2005 Draft Discussion

[Colorado Avalanche]

I think the fairest way is to push the draft back until the all-star break and use the 2005-06 standings. Combine it all into one giant media event.

no thanks.. Just give AVS change to pick Crosby

 

[EroCaps]

Yeah, Jagr's image was further trashed in DC because he was an ex-Pen. Even Robert Lang, who seems to be a very likable fellow had his detractors in Washington because of being an ex-Pen. AO doesn't carry that baggage.

I think it had less to do with the fact he was an ex-Pen, and everything to do with the fact he was a total puff nuts.

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

I'd like to see a completely open lottery...it'd be fantastic...

That being said, it won't happen, the NHL cares too much for the small markets.

agree
that would be so cool to have change to get crosby and higher picks..

 

[NYIsles1*]

but the big difference between the rangers and most of the other markets is that NYC has 8 million people, most of the other markets have a fraction of that. you are talking about alot more people which means alot more $$. it is just a purely numbers thing

it isn't just a coincedence that in 1994 when the rangers won, hockey was at its alltime high in popularity in the US and it also isn't a coincedence that the last 7 years as the rangers took a nose dive down the crapper so did the league...

Hockey was at it's all time popularity in 1994? Maybe to Ranger fans for two weeks but in the end the Rangers did nothing for hockey and attendace was on the same upward trends as it was before the lockout and in 1993. Give some credit to New Jersey and Vancouver who made two weeks memorable with great hockey.

Hockey in NY was far more popular in the seventies and eighties. In the early seventies hockey was religion at Msg, all star players did not have to be brought in and the fans identified with the home grown players.

Bottom line it's not 1994, it's not the eighties when the Isles were winning either and had some space inside the city media. There are hundred million dollar baseball teams here now that own the stage, the media and dominate the public interest year round and it's far different than a decade ago. Win or lose hockey is a one demographic sport here while others today have several. The Rangers going to the conference finals in 97 did nothing for the NHL, whether they win or lose means little outside of their own niche of fans. If a market has eight million fans and only 100,000 fans are interested in hockey it's not as popular as a smaller market with more hockey fans.

Ranger ratings for televised games last season with an eighty million dollar team equaled only sixty thousands homes, explain to me why a few hundred thousand sports fans are all of a sudden going to become interested in Crosby when Derek Jeter to Eli Manning to Jason Kidd will get headlines over Crosby every time.

That is why you see all the open seats at the Garden every year while you never see an open seat in Montreal or Philadelphia. The Expos could not compete with the Habs and the Rangers cannot compete with the Yankees, Mets, Giants, Jets, Knicks or Nets. Hockey cannot compete with them in the media, why do you think Brodeur does not get the coverage?

NYC is the #1 market and therefore success or failure in that market has a huge impact on the rest of the league. i don't mean to sound like i'm saying the rangers are more important than other teams, because it is about the market not the team. but the reality is that success in nyc is more impactful financially than succses in raleigh...and struggling teams in some of the biggest us markets (ny, la, chicago, boston to a lesser extent) has played a huge role in the leagues current problems.

If your the seventh team in the number one market it does not apply. The Wings can be the number one team in their market, so can Colorado or St.Louis and a few others. Why are people in NYC going to forget Yankees-Mets-Sox in June today to
get caught up with a sport they know little about and are not fans of? Look at the Yankee and Met roster and payroll back in 1994, that's why there was room for hockey back then, that's over now.

i'm just simply arguing that the league as a whole would be stronger if the top markets were more successful. ideal situation would be for markets like nyc, la, chicago, toronto, philly, etc to produce more $$ and then help lift up the other markets but since the league doesn't want revenue sharing who knows how much it would help other than claiming the league as a whole was successful even if individual teams weren't.

I disagree and it's been proven out unfortunately. A Ranger-Flyer, Colorado-Detroit semi-final did nothing for hockey in 1997. The Wings first cup in fifty years was a sweep and brought nothing to the NHL, just as a Ranger sweep would have done in 1994.

Philadelphia has been successful, Detroit has won the cup, so has Dallas, Colorado, the Blues, Kings have gone to the playoffs more often that not, so has Toronto.

Almost all of them today report losing money and the game lost it's viability overall, why is Crosby going to change anything in markets that have established stars?

All that said good luck to whoever get's Crosby.

 

[Douggy]

Then pray the fix isnt in for the Rangers, Kings or Hawks.

