottery or any other method more straight forward than using an inverse of the standings.
Want to discourage tanking? Reverse the order. The team who finishes with the most points but misses the playoffs is guaranteed a top 3 pick. The team that finishes with the least amount of points is guaranteed between 13-15.
That will prevent playing an entire team of AHLers to draft the next McDavid.
A race to the middle!
beats a race to the bottom.
It does, totally agree there. But what you are suggesting is just a different lottery. Teams eventually will manipulate their way to the middle just as they manipulate their way to the bottom.
Sooner or later the leagues will have to acknowledge what was obvious long ago. Teams will always chase the next big thing. No matter the system, odds, format, or restrictions. The idea of Macklin Celebrini simply is that good.
stlhooked wrote: ↑06 May 2026 05:57 am
Good thing we kept winning all those games at the end or that could’ve been us with the first…
The Sharks had the same amount of points as the Blues. All this shows us is that once again lotteries are the dumbest way to decide draft picks.
I don’t mind it.
Discourages tanking from teams.
Vancouver tanked about as well as they possibly could….
Not really worth it IMO
Except it doesn’t discourage teams from tanking, the NBA and NHL have tankers each and every year.
So you would rather make sure that the team that loses on purpose the best gets the guaranteed first overall pick.
Got it. I don’t agree with it…but it.
There is no perfect solution…but if a team loses on purpose…they should still NEVER be guaranteed the 1st overall pick. That would encourage tanking even more than it already does. Baseball has 4-6 teams every year that tank…..fans hate it.
stlhooked wrote: ↑06 May 2026 05:57 am
Good thing we kept winning all those games at the end or that could’ve been us with the first…
The Sharks had the same amount of points as the Blues. All this shows us is that once again lotteries are the dumbest way to decide draft picks.
I don’t mind it.
Discourages tanking from teams.
Vancouver tanked about as well as they possibly could….
Not really worth it IMO
Except it doesn’t discourage teams from tanking, the NBA and NHL have tankers each and every year.
So you would rather make sure that the team that loses on purpose the best gets the guaranteed first overall pick.
Got it. I don’t agree with it…but it.
There is no perfect solution…but if a team loses on purpose…they should still NEVER be guaranteed the 1st overall pick. That would encourage tanking even more than it already does. Baseball has 4-6 teams every year that tank…..fans hate it.
Baseball also has a lottery.
And yes, I believe common sense should prevail. Is it pretty or perfect? No. Does it stop tanking? No.
But neither do the lotteries. Very obviously so as tanking is a bigger conversation than it has ever been.
But hey, I do enjoy watching these leagues galaxy brain their way into thinking they’ll fix a problem by bringing more and more dumb luck into the process.
stlhooked wrote: ↑06 May 2026 05:57 am
Good thing we kept winning all those games at the end or that could’ve been us with the first…
The Sharks had the same amount of points as the Blues. All this shows us is that once again lotteries are the dumbest way to decide draft picks.
I don’t mind it.
Discourages tanking from teams.
Vancouver tanked about as well as they possibly could….
Not really worth it IMO
Except it doesn’t discourage teams from tanking, the NBA and NHL have tankers each and every year.
So you would rather make sure that the team that loses on purpose the best gets the guaranteed first overall pick.
Got it. I don’t agree with it…but it.
There is no perfect solution…but if a team loses on purpose…they should still NEVER be guaranteed the 1st overall pick. That would encourage tanking even more than it already does. Baseball has 4-6 teams every year that tank…..fans hate it.
Baseball also has a lottery.
And yes, I believe common sense should prevail. Is it pretty or perfect? No. Does it stop tanking? No.
But neither do the lotteries. Very obviously so as tanking is a bigger conversation than it has ever been.
But hey, I do enjoy watching these leagues galaxy brain their way into thinking they’ll fix a problem by bringing more and more dumb luck into the process.
Teams that lose on purpose shouldn’t be guaranteed anything.
