1 for 1 in next draft

Status
Not open for further replies.

xander

Registered User
Nov 4, 2003
4,085
0
Section A Lynah Rink
Visit site
gobert said:
And NOT holding the draft this year is going to screw over a lot of draft eligible players.

I didn't reallize that those draft eligible players where members of the NHL or the NHLPA. The needs of the league's members should be met before the needs of those outside the league. Why not just raise the draft age to 19? I don't think that it would be to hard to collectivly bargin it into the CBA, considering that the PA has already given up the farm. It would be better in the long run anyway: an extra year would give teams a clearer picture of what a prospect might be.
 

Traitor8

Registered User
Nov 3, 2003
4,921
0
Visit site
DarthSather99 said:
How is a weighted lottery rewarding/hurting a team? there is little difference in a 6% chance and a 1% .


:biglaugh: I stopped reading there!

it's only about 6 times more!

Plus someone mentionned teams like Tampa and Chicago who are not affected....
I can easily say Toronto,Detroit will be affected by it.

No Season = No Standings = Draft order to be decided FAIRLY

Who cares if the Habs made the playoffs 3 yrs ago...half of the team isn't even in Montreal anymore...
 

arrbez

bad chi
Jun 2, 2004
13,352
261
Toronto
fisher said:
As long as the Crosby draft still takes place in Ottawa, I'll be happy.

i'm not sure about that. I heard somewhere (radio maybe?) that if they need to rush a draft off later in the summer they'll just do it by conference call in new york or something? I can't really recall all the details, but they made it sound like Ottawa would be compensated with the next possible draft down the line. Has anyone else heard something like this?
 

NYRangers

Registered User
Aug 11, 2004
2,850
0
I guess I am alone. But I can't believe this ****.

This is such a ridiculous idea. Who in their right mind can say this is fair without any bais?

Someone run a '1 for 1' draft. Compare that to last year's order/standings. Note the difference.

Then compare it to the change in the order of the 2002 draft to the 2003 draft.

I wonder which one keeps realism.


As for the moron who said, 'the draft is BS anyway because it helps teams who try to be bad and hurts teams that are good franchises" -- that might be the stupidest thing I have ever heard, congrats. The draft is made the way it is to help the bad teams get back into competition with the good teams. I am not even going to elaborate.

I don't care if I am the only person who feels this way but I honeslty cannot believe they agreed to this. To be honest, I couln't believe Bettman's proposal which seperated the top and bottom teams by only 5%.
 

EroCaps

Registered User
Aug 24, 2003
18,026
1,636
Virginia
NYRangers said:
I guess I am alone. But I can't believe this ****.

This is such a ridiculous idea. Who in their right mind can say this is fair without any bais?

Someone run a '1 for 1' draft. Compare that to last year's order/standings. Note the difference.

Then compare it to the change in the order of the 2002 draft to the 2003 draft.

I wonder which one keeps realism.


As for the moron who said, 'the draft is BS anyway because it helps teams who try to be bad and hurts teams that are good franchises" -- that might be the stupidest thing I have ever heard, congrats. The draft is made the way it is to help the bad teams get back into competition with the good teams. I am not even going to elaborate.

I don't care if I am the only person who feels this way but I honeslty cannot believe they agreed to this. To be honest, I couln't believe Bettman's proposal which seperated the top and bottom teams by only 5%.

The CBA could change the face of the NHL dramatically. It should. Look at what parity has done for the NFL. The draft may be a minor concession. It is *technically* fair.
 

NYRangers

Registered User
Aug 11, 2004
2,850
0
EroCaps said:
The CBA could change the face of the NHL dramatically. It should. Look at what parity has done for the NFL. The draft may be a minor concession. It is *technically* fair.

So, you think all the teams are equally good? You think the Capitals would have been as good as the Red Wings has their been a season?

The purpose of the draft is to help replenish weaker teams. It is done in reverse order of the standings for a reason. This defeats that purpose.
 