If you don't want the Flyers, Leafs, Wings or Avs to get Crosby, I'm not sure I follow your logic, but I'll grant it to you for the time being.

But why wouldn't you want Chicago or L.A. to get him?
- Take a look at the last couple playoff runs by the Kings. It may not be a 'hockey town' but it has enough DIE-HARD Kings fans to turn the Staples Centre into a pretty rowdy joint.
- As for Chicago, the last time they had a team that wasn't an embarasment, they're fans rallied around it pretty well too. As a Leafs fan, I feel for the only team with a longer drought than us.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I actually agree that the 03-04 standings shouldn't be used. I agree that those teams were compensated for sucking in 03-04. I agree with that.
However, I don't understand how anyone can bash that idea, then turn around with the equal-30-team idea, with the excuse of "my team is going to lose all of its players because of the CBA, blah, blah, blah..." If that happens to your team AND your team sucks, your team will be fairly compensated in the 06 draft.
How, again, is that different?

In my mind, there should be an assessment of a "hypotetical" 04-05 season. I said on these very boards that they should throw together a selection committee to order the draft based on who is bad, who is good, who is getting better, who is getting worse, and other factors, etc.

Given the options here, the 03-04 standings are a much more realistic representation of the NHL than a random equal-30-team draw. It isn't perfect, but it is a lot closer to accurate. The only perfectly accurate way to determine the draft order would be to play games (and some of you still piss and moan about that method), but that isn't an option.
For the record, I'm alright with a lottery for all teams, but I want it weighted.

I know I'm labled as biased. I admit I'm Jackets fan. But (and I've said this MANY times here), not getting Crosby isn't my biggest concern, getting a bottom 5 pick in the draft is. Why? Because you all know damn well that the Blue Jackets are not a top 5 team is this league, CBA or no CBA. Quit acting like they would be.

Someone please tell me, how are these two questions different:
How should the 05 draft order go?
Who would've won the Cup in the 04-05 season?

I still find it pretty amusing that when there was a hint of a season a week ago, no one thought Columbus, Washington, Chicago, Atlanta, etc. were going to win the Cup. Why is that?

 

[DARKSIDE]

As a Devils fan, I'd be happy with Brule or Johnson. However, Parise centering Crosby would be magical.

 

[AH]

Crosby is going to the Rangers. The NHL will make sure of it.

Too bad, 'cause he would look nice in a Habs jersey.

 

[Enoch]

How about they just put 465 names in a barrel.

30 Pittsburgh
29 Chicago
28 Washington
1 Tampa Bay etc

465 being 30! (dont know the english word for the (!) math formula)

I believe you mean factorial .

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

A snake draft is silly and only used in Fantasy Leagues. Just have a lottery where some teams get a better chance then others and just have a draft.

 

[AgentOrange*]

IMO, all 30 teams should have an equal shot at #1.

Too many rosters have changed since the end of last season.

If/when the NHL comes back, they should start fresh with rule changes, marketing etc etc and even the draft.

If the NHL and the team marketed Crosby properly/effectively I think it would work for no matter what team (ie Nashville, Carolina etc etc) drafts him.

I'd draft Brule over him anyways!



I sometimes hope Crosby becomes a bust ala Daigle etc just to laugh at all these fans that are overhyping him now. Himself and AO look like they have a great chance/potential of being what people think they'll be, but there are no guarantees.

 

[Garp]

Ok, lets talk about Facts:

1. The Draft is there to give the best players to the worst teams during the season
2. We are talking about the 2004-2005 draft
3. In the 2004-2005 season, Pitts, Washington and Colombus are undefeated
4. On the other hand, In the 2004-2005 season, Toronto and NJ have no victories

I know it wouldn't be fair to do an open lottery, but fans of crappy teams during the 2003-2004 have to understand that this is the 2004-2005 season and that they are not Nostradamus, nor am I.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Ok, lets talk about Facts:

1. The Draft is there to give the best players to the worst teams during the season
2. We are talking about the 2004-2005 draft
3. In the 2004-2005 season, Pitts, Washington and Colombus are undefeated
4. On the other hand, In the 2004-2005 season, Toronto and NJ have no victories

I know it wouldn't be fair to do an open lottery, but fans of crappy teams during the 2003-2004 have to understand that this is the 2004-2005 season and that they are not Nostradamus, nor am I.