Tell the season ticket holders that spent $8,000 before the season started to watch the Blues…..On January 1st….”sorry, but we don’t want to win another game for a better draft pick.” My guess is it would (bleep) off a lot of those season ticket holders.
stlhooked wrote: ↑06 May 2026 05:57 am
Good thing we kept winning all those games at the end or that could’ve been us with the first…
The Sharks had the same amount of points as the Blues. All this shows us is that once again lotteries are the dumbest way to decide draft picks.
I don’t mind it.
Discourages tanking from teams.
Vancouver tanked about as well as they possibly could….
Not really worth it IMO
Except it doesn’t discourage teams from tanking, the NBA and NHL have tankers each and every year.
So you would rather make sure that the team that loses on purpose the best gets the guaranteed first overall pick.
Got it. I don’t agree with it…but it.
There is no perfect solution…but if a team loses on purpose…they should still NEVER be guaranteed the 1st overall pick. That would encourage tanking even more than it already does. Baseball has 4-6 teams every year that tank…..fans hate it.
Baseball also has a lottery.
And yes, I believe common sense should prevail. Is it pretty or perfect? No. Does it stop tanking? No.
But neither do the lotteries. Very obviously so as tanking is a bigger conversation than it has ever been.
But hey, I do enjoy watching these leagues galaxy brain their way into thinking they’ll fix a problem by bringing more and more dumb luck into the process.
Teams that lose on purpose shouldn’t be guaranteed anything.
Tell the season ticket holders that spent $8,000 before the season started to watch the Blues…..On January 1st….”sorry, but we don’t want to win another game for a better draft pick.” My guess is it would (bleep) off a lot of those season ticket holders.
Tell those same season tickets holders they lose the same amount of games and don’t get the light at the end of the tunnel of a high pick because a division rival in San Jose, teeming with U-21 talent already, jumped them.
There are bad teams every year regardless. I’d rather a team “earn” the pick rather than lucking into it.
It’s really as simple as that for me. Someone has to lose, might as well have it mean something.
stlhooked wrote: ↑06 May 2026 05:57 am
Good thing we kept winning all those games at the end or that could’ve been us with the first…
The Sharks had the same amount of points as the Blues. All this shows us is that once again lotteries are the dumbest way to decide draft picks.
I don’t mind it.
Discourages tanking from teams.
Vancouver tanked about as well as they possibly could….
Not really worth it IMO
Except it doesn’t discourage teams from tanking, the NBA and NHL have tankers each and every year.
So you would rather make sure that the team that loses on purpose the best gets the guaranteed first overall pick.
Got it. I don’t agree with it…but it.
There is no perfect solution…but if a team loses on purpose…they should still NEVER be guaranteed the 1st overall pick. That would encourage tanking even more than it already does. Baseball has 4-6 teams every year that tank…..fans hate it.
Baseball also has a lottery.
And yes, I believe common sense should prevail. Is it pretty or perfect? No. Does it stop tanking? No.
But neither do the lotteries. Very obviously so as tanking is a bigger conversation than it has ever been.
But hey, I do enjoy watching these leagues galaxy brain their way into thinking they’ll fix a problem by bringing more and more dumb luck into the process.
Teams that lose on purpose shouldn’t be guaranteed anything.
Tell the season ticket holders that spent $8,000 before the season started to watch the Blues…..On January 1st….”sorry, but we don’t want to win another game for a better draft pick.” My guess is it would (bleep) off a lot of those season ticket holders.
Tell those same season tickets holders they lose the same amount of games and don’t get the light at the end of the tunnel of a high pick because a division rival in San Jose, teeming with U-21 talent already, jumped them.
There are bad teams every year regardless. I’d rather a team “earn” the pick rather than lucking into it.
It’s really as simple as that for me. Someone has to lose, might as well have it mean something.
stlhooked wrote: ↑06 May 2026 05:57 am
Good thing we kept winning all those games at the end or that could’ve been us with the first…
The Sharks had the same amount of points as the Blues. All this shows us is that once again lotteries are the dumbest way to decide draft picks.
I don’t mind it.
Discourages tanking from teams.
Vancouver tanked about as well as they possibly could….
Not really worth it IMO
Except it doesn’t discourage teams from tanking, the NBA and NHL have tankers each and every year.
So you would rather make sure that the team that loses on purpose the best gets the guaranteed first overall pick.