EroCaps

Registered User
Aug 24, 2003
18,026
1,636
Virginia
NYRangers said:
So, you think all the teams are equally good? You think the Capitals would have been as good as the Red Wings has their been a season?

The purpose of the draft is to help replenish weaker teams. It is done in reverse order of the standings for a reason. This defeats that purpose.

It's hard to make a case for replenishing teams based on a phantom season. The CBA has the potential to help small market teams dramatically. In ways that put emphasis on the draft and coaching/management. I don't think a level playing field tips the favor in any one team's direction. The big spenders will be losing players to retirement, the cap, and degenerating play. The draft doesn't bother me. The idea of using seasons from 3-4 years ago as any sort of weight this year bothered me bigtime as a fan od a rebuilding team. I'd be fine w/this.
 

Le Golie

...
Jul 4, 2002
8,541
464
TEAMS SHOULD BE REWARDED FOR SUCKING. And guess what? THEY WERE. They got high picks at the 2004 draft. The NHL doesn't owe the bad teams anything more than that. This is a fresh start.

I'm fine with everything being equal, and the only people that aren't seem to be the fans of the terrible teams. Comments like 'The NHL will lose hoards of fans' is laughable.

I agree with Peli. The less fans the NHL has that are that stupid, the better.
 

NYRangers

Registered User
Aug 11, 2004
2,850
0
EroCaps said:
It's hard to make a case for replenishing teams based on a phantom season. The CBA has the potential to help small market teams dramatically. In ways that put emphasis on the draft and coaching/management. I don't think a level playing field tips the favor in any one team's direction. The big spenders will be losing players to retirement, the cap, and degenerating play. The draft doesn't bother me. The idea of using seasons from 3-4 years ago as any sort of weight this year bothered me bigtime as a fan od a rebuilding team. I'd be fine w/this.

Going back 3-4 years is not fair. Do you honeslty think a system of 1 for 1 will be more acurate than reusing last years standings?

TEAMS SHOULD BE REWARDED FOR SUCKING. And guess what? THEY WERE. They got high picks at the 2004 draft.

So now they should reward good teams with high picks they CLEARLY WOULDNT HAVE HAD for locking out their players? Cool, go NHL.

The NHL doesn't owe the bad teams anything more than that. This is a fresh start.

Its obviously not a fresh start. Teams still have better players then others and therefore have a head start.
 

DarthSather99

Registered User
Mar 2, 2002
3,313
15
NYC
Visit site
Komisarek8 said:
:biglaugh: I stopped reading there!

it's only about 6 times more!

Plus someone mentionned teams like Tampa and Chicago who are not affected....
I can easily say Toronto,Detroit will be affected by it.

No Season = No Standings = Draft order to be decided FAIRLY

Who cares if the Habs made the playoffs 3 yrs ago...half of the team isn't even in Montreal anymore...


You stopped reading there?? :biglaugh: You couldn't read one more sentence ...too painful for you? :biglaugh:
 

EroCaps

Registered User
Aug 24, 2003
18,026
1,636
Virginia
NYRangers said:
Going back 3-4 years is not fair. Do you honeslty think a system of 1 for 1 will be more acurate than reusing last years standings?



So now they should reward good teams with high picks they CLEARLY WOULDNT HAVE HAD for locking out their players? Cool, go NHL.

Last year's standings would have been unfair. Going back a few years would have been unfair. It would have given Washington the same odds of Tampa and Detroit and Pittsburgh a middle of the pack at best chance. That would just stink. 1-30 seems the only reasonable way to go. Having thought it through a second time.
 

Le Golie

...
Jul 4, 2002
8,541
464
NYRangers said:
So now they should reward good teams with high picks they CLEARLY WOULDNT HAVE HAD for locking out their players? Cool, go NHL.

There is no way any rational person could support an opinion that the bad teams have any more rights to those picks than the good teams.
 