I agree. None of us are Nostradamus.
But most of us are informed informed hockey fans and, as cliched as it sounds, we know that improvement in the NHL is a marathon, not a sprint. We know that most of the awful teams from when last we played are very likely not going to be much better. And, we know that most of the good teams when last we played are very likely not going to be much worse.

It just kills me how fans of consistently good teams are willing to throw this logic out the window when they see they might have a shot at a top-5 pick.

You can't come back with the "my team is going to lose players" arguement because that will be taken care of in the 06 draft.

If you're striving for accuracy in setting this draft order (or trying to figure out the now nonexistent 04-05 season), I can GUARANTEE you that you'll produce a more acurate list by any method other than the equal-30-team method. That is the most inacurate idea I've heard.

I do feel bad for the middle-of-the-pack teams because they're the ones that are hardest to place. Realisticly some of them will make the jump to the playoffs, while others would fall into the top 10 picks, maybe the top 5. I just don't see how you can account for that though.

Without a season, you can't be 100 percent accurate.

 

[AgentOrange*]

A reward for failure. But I guess having the worse teams draft first and so on are the better option.

Whatever the NHL decides can be argued from the other side of the spectrum.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

A reward for failure. But I guess having the worse teams draft first and so on are the better option.

Whatever the NHL decides can be argued from the other side of the spectrum.

You bunch of prospect-nuts need to remove your heads from your rears and realize that being amongst the worst teams in the league ISN'T a reward.

You think the bad teams are happy with where they are at? You think they're content being the walk-overs of the league so they can roll the dice on an 18-year-old kid who may or may not pan out? You think this is a reward?

I can confidently say that the fans of Pittsburgh, Washington, Chicago, Columbus, Florida, Atlanta and any other bad team you want to throw in there would gladly trade their high draft picks for the chance to be a perennial playoff team ANY TIME.

Complain all you want to complain, but to even imply that the poor perennial playoff teams are somehow wronged in that they don't get high draft picks is completely and totally asinine.

Hey, if your team is good but you'd much rather have the high picks, I'd like to nominate the Blue Jackets to take your place as a fun-to-watch, competitive, Cup-competitve team.
Heck, I encourage good teams to tank it if they feel they're being so wronged on this draft pick front. It'll be this great nonviolent protest against this ridiculous concept of trying to help struggling franchises.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I have the perfect system, and not entirely tongue and cheek. You all want the most realistic assesment made by a panel of respected experts on how the season would have gone, go back and get the real experts, the Vegas oddsmakers before the season started:

NHL
2005 Stanley Cup
Updated August 26, 2004
Team Current

Tampa Bay Lightning 5/1
Detroit Red Wings 5/1
Ottawa Senators 7/1
Philadelphia Flyers 7/1
Colorado Avalanche 7/1
Toronto Maple Leafs 8/1
Boston Bruins 10/1
New Jersey Devils 10/1
Vancouver Canucks 10/1
Dallas Stars 12/1
San Jose Sharks 12/1
Calgary Flames 10/1
St. Louis Blues 20/1
Los Angeles Kings 17/1
Montreal Canadiens 25/1
Edmonton Oilers 30/1
New York Islanders 30/1
Nashville Predators 35/1
Minnesota Wild 35/1
Anaheim Mighty Ducks 40/1
New York Rangers 45/1
Buffalo Sabres 50/1
Atlanta Thrashers 50/1
Florida Panthers 60/1
Carolina Hurricanes 75/1
Phoenix Coyotes 75/1
Columbus Bluejackets 125/1
Pittsburgh Penguins 150/1
Chicago Blackhawks 150/1
Washington Capitals 150/1

http://www.vegas.com/gaming/futures/stanleycup.html


These guys are better than experts, they put their $$$$ (and lives at times) on the line. I will even give a system. Tier the teams by odds. Washington, Chicago, Pittsburgh have a one in three chance at last place. Phoenix and Carolina would fight it out for places 4 and 5. And on down the line. Then have the lottery as usually, same weighting as usual. Washington would have to win two lotteries to get AO and Crosby together and if they do that more power to them.

Now someone try and argue with this approach, those of you wanting the fairest reflection of how 2004-5 would have gone. I will enjoy hearing an argument against.

 

[Pepper]

I think there should be a system where the 15th team in 03-04 has exactly 2/60th chance to get the no.1 pick, Tampa should have 1/60th chance and Pens 4/60th, that would give each team a chance of getting Cros...I mean 1st pick.