Got it. I don’t agree with it…but it.
There is no perfect solution…but if a team loses on purpose…they should still NEVER be guaranteed the 1st overall pick. That would encourage tanking even more than it already does. Baseball has 4-6 teams every year that tank…..fans hate it.
Baseball also has a lottery.
And yes, I believe common sense should prevail. Is it pretty or perfect? No. Does it stop tanking? No.
But neither do the lotteries. Very obviously so as tanking is a bigger conversation than it has ever been.
But hey, I do enjoy watching these leagues galaxy brain their way into thinking they’ll fix a problem by bringing more and more dumb luck into the process.
Teams that lose on purpose shouldn’t be guaranteed anything.
Tell the season ticket holders that spent $8,000 before the season started to watch the Blues…..On January 1st….”sorry, but we don’t want to win another game for a better draft pick.” My guess is it would (bleep) off a lot of those season ticket holders.
Tell those same season tickets holders they lose the same amount of games and don’t get the light at the end of the tunnel of a high pick because a division rival in San Jose, teeming with U-21 talent already, jumped them.
There are bad teams every year regardless. I’d rather a team “earn” the pick rather than lucking into it.
It’s really as simple as that for me. Someone has to lose, might as well have it mean something.
How is losing on purpose "earning" anything?
How is jumping 7 or 9 teams in the draft because a ping pong ball bounced a certain way earning anything?
As I have multiple times, there is not a perfect solution. I simply favor letting results speak louder than luck.
stlhooked wrote: ↑06 May 2026 05:57 am
Good thing we kept winning all those games at the end or that could’ve been us with the first…
The Sharks had the same amount of points as the Blues. All this shows us is that once again lotteries are the dumbest way to decide draft picks.
I don’t mind it.
Discourages tanking from teams.
Vancouver tanked about as well as they possibly could….
Not really worth it IMO
Except it doesn’t discourage teams from tanking, the NBA and NHL have tankers each and every year.
So you would rather make sure that the team that loses on purpose the best gets the guaranteed first overall pick.
Got it. I don’t agree with it…but it.
There is no perfect solution…but if a team loses on purpose…they should still NEVER be guaranteed the 1st overall pick. That would encourage tanking even more than it already does. Baseball has 4-6 teams every year that tank…..fans hate it.
Baseball also has a lottery.
And yes, I believe common sense should prevail. Is it pretty or perfect? No. Does it stop tanking? No.
But neither do the lotteries. Very obviously so as tanking is a bigger conversation than it has ever been.
But hey, I do enjoy watching these leagues galaxy brain their way into thinking they’ll fix a problem by bringing more and more dumb luck into the process.
Teams that lose on purpose shouldn’t be guaranteed anything.
Tell the season ticket holders that spent $8,000 before the season started to watch the Blues…..On January 1st….”sorry, but we don’t want to win another game for a better draft pick.” My guess is it would (bleep) off a lot of those season ticket holders.
Tell those same season tickets holders they lose the same amount of games and don’t get the light at the end of the tunnel of a high pick because a division rival in San Jose, teeming with U-21 talent already, jumped them.
There are bad teams every year regardless. I’d rather a team “earn” the pick rather than lucking into it.
It’s really as simple as that for me. Someone has to lose, might as well have it mean something.
How is losing on purpose "earning" anything?
How is jumping 7 or 9 teams in the draft because a ping pong ball bounced a certain way earning anything?
As I have multiple times, there is not a perfect solution. I simply favor letting results speak louder than luck.
I would say this year showed it was done the right way.
Vancouver tried to tank and was not rewarded for it.
San Jose is building a team the right way and was not trying to tank and they jumped up.
Well deserved all around in my opinion.
stlhooked wrote: ↑06 May 2026 05:57 am
Good thing we kept winning all those games at the end or that could’ve been us with the first…
The Sharks had the same amount of points as the Blues. All this shows us is that once again lotteries are the dumbest way to decide draft picks.
I don’t mind it.
Discourages tanking from teams.
Vancouver tanked about as well as they possibly could….
Not really worth it IMO
Except it doesn’t discourage teams from tanking, the NBA and NHL have tankers each and every year.