DarthSather99

Registered User
Mar 2, 2002
3,313
15
NYC
Visit site
Le Golie said:
I'm fine with everything being equal, and the only people that aren't seem to be the fans of the terrible teams. Comments like 'The NHL will lose hoards of fans' is laughable.
....and it appears that the fans of the better teams are very happy to have an equal shot at the #1 pick that they ordinaraly would NEVER have gotten to begin with ..... no loss to them and everything to gain.

Hoards....who said hoards? I said people who are on the fence ...the NHL is in grave danger ...no TV contract ...arena football gets better ratings. .. NO exposure = MAJOR problems. I did miss the NHL but right now am doing fine without it. Many in the USA have moved on


...and as you are saying that the fans of TERRIBLE teams aren't in favor of a 1 for 1 .....you are admitting that there is a drastic difference in teams talent and that they all are not equal in talent, otherwise there would not be fans of TERRIBLE teams. There would be just fans of teams, all being equal. Thank you for supporting our argument for a weighted lottery.
 
Last edited:

Le Golie

...
Jul 4, 2002
8,541
464
DarthSather99 said:
....and it appears that the fans of the better teams are very happy to have an equal shot at the #1 pick that they ordinaraly would NEVER have gotten to begin with ..... no loss to them and everything to gain.


...and as you are saying that the fans of TERRIBLE teams aren't in favor of a 1 for 1 .....you are admitting that there is a drastic difference in teams talent and that they all are not equal in talent, otherwise there would not be fans of TERRIBLE teams. There would be just fans of teams, all being equal.

Explain to me how it is unfair to reward the poor 03-04 teams with high picks in the '04 draft, and call it even. The lockout never had a two for one clause, no team has any more right to the first pick this year than the next team.
 

DarthSather99

Registered User
Mar 2, 2002
3,313
15
NYC
Visit site
Le Golie said:
Explain to me how it is unfair to reward the poor 03-04 teams with high picks in the '04 draft, and call it even. The lockout never had a two for one clause, no team has any more right to the first pick this year than the next team.

Explain to me how it is fair to give the better teams who will retain their core players the #1 overall. Teams like the Islanders had top 10 picks for 10 years + and developed a core of young players that have now propelled them to being a playoff team. When the NHL resumes, they will NOT lose these players as most of them will still be restricted free agents. Even with the rumored age of 28 being the age of total free agency the teams that drafted in the top in the 90's will STILL have their better players in their prime as restricted free agents and they will reatin those players. So stop trying to make it sound like EVERY player in the NHL will be totally free to sign with anyone making every team equal because they are not.
 

Le Golie

...
Jul 4, 2002
8,541
464
DarthSather99 said:
stop trying to make it sound like EVERY player in the NHL will be totally free to sign with anyone making every team equal because they are not.

I never said or implied that once. The quality of teams will not be equal at all, but the rights to a pick position based on a season that never took place certainly is. Bad teams were rewarded once, they don't deserve freebie high picks again.

My point still stands, the NHL does not owe anyone any more than the draft positions they were given after the 03-04 season.
 

NYRangers

Registered User
Aug 11, 2004
2,850
0
Le Golie said:
There is no way any rational person could support an opinion that the bad teams have any more rights to those picks than the good teams.

Your insane.

Simple question. In your opinion, if a season were to have been held last year, do you think the Capitals or Lightning would have been the better team?

Lets be honest, everyone knows here who generally would have been the best and worst teams. A weighted lottery would have had nothing set in stone yet would make the bad and good teams generally near the top and bottom of the order -- where would have been. It (weighted using last years standings) would be a better projection of the 2004-2005 standings than 30 balls in a bin.

