1 for 1 in next draft

[Chaos Giraffe]

The "There's no way X team would make/miss the playoffs" comment is a joke.

Year in year out, there are examples that clearly prove that statement otherwise.

Ducks as one of the laughable teams of the league in 2001-2002, makes the playoffs the next year with a VERY respectable 95 pts finish.

Dallas, failing to make the playoffs in 2001-2002, finishes 2nd in the league the next year.

WASHINGTON, having made the playoffs as 6th in the 2002-2003 season, still retaining most of their LOADED lineup with the likes of Jagr, Lang, and Kolzig.............becomes the 2nd worst team the next year.

Carolina, making the playoffs and going into the finals in 2001-2002..........becomes the worst team the next year.

Los Angeles, finishing with a strong 95 pts in 2001-2002.........fails to make the playoffs the next TWO years.

Please, how many more examples do we need? A 30 team, 30 ball system is clearly the best way to go. Going with "last season's standings" or "last 4 years of success" clearly doesn't work.

 

[me2]

Please, how many more examples do we need? A 30 team, 30 ball system is clearly the best way to go. Going with "last season's standings" or "last 4 years of success" clearly doesn't work.

It probably won't this year after the great cap reshuffling. Some teams will still be close to certainties to be playoff teams (Ott, Van, Phily, SJ, Tampa), but some are really going to drop like stones. At the other end, who knows just how much the bottom feeders are going to improve if the corner the UFA market. It is looking to be a very close year, fewer teams at the top and fewer at the bottom.

 

[hawksfan50]

1.It is patently WRONG for any "Big spender" team of recent seasons to get Crosby--they caused the CBA mess in the first place and ruined hockey into have and have not camps--they in no certain terms "deserve" any reward of an "equal" chance at Crosby. PERIOD!

2. The recent "successful" made playoffs teams (whether you go back 1,3or 4 prior seasons played" also should not be given an "equal" chance as the less successful teams over the period--"fairness" (an equal chance) should NEVER be based on the idea of a "possible" downturn in the success rate of recently strong teams who MIGHT decline in success under a new CBA:

a) it is NOT CERTAIN that they will decline...

b) it is certainly NOT CERTAIN they will decline in the immmediate season upcoming--it might take a gradual decline over several of the next season,as more of their "vets" who got them "succcess" come out of the roster due to old age and/or CAP reasons...


3. The ONLY rationale to base "fairness" in determining draft chances should be the "Suffering index" of the fans of recent seasons' "loser" teams--you reward those FANS with better chances for their team in the draft..



If Crosby ends up in Detroit with the Pizza King and his "Hockeytown USA" circus,I'm going to puke...no way the Wings or any other recent perennial "contender" for so much of the last decade should get an equal chance...

 

[Chaos Giraffe]

1.It is patently WRONG for any "Big spender" team of recent seasons to get Crosby--they caused the CBA mess in the first place and ruined hockey into have and have not camps--they in no certain terms "deserve" any reward of an "equal" chance at Crosby. PERIOD!

2. The recent "successful" made playoffs teams (whether you go back 1,3or 4 prior seasons played" also should not be given an "equal" chance as the less successful teams over the period--"fairness" (an equal chance) should NEVER be based on the idea of a "possible" downturn in the success rate of recently strong teams who MIGHT decline in success under a new CBA:

a) it is NOT CERTAIN that they will decline...

b) it is certainly NOT CERTAIN they will decline in the immmediate season upcoming--it might take a gradual decline over several of the next season,as more of their "vets" who got them "succcess" come out of the roster due to old age and/or CAP reasons...


3. The ONLY rationale to base "fairness" in determining draft chances should be the "Suffering index" of the fans of recent seasons' "loser" teams--you reward those FANS with better chances for their team in the draft..



If Crosby ends up in Detroit with the Pizza King and his "Hockeytown USA" circus,I'm going to puke...no way the Wings or any other recent perennial "contender" for so much of the last decade should get an equal chance...

I wonder what you consider the New York Rangers to be then? By far the largest spender in the last decade, yet they've missed the past what, 8 playoffs? So, do they get a chance at Crosby? Either way you answer, you'll be contradicting yourself.

You still don't understand the facts that are layed out before you. I use your favourite team for an example:

Blackhawks were 5th in the Western Conference back in 2001-2002, and only a mere 4 pts away from the 2nd seed. The next year, they finish 9th, 11 pts back from 8th. The most recent season........lowest number of wins, and tied for 2nd worst team in the league.

So based on that, do the Hawks deserve a chance at Crosby?

The Canucks were the laughing stock of the league in the late 90's to 2000. For the past 3 years, they've been in the upper echelon in terms of success. They've also managed to do this at a relatively modest payroll (before the Bertuzzi re-signing).

By calculating the success of teams for the past 4 years, it would be unfair to Colorado. For only 3 years, it would be unfair to Vancouver. For only 2 years, it would heavily favour Chicago and Carolina. Do you not see the massive flaw in that? Why should a team that was poor 3 years ago, have more leverage over a team that was poor 4 years ago, and vice versa. By setting up an X number of years we go back, it's an obvious tactic to help a certain team. Where is Calgary in all of this? Pathetic the past 6 years, then last year........cup finals. Tampa Bay pathetic since their introduction into the league, had marginal success in 2002, and won the cup in 2003-2004.

 

[ryz]

How do you know? I think that's just a convinient excuse that fans of the bottom teams constructed to justify their own greed.

WOW. I'm not a proponent of the weighted lottery or the 1 for 1 system as I'm sure my team won't get the #1 pick anyway, but this is the most Pejorative Slured sentance I have read all day. Feel free to pull your head out of your a$$ at anytime.