Whew, That Was Close

And wouldn't that have been one more kick in the head for the Leafs?

The New Jersey Devils, sitting just one spot ahead of the Boston Bruins for Tuesday's NHL draft lottery, ended up winning the thing despite only a 3.6 per cent chance of success.

And the Bruins, at least in probability theory, just missed turning the Phil Kessel deal into another top five pick. Imagine the play on that story if it had occurred.

Instead, the Bruins stayed at No. 9 and the Devils moved from the No. 8 spot to to the No. 4 slot, which is a nice improvement, but also showed both the reason why the NHL draft lottery is so boring and highlighted the flaw that prevents it from being more meaningful.

See, it's all supposed to be about integrity, about making sure every team plays it out until the bitter end, and that no team tanks to get the top pick.

Well, Edmonton didn't tank, although it's hard to guess how they could have fared much worse by purposely doing so.

But despite having the odds in their favour, they lost the lottery and still kept the top pick. Makes no sense.

Why the rule that teams can only move up four slots and down only one? In theory, of course, the entry draft is supposed to be all about re-stocking bad teams with good prospects to ensure future success, except that while it works for some teams - Pittsburgh, Washington, Chicago - it doesn't seem to work for others like Florida, Columbus and the Islanders.

It rewards futility rather than excellence. The crappier you are, the better pick you get. 

The lottery, however, is supposed to throw real uncertainty into the mix to make sure there is no benefit at all for losing on purpose.

So if you win it, you should win the top pick. Jersey, then, should have the top selection in June, and Edmonton, which certainly earned nothing, should go down to the No. 2 pick, and so on.

Otherwise, why bother with a draft lottery at all? If Edmonton had tanked, what price would they have paid? 

Comments

[jeff]

Leaf Nation would never hear the end of it if the B's had somehow moved into top 5. It's bad enough listening to the BS now. Here's the scoop y'all, since the trade, Kessel has 61 goals for the Leafs, Seguin has 11. In the past 3 seasons, only 7 players have scored 30+ in all 3 and Kessel is the youngest of them. Yes, even younger than Sid. And this, without a decent centre iceman to dish to him. Still think Leafs got jobbed? Tell me you wouldn't make that trade.

[Taft]

There must be a draft lottery - even one as boring as this - so that there is some dgree of risk that the last place doesn't get the first pick. Appearances are everything and there must be no scenario where a team could intentionally throw a game to guarantee the opportunity to draft a player like Crosby, Lemieux, Ovechkin... It so happens there isn't a sure-fire NHL superstar like those guys this year, but there often is. What is absurd is that an event so minor gets live special event TV coverage, but that speaks more to Canadian pathological-obsession when it comes to the NHL than anything the NHL is doing wrong.

[Whitby Dunlop]

I think it's time to junk the current draft order and open the whole draft up to a lottery. Each team with a one-in-30 chance of the top pick. Isn't the salary cap supposed to be the great leveller? Why reward incompetence and send good players into moribund organisations as a matter of course (I'm talking about you, Isles/Panthers/Jackets? And, if they are tankers, they deserve no reward (I'm talking about you, Pens).

[Brian K]

It should be either an even chance for every non-playoff team (which means all that matters is whether you miss the playoffs, not how badly you miss), or order it by the non-playoffs teams in descending order of points, so the non-playoff teams would still have a huge reason to keep winning as much as possible. It would also ensure the playoff teams never have an easy spot in the schedule! Under this scenario Edmonton would have consecutive years with the 14th pick, and they certainly would play as hard as they can to avoid that.

[Steve C.]

Um, Jeff...don't forget to add Jared Knight and (Ryan Strome?'s) stats totals in the future when comparing Kessel. Nevermind a much improved Seguin in a year or two. So it's two top ten picks and a second-rounder for Kessel - I am telling you I wouldn't make that trade.

[Naas]

Cox is taking a page out of George Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' when it comes to schools: if a school is doing poorly, cut funding! Cox, it's about achieving parity! Give your head a shake!