I'm not going to debate this anymore because I cannot believe any person can honestly tell me that they think the Caps and Red Wings would have entered the season last year with equal outlooks.
 

arrbez

bad chi
Jun 2, 2004
13,352
261
Toronto
EroCaps said:
It's hard to make a case for replenishing teams based on a phantom season. The CBA has the potential to help small market teams dramatically. In ways that put emphasis on the draft and coaching/management. I don't think a level playing field tips the favor in any one team's direction. The big spenders will be losing players to retirement, the cap, and degenerating play. The draft doesn't bother me. The idea of using seasons from 3-4 years ago as any sort of weight this year bothered me bigtime as a fan od a rebuilding team. I'd be fine w/this.

amen. I've heard countless people over the last few weeks saying "the Leafs are going to suck with a cap, they won't make the playoffs, etc", and yet these same people go insane at the thought of this supposedly terrible team getting a high draft pick.
 

Le Golie

...
Jul 4, 2002
8,541
464
NYRangers said:
Your insane.

Simple question. In your opinion, if a season were to have been held last year, do you think the Capitals or Lightning would have been the better team?

Lets be honest, everyone knows here who generally would have been the best and worst teams. A weighted lottery would have had nothing set in stone yet would make the bad and good teams generally near the top and bottom of the order -- where would have been. It (weighted using last years standings) would be a better projection of the 2004-2005 standings than 30 balls in a bin.

I'm not going to debate this anymore because I cannot believe any person can honestly tell me that they think the Caps and Red Wings would have entered the season last year with equal outlooks.

You and I aren't on the same page here at all, I'm not saying anything about what the quality of teams would have been last year yet you think I am basing my entire rationale on that.

No doubt Tampa would have killed Washington. That doesn't change the fact that Tampa received the last pick at the 04 draft and Washington got the 1st pick. That was the payoff for the standings that year. How can you say the NHL owes teams like Washington or the Rangers a high pick again? They got their reward at the last draft, the slate is clean.
 

WhiskeyYerTheDevils

yer leadin me astray
Sponsor
Apr 27, 2005
33,480
29,406
Le Golie, you are the only person on this board with apparent thought out reasoning. Many of the other posters feel that since Washington was so frickin terrible last year that they deserve Ovechkin and Crosby. These poor teams last year got Ovechkin, Malkin, Barker, Ladd, and Wheeler. That oughta do them for alteast another year, as Malkin and Ovechkin are arguably the 2 best Russian prospects ever. I agree with the fact that the worst teams from a single year should get the best draft picks in that year, but a year has come and past. The poor teams could have easily improved, as could the "good" teams become worse.
 

danaluvsthekings

Registered User
May 1, 2004
4,420
5
NYRangers said:
Lets be honest, everyone knows here who generally would have been the best and worst teams. A weighted lottery would have had nothing set in stone yet would make the bad and good teams generally near the top and bottom of the order -- where would have been. It (weighted using last years standings) would be a better projection of the 2004-2005 standings than 30 balls in a bin.

In theory you can figure out that on paper Tampa looks better than Washington, Detroit looks better than Columbus and so on. But no one knows what would have happened once the teams started playing. Some team could have had an unbelievable stretch of injuries like LA had the last 2 seasons. Somewhere else a goalie could have gotten hot like Giguere or Kiprusoff did the last two years and gotten his team, when no one thought the team would be in the playoffs, deep into the playoffs, another team could have tried to tank the season to get into the draft lottery. Another team that everyone figured would do well could have started out slow, fired their coach, and then struggled the rest of the season and ended up out of the playoffs. Even though you can figure who should have been the best team, fact of the matter is no one can say for sure how the teams would have ended up if they played.

The fact is the league is never going to come up with a system that pleases all 30 teams and the fans of those teams. Teams that have done well will obviously say everyone having an equal shot is fair and the bad teams are going to say a weighted lottery is fair. But really, if you went back 4 years and used the standings and playoff seeds for all of those seasons, quite a few of those teams that were good 4 years ago, or at least made the playoffs, have had considerable roster turnover since then. Why should something that happened 4 seasons ago have an effect on this year's lottery? I wouldn't want to be Bettman right now and trying to find a plan that works for everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->