Pat Mete (Posted 2008-04-01 01:05:05)
Interesting concept. The problem I see is that players and coaches on non-playoff teams don't care about the draft order. If you are a non-playoff player or coach, odds are you won't be playing for that team next season, so what do you care who or where they draft. Any doubts, ask the Frozen No Trade 5 on the Toronto Maple Leafs if they care who the Leafs select.

Brian Kemp (Posted 2008-03-31 06:46:08)
As has been stated already, the draft is supposed to make the worst teams better, or at least give them a chance to improve. If the league adopted the "Draft Tournament" idea, or Brian van Vliet's idea, why bother with a draft at all? Why not just go back to the way it was before the draft, and have a sponsorship system, where all teams have their shot at players, and can sign them as young as they want to? No, the current system works best, and while it might seem annoying that Pittsburgh has figured out Years of Mismangement+Luck=Fantastic Young Talent, it's better than half of the league having little or no shot to ever improve. Oh, and I believe Ottawa tanked too, only for Daigle, so that worked out well for them.

Brian van Vliet (Posted 2008-03-30 17:56:26)
I agree, I wrote an article about the draft for my website months ago... NHL Rewards Failure Written by Brian van Vliet - June 20, 2007 So the annual NHL draft is about to take place . Once again one of the worst teams from last season will be rewarded with the first overall draft pick. Quite a nice present from the league considering all a team has to do is be completely inept for a year. Never mind the teams that try to be fiscally responsible and put a good competitive product on the ice each season. Those teams usually finish around the middle of the pack. They then end up getting a decent but not great draft pick that will allow them to improve enough to finish, well middle of the pack. Since 1990, Quebec which became Colorado had two first overall picks. In 1996 and 2001, Colorado won Stanley Cups. Tampa Bay had two first overall picks. Roman Hamrlik in 92 and Vincent Lecavalier in 98. In 2004 Tampa Bay won the Stanley Cup. The Ottawa Senators had the first pick in 93, 95 and 96. In 2007 the Ottawa Senators were three games away from winning their first Cup. The list goes on and on… However no team on the planet has taken advantage of being a loser more than the Pittsburgh Penguins. The Penguins were crap in the 1980's and managed to be rewarded with Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr. In 91 and 92 the Penguins won Stanley Cups. The Penguins then proved how inept they were by going in the tank again for a number of years in the 2000's. Their reward?? Marc Andre Fleury first overall in 2003, Evgeni Malkin 2nd overall in 2004 and Sidney Crosby first overall in 2005. The Penguins are now a legitimate Cup contender. Teams like the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Boston Bruins who tend to always be middle of the pack, will always remain there should the current system remain intact. Congratulations to the Chicago Black Hawks for finding the magic formula by finishing near the bottom of the league and being up for the first pick in 2007. I say we go back to the old system where every team is entered into a lottery with an equal chance of getting the first pick. That way, no more teams will sandbag the end of the season to get the first pick. So if there is a God above and he is listening, please don't allow the Pittsburgh Penguins to ever win another Stanley Cup again!! Agree or disagree, I’m off the goalpost.

Cid (Posted 2008-03-30 15:00:07)
There are so many problems with the loser playoffs ideas, I hardly know where to start. Firstly, as other posters have said, the whole point of the entry draft is to push talent into rosters where it is lacking. Secondly, as a fan who has followed the game for around 20 years now, most will agree that few players are a sure bet- remember for every Lemieux or Crosby, you've also had Kip Millers, Jamie Storrs, Alexandre Daiges and Pat Falloons. Lastly, the thing some of you might forget, teams in the U.S. don't sell out the way the TMLs do- if L.A. or Phoenix or Florida sucks, their attendance drops- that's the biggest incentive for a U.S. team to field a winner- they make more money. I have to say, I'm surprised at how badly Tampa Bay is playing this year, but tanking on purpose? Come on. You think a competitor like LeCavalier is tanking it?

neilw (Posted 2008-03-30 08:57:40)
Why not turf out the worst three teams like they do in English football? Best 3 teams from the AHL come up to replace them. You can loan players from NHL to AHL instead of having farm teams. Teams like the Islanders are basically a bunch of castoffs anyway. Tinkering with the system is not going to any good. Proof that teams don't tank lies in the fact that most team's starting goalies play an absurd amount of games in proportion to their backups.

Matt (Posted 2008-03-30 01:59:51)
To GR: No thats exactly what the NHL wants. They want superstar players to end up in the weaker markets..to fill seats..The NHL's priority is not to keep exsisting fans happy, its to find new ones. Torontos fans will be there no matter how many games they lose. Florida on the other hand can't get fans to come watch them lose. ANd to Mike Stahl.. 2005 who won that year?? i must have missed it

Mike (Posted 2008-03-30 00:02:01)
Has anyone mentioned this idea of a 'loser' tournament is outside the CBA and would most likely never be agreed to by the NHLPA.This would have to be after the regular season,obviously.Players are not paid after that point and unless that is changed,I can see what kind of pond hockey tournament that would be.What a ludicrous concept.

GR (Posted 2008-03-29 21:36:30)
Most of the bad teams are in the weakest markets. Just what the league doesn't need is its best young future players like Stamkos and Tavares playing for Florida, Phoenix, Tampa Bay, and LA. If the NHL wants to be more than Sidney Crosby they either need to move a couple of those franchises or change the system so they can showcase these studs.

Avi (Posted 2008-03-29 15:57:23)
How about giving it to the better 9th place... That way you don't have to change any rules and the team who gets it deserved it for their effort in trying for that playoff spot...

Fred Bartsch (Posted 2008-03-29 14:51:03)
Jason- Just what we need, another useless tournament/game for the fans to be BILKED for. MIKE STAHL, your statement of teams can't afford to have more than (1) of these type is true but incorrect. Minnesota has (3) Boogard, Simon, Fedoruk. But what ever.

Joe Willix (Posted 2008-03-29 13:17:53)
Your argument for outside-Major Junior fighters is a bit of a stretch. If you have to mention Chris Nilan and Krzysztof Oliwa as examples you're reaching, considering Nilan's career goes back almost 2 decades before Oliwa played his first NHL game. And of the 3 most recent examples, only Parros really counts as a feared tough guy. Yes, I think fighting has a place in hockey at any "adult" level, but the Roy incident was a joke, and merits more than just a game misconduct penalty. But how do you differentiate between when emotions legitimately run amock and calculated bufoonery (like Roy)? Even an Olli Jokinen-type player gets angry and starts swinging if you hit the right button. Aren't we going to hear the wails of anguish when that earns him a suspension? Unfortunately there's no simple answer to this, but at least your solution is a more middle-of-the-road idea, which I can easily see the merits of.

Greg Dries (Posted 2008-03-29 11:43:37)
With all due respect, this is a horrible idea. Although the past few years there have been some real gems in the draft, what about years where there are no immediate difference makers? I think guys would rather be on the golf course than playing a mini-tourney for Patrik Stefan. I think they should get rid of the NBA style lottery and go back to the worst team gets the first pick. I think it's insulting to NHLers to think they would tank it for the top pick; why play poorly so your team can draft a guy to take your job?