Why should the NHL continue to reward the Edmonton Oilers for on-ice failure and organizational ineptitude by giving them a better chance to select the cream of the crop at the Entry Draft while more successful teams line up behind and wait their turn? It shouldn’t.

I was contemplating the whole greasy, distasteful subject of teams tanking to achieve a better selection in the Entry Draft as the Oilers prepared to face the Buffalo Sabres Thursday – Jason Gregor and I were talking about trading away useful players like Matt Hendricks and Jeff Petry to keep the Oilers in contention in the Connor McDavid-Jack Eichel sweepstakes.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

I dislike the idea of teams being rewarded for losing by having better odds of picking first overall (no matter how it’s weighted) because the idea of playing games should be to win. The reality under the system employed by the NHL, however, is that if the season is a write-off and playoffs are a pipe dream, it makes sense for teams like the Sabres, Oilers, Carolina Hurricanes and Arizona Coyotes to keep losing.

By edging the Sabres 3-2, the Oilers hurt their chances of getting a crack at McDavid or Eichel in the upside-down standings by improving to 35 points. The outcome leaves Edmonton four points ahead of the 30th-place Sabres. Simply put, as a bottom-feeder, winning is bad. Losing is good. There’s something fundamentally wrong with that.

From where I sit, it’s time to change the system and take away any reward for being awful, as the Oilers have been for years on end, turning lack of results into first overall picks Taylor Hall, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins and Nail Yakupov. John MacKinnon at the Edmonton Journal wrote about doing exactly that – changing the system — this morning. The story is here. I don’t agree with MacKinnon on much, but I’m with him on this one.

It won’t happen, of course, but it should.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below



The NHL has already changed how it weights its lottery system for 2015 and will do so again for 2016. It amounts to nothing more than tinkering with a system that rewards failure. What I’d like to see, as MacKinnon suggested, is the elimination of that in the first round by giving all teams the same odds of drafting first overall regardless of whether they finish 30th or first during the regular season. Thirty balls into the machine, 30 balls out. Equal luck of the draw. In remaining rounds, use the reverse order format.

Worst picking first is a hangover from the pre-salary cap era when a handful of wealthy teams could and often would spend two or three times on player salaries than teams without the same resources. In 2002-03, teams like the New York Rangers, Detroit Red Wings, Dallas Stars and St. Louis Blues, to name just four, spent $60-$70 million, or more, on payroll. 

At the same time, have-nots like the Oilers, Minnesota, Nashville, Columbus and Pittsburgh, to name five, hovered a few million dollars on either side of the $30-million mark. While big-spenders had no guarantee of success, teams who had owners with deep pockets could throw money at mistakes and spend without limits trying to get it right. The have-nots could not and lost players to wealthier teams through free agency. The disparity was huge.

That disparity hasn’t been completely eliminated, but it’s been narrowed considerably by the salary cap and floor that’s in place now. The Red Wings or the Rangers can’t throw twice at much money at payroll as the Oilers and Sabres can. There is not the same need to throw the have-nots a bone at the Entry Draft to “even things up.”

Edmonton owner Daryl Katz can spend to the cap if he chooses. POHO Kevin Lowe, general manager Craig MacTavish and the rest Edmonton’s hockey ops management isn’t handcuffed by lack of money as management under the EIG was before a new CBA came along.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

All Cal Nichols and the EIG wanted was the chance to compete on an even playing field. That came in 2005-06. Why, with the ability to spend as much as any team, should the Oilers of today (or any team) be rewarded for lack of results, for doing a lousy job, with a better chance at picking first overall? Why should the Oilers or the Sabres have better odds of landing McDavid or Eichel than the Chicago Blackhawks or Boston Bruins?



The Oilers have been selling hope instead of results without delivering on their promises since they drafted Hall in 2010. The NHL, though the system in place, has been the enabler. “We’re lousy, but it’s a process. We’re putting the building blocks in place.” Hall, first overall. RNH, first overall. Yakupov, first overall. “Look at these great kids we’ve got. We’ll build around them. Be patient.” That’s been the pitch here, no?

Dangling the possibility of landing the next Eric Lindros or Sidney Crosby, the next “generational player,” as a consolation prize takes some of the edge off the fan base when a season has been a disaster. The upside-down standings create buzz. In Edmonton, it has bought management more time than it deserves with fans and the guy who signs the cheques. Here we are again, barely into 2015, hoping the Oilers are bad enough to hang on to a shot at McDavid or Eichel. It’s time to kick away that crutch.

It’s time for the NHL to stop rewarding failure. Give every team the same odds of getting the first overall pick. Fans shouldn’t be reduced to cheering for losses, they should be cheering for wins knowing that no matter where their team finishes in the standings, they’ve got the exact same odds as any other team of walking to the podium first.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Management in Edmonton, any city, should stand or fall on its ability to draft well in every round and to develop that talent properly within a farm system. It should stand or fall based on making the right trades and signing the right free agents. It should stand or fall on putting all the pieces together and building a winning team. That means employing the best possible people in hockey ops at all levels – scouts, coaches, support staff, analytics people. Anything less is perverse.

It’s what we have here.

Listen to Robin Brownlee Wednesdays and Thursdays from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on the Jason Gregor Show on TSN 1260.

  • Ruprecht

    I haven’t read through all of the comments so I don’t know if it’s been mentioned before so here goes.

    Have a cutoff point in the schedule, say with 20-40 games remaining, and for the teams that DO NOT make the playoffs tie their winning percentage during that block to their percentage of chance at winning the lottery.

    Teams that win more get more get a greater percentage, teams that lose get less. Makes for more meaningful hockey all season.

  • Ruprecht

    I think the tanking idea is unavoidable and a bit overblown.

    Without the lottery being held and bad teams be given the best chance…. The Blackhawks would still be a disaster. Their awful season and awful owner finally produced a solid team and an original six member is back to the top. The “generational” talent is a bit overblown because they don’t always produce cups… Winners yes, cups no.

    Two examples: Ovie…. Great talent, but no cups.

    Gretzky … My fav player like many, but once he left Edmonton… No cups.

    Sid won two but he had a lot of help in those wins. I believe teams like Boston and LA are more the norm theses days because they are built on a solid “team” concept from line 1-4 and drafting consistent NHL talent. A good team will beat a team with one star most of the time.

    If you want to tackle a problem…. Try playing hockey in areas that don’t play hockey!!

  • silentbob

    The oilers should have a better chance at landing McDavid then the Hawks because rhey need the improvement more. It’s in no ones best interest for them to remain horrible while teams with talent collect more.

    The system is set up the way it is so that teams have a path back to the top. It’s not a reward for failing its providing opportunity.

  • ted

    Thinking the best way for the top 3 picks should be.

    For the first pick. Bottom 10 teams, worst 5 teams of each conference get an equal 10% chance at no.1

    For the second pick. Bottom 10 teams minus the team that got the first get a 11.1% chance at no.2.

    For the third pick. Worst team of the bottom 10 based on losses not points.

    And then point based finishes for the rest of the draft. That makes things interesting and pointless to tank.

    In fact maybe have all the teams out of the playoffs to have an equal chance of no.1 would be fair. This losers getting rewarded system is dated for sure.

  • Deke Rivers

    I think the 4 wildcard teams, plus all out-of-playoff teams should get equal draw for the first pick (The bottom 16 teams). That way teams on the verge of making (or not making) the playoffs still have incentive to keep winning.

    All it would take is few years in a row with a top 5 team getting the first pick before an uproar from the fans. You gotta give them some hope.