In percentages:

Tampa 1.67%
15th team 3.33%
Pens 6.66%

So every team after Tampa gets +0.111% to their chance of getting 1st pick.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I think there should be a system where the 15th team in 03-04 has exactly 2/60th chance to get the no.1 pick, Tampa should have 1/60th chance and Pens 4/60th, that would give each team a chance of getting Cros...I mean 1st pick.

In percentages:

Tampa 1.67%
15th team 3.33%
Pens 6.66%

So every team after Tampa gets +0.111% to their chance of getting 1st pick.

And that reflects anywhere near accurately the hypothetical 2004-5 season, how? The difference between one of the (by the odds - 14th best is 17 to 1 odds, 15th best is 25 to 1 . . . now the bottom three teams are 150 to 1 . . . not even close) by far worst teams is only 1.5% better than middle of the pack, 5% less than the stanley cup winner. Obviously many do not give a damn about fairness. And I am still waiting an hour later for an answer of why the system I put forth above does not most accurately among all of the proposed systems reflect a hypothetical 2004-5 season. All that I am getting is after an hour of waiting on a thread with over 5,000 looks in a couple of days. Must not have an answer I am thinking.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Now someone try and argue with this approach, those of you wanting the fairest reflection of how 2004-5 would have gone. I will enjoy hearing an argument against.

But Nik Lidstrom's could get addicted to tonic and develop giagantism. Yzerman could fall down a bottomless pit. Shanahan could get knocked out in a bar fight by a drunk and Hatcher could develop a bad case of raditaion poisoning.
Detroit surely would suck then. We just don't know. That stuff could've happened if we played a season.
It is unfair.

 

[Pepper]

And that reflects anywhere near accurately the hypothetical 2004-5 season, how? The difference between one of the (by the odds - 14th best is 17 to 1 odds, 15th best is 25 to 1 . . . now the bottom three teams are 150 to 1 . . . not even close) by far worst teams is only 1.5% better than middle of the pack, 5% less than the stanley cup winner. Obviously many do not give a damn about fairness. And I am still waiting an hour later for an answer of why the system I put forth above does not most accurately among all of the proposed systems reflect a hypothetical 2004-5 season. All that I am getting is after an hour of waiting on a thread with over 5,000 looks in a couple of days. Must not have an answer I am thinking.

Because the Las Vegas odds are only S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N of what might have happened, that's why. There's absolutely no way to predict 04-05 season in any way or form so simply have to use 03-04 actual results. You keep talking about fairness, how fair is it to base chances of getting 1st pick on some bookie's odds?? Get real.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Because the Las Vegas odds are only S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N of what might have happened, that's why. There's absolutely no way to predict 04-05 season in any way or form so simply have to use 03-04 actual results. You keep talking about fairness, how fair is it to base chances of getting 1st pick on some bookie's odds?? Get real.

I would gladly use the 2003-4 actual results, it helps my team to do so. But it is less fair than what I put forth, only marginally so as you see where the odds fall, but still I admit, less fair. But to answer, what do you think odds are? S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N by an E-X-P-E-R-T who puts lots of $$$$ on the line to back up that speculation. Unless you can pull a crystal ball out of your arse, you have to speculate. Hell, you are doing so by asking for what basically is an even chance for all with some very very minor tweaks to give a veneer that it is not exactly that. Your speculation is merely very flawed in assuming all teams were equal entering last season.

 

[AgentOrange*]

With all this "speculation", "what ifs", etc etc etc the NHL should just have all 30 teams get an equal chance.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

With all this "speculation", "what ifs", etc etc etc the NHL should just have all 30 teams get an equal chance.

And that 'system' as opposed to others offered most accurately projects as is possible the 2004-5 season, how? You are telling me that the teams going into 2003-4 were equal? TB, Detroit, etc, had an equal chance to Pittsburgh, Washington and Chicago? Just admit it, everyone has self-interest, but those arguing for an equal chance for all have self-interest with no real logical leg to stand on.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Can they help it that the former CBA prevented small market teams from icing a competitive team to make the playoffs?

It really prevented those small market Lightning from winning the Cup, as well as the Flames coming within a goal of winning the Cup.

 

[Jungle Boy]

How about they just put 465 names in a barrel.

30 Pittsburgh
29 Chicago
28 Washington
1 Tampa Bay etc

465 being 30! (dont know the english word for the (!) math formula)

I like the idea, but the math operation is not right.
30!= 30x29x28x27........x1
you are doing like this:
30!=30+29+28+27.......+1