[Johnny the Juice]

@Jeff - Seguin scored 11 goals in his rookie campaign playing limited minutes on the 4th line. In 3 years, Seguin will be hitting his stride, likely matching Kessel's production, while under an RFA contract at a reasonable cap hit. On the flip side, in 3 years, Kessel will be a UFA and either resign at >$5M per or walk for nothing. What good has a >30 goal scorer been over the past 2 seasons while the team missed the playoffs both years? Had the trade not been made and Kessel's production been subtracted, Toronto likely would have drafted 1st overall in 2010 and had a top 5 pick in 2011. All the Kessel trade did is rob the Leafs of better draft picks (which are essential as a team tries to rebuild). Would I make that trade? No. Would any other GM trade 2 first round picks and a second for Kessel? Not likely.

[Kyle]

Cox's "ideal scenario" = NBA draft... how did he not mention that comparison here??

[Back in Black]

Absolutely. I say scramble all the top 10 picks. They can still be weighted toward the bottom, but the current system where Edmonton had a 48% chance of the top pick and otherwise a guarantee of the second pick simply isn't a disincentive to tanking.

[othermark]

@Jeff. Excellent post. I'm tired of the blowhards bashing Burke for the Kessel trade.

[Chad]

true that without the infamous Kessel trade we probably would have bottomed out the last two seasons and garnished ourselves some nice draft picks. but it wouldn't have stopped there. there probably would have been two or three more crap seasons beyond those as well. and in the long run we may well have reaped the rewards of that. but in this city there is no way the fans have the patience to go through 5 or 6 seasons of finishing in or near the basement. look at the reaction after a season and a half of being basement dwellers. there is no way Burke (or any other GM for that matter) could have survived here if he tried re-building the "traditional way".
he may have lost two top ten picks, and a top 2nd rounder as well. but since then he's also managed to get back two late 1st round picks in 2011, and two former mid-1st round picks from 2008. and while all this was happening Kessel has scored over 60 goals in two seasons. not too shabby...

[Conn Smythe]

'Seguin scored 11 goals in his rookie campaign playing limited minutes on the 4th line. In 3 years, Seguin will be hitting his stride, likely matching Kessel's production, while under an RFA contract at a reasonable cap hit.' You mean you THINK Seguin will be matching Kessel's production. There is no guarantee that Seguin even matches Kessel's totals, just as there are no guarantee's that Kessel continues to be the better player. And Cox, 'whew, that was close'? No one cares anymore. Does anyone even watch the NHL lottery draft? It's done - can the media just get over the trade and move on? No more questions about Seguin everytime the Bruins play the Leafs.

[Al Cleverdon]

@ Jeff...I wouldn't make that trade.

[Alex]

Cox tries to use the argument that Columbus, Edmonton and the Islanders constantly draft high and don't succeed. The reader is left to assume that high draft picks aren't as valuable as they are often portrayed. I agree- I think that roughly 30% have success in the NHL. However that number increases dramatically the closer to the top 5 draft prospects. Burke knew that he was going to gut this team, and even with Kessel (who is largely overrated, but history will tell) this team was going to finish in the basement of the league. These are valuable picks, no matter which way you look at it and should have been protected for a rebuilding team. Wouldn't you agree that the Islander and Edmonton seem to have many peices in place to become elite NHL teams over the coming years?

Columbus and Florida are different circumstances, yet you lump them in together. They constantly finish in 8th to 10th position in the league, and I would argue that they have never tried a true rebuild strategy. They often are hampered by financial restrictions which cause them to lose players and management pushes for a quick rebuild strategy. I believe history will vindicate my argument, so in 3 or 4 years when Boston, the Islanders and Edmonton are serious contenders in the playoffs and the Leafs anguish in 8th or 9th place only to get blown out, I'll thumb by nose at Cox and Burke.

I really need to questions your motives for posting a constantly defense of Burke. Sports journalists must walk a fine line between being a critic and a supporter. They might end up losing contacts and thus miss out on a scoop. Keep that in mind when you read!