So you would rather make sure that the team that loses on purpose the best gets the guaranteed first overall pick.
Got it. I don’t agree with it…but it.
There is no perfect solution…but if a team loses on purpose…they should still NEVER be guaranteed the 1st overall pick. That would encourage tanking even more than it already does. Baseball has 4-6 teams every year that tank…..fans hate it.
Baseball also has a lottery.
And yes, I believe common sense should prevail. Is it pretty or perfect? No. Does it stop tanking? No.
But neither do the lotteries. Very obviously so as tanking is a bigger conversation than it has ever been.
But hey, I do enjoy watching these leagues galaxy brain their way into thinking they’ll fix a problem by bringing more and more dumb luck into the process.
Teams that lose on purpose shouldn’t be guaranteed anything.
Tell the season ticket holders that spent $8,000 before the season started to watch the Blues…..On January 1st….”sorry, but we don’t want to win another game for a better draft pick.” My guess is it would (bleep) off a lot of those season ticket holders.
Tell those same season tickets holders they lose the same amount of games and don’t get the light at the end of the tunnel of a high pick because a division rival in San Jose, teeming with U-21 talent already, jumped them.
There are bad teams every year regardless. I’d rather a team “earn” the pick rather than lucking into it.
It’s really as simple as that for me. Someone has to lose, might as well have it mean something.
How is losing on purpose "earning" anything?
How is jumping 7 or 9 teams in the draft because a ping pong ball bounced a certain way earning anything?
As I have multiple times, there is not a perfect solution. I simply favor letting results speak louder than luck.
Apples and Oranges. One is luck of the draw. The other is akin to poor sportsmanship.
I would say this year showed it was done the right way.
Vancouver tried to tank and was not rewarded for it.
San Jose is building a team the right way and was not trying to tank and they jumped up.
Well deserved all around in my opinion.
stlhooked wrote: ↑06 May 2026 05:57 am
Good thing we kept winning all those games at the end or that could’ve been us with the first…
The Sharks had the same amount of points as the Blues. All this shows us is that once again lotteries are the dumbest way to decide draft picks.
Every system is going to have it's flaws. No matter the method someone is going to complain. This isn't picking on you specifically, just that there is no perfect method.
There is no perfect method, but there is one that makes the most sense.
To you. Which may not make the most sense to the next person. Or, more importantly, to the NHL Board of Governors & NHLPA, or whoever it is that approves the draft format.
No, I’m quite positive the worst team getting the best pick makes the most sense for everyone. It might not be everyone’s preferred method and that is fine. But in no world is a lottery or any other method more straight forward than using an inverse of the standings.
Want to discourage tanking? Reverse the order. The team who finishes with the most points but misses the playoffs is guaranteed a top 3 pick. The team that finishes with the least amount of points is guaranteed between 13-15.
That will prevent playing an entire team of AHLers to draft the next McDavid.
A race to the middle!
beats a race to the bottom.
It does, totally agree there. But what you are suggesting is just a different lottery. Teams eventually will manipulate their way to the middle just as they manipulate their way to the bottom.
Sooner or later the leagues will have to acknowledge what was obvious long ago. Teams will always chase the next big thing. No matter the system, odds, format, or restrictions. The idea of Macklin Celebrini simply is that good.
it's way harder to manipulate being the last team eliminated from playoff contention than it is being the first team.
stlhooked wrote: ↑06 May 2026 05:57 am
Good thing we kept winning all those games at the end or that could’ve been us with the first…
The Sharks had the same amount of points as the Blues. All this shows us is that once again lotteries are the dumbest way to decide draft picks.
I don’t mind it.
Discourages tanking from teams.
Vancouver tanked about as well as they possibly could….
Not really worth it IMO
Except it doesn’t discourage teams from tanking, the NBA and NHL have tankers each and every year.
So you would rather make sure that the team that loses on purpose the best gets the guaranteed first overall pick.
Got it. I don’t agree with it…but it.
There is no perfect solution…but if a team loses on purpose…they should still NEVER be guaranteed the 1st overall pick. That would encourage tanking even more than it already does. Baseball has 4-6 teams every year that tank…..fans hate it.
Baseball also has a lottery.
And yes, I believe common sense should prevail. Is it pretty or perfect? No. Does it stop tanking? No.
But neither do the lotteries. Very obviously so as tanking is a bigger conversation than it has ever been.
But hey, I do enjoy watching these leagues galaxy brain their way into thinking they’ll fix a problem by bringing more and more dumb luck into the process.
Teams that lose on purpose shouldn’t be guaranteed anything.
Tell the season ticket holders that spent $8,000 before the season started to watch the Blues…..On January 1st….”sorry, but we don’t want to win another game for a better draft pick.” My guess is it would (bleep) off a lot of those season ticket holders.
Tell those same season tickets holders they lose the same amount of games and don’t get the light at the end of the tunnel of a high pick because a division rival in San Jose, teeming with U-21 talent already, jumped them.
There are bad teams every year regardless. I’d rather a team “earn” the pick rather than lucking into it.
It’s really as simple as that for me. Someone has to lose, might as well have it mean something.
How is losing on purpose "earning" anything?
How is jumping 7 or 9 teams in the draft because a ping pong ball bounced a certain way earning anything?
As I have multiple times, there is not a perfect solution. I simply favor letting results speak louder than luck.
I would say this year showed it was done the right way.
Vancouver tried to tank and was not rewarded for it.
San Jose is building a team the right way and was not trying to tank and they jumped up.
Well deserved all around in my opinion.
San Jose absolutely tanked. They traded every player that they possibly could to ensure losing after Covid. It was a complete tear down
stlhooked wrote: ↑06 May 2026 05:57 am
Good thing we kept winning all those games at the end or that could’ve been us with the first…
The Sharks had the same amount of points as the Blues. All this shows us is that once again lotteries are the dumbest way to decide draft picks.
I don’t mind it.
Discourages tanking from teams.
Vancouver tanked about as well as they possibly could….
Not really worth it IMO
Except it doesn’t discourage teams from tanking, the NBA and NHL have tankers each and every year.
So you would rather make sure that the team that loses on purpose the best gets the guaranteed first overall pick.
Got it. I don’t agree with it…but it.
There is no perfect solution…but if a team loses on purpose…they should still NEVER be guaranteed the 1st overall pick. That would encourage tanking even more than it already does. Baseball has 4-6 teams every year that tank…..fans hate it.
Baseball also has a lottery.
And yes, I believe common sense should prevail. Is it pretty or perfect? No. Does it stop tanking? No.
But neither do the lotteries. Very obviously so as tanking is a bigger conversation than it has ever been.
But hey, I do enjoy watching these leagues galaxy brain their way into thinking they’ll fix a problem by bringing more and more dumb luck into the process.
Teams that lose on purpose shouldn’t be guaranteed anything.
Tell the season ticket holders that spent $8,000 before the season started to watch the Blues…..On January 1st….”sorry, but we don’t want to win another game for a better draft pick.” My guess is it would (bleep) off a lot of those season ticket holders.
Tell those same season tickets holders they lose the same amount of games and don’t get the light at the end of the tunnel of a high pick because a division rival in San Jose, teeming with U-21 talent already, jumped them.
There are bad teams every year regardless. I’d rather a team “earn” the pick rather than lucking into it.
It’s really as simple as that for me. Someone has to lose, might as well have it mean something.
How is losing on purpose "earning" anything?
How is jumping 7 or 9 teams in the draft because a ping pong ball bounced a certain way earning anything?
As I have multiple times, there is not a perfect solution. I simply favor letting results speak louder than luck.
I would say this year showed it was done the right way.
Vancouver tried to tank and was not rewarded for it.
San Jose is building a team the right way and was not trying to tank and they jumped up.
Well deserved all around in my opinion.
San Jose absolutely tanked. They traded every player that they possibly could to ensure losing after Covid. It was a complete tear down
That was 5 years ago.
My point is that if you tank a season...you should not be guarranteed the top pick after the year.
Vancouver tanked this year and fell to 3rd.
San Jose did not tank this year, they showed up and tries to make the playoffs yet they got the 2nd overall pick.
Well deserved IMO.
