25 teams want equal chance for Crosby

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eddie Vedder

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
5,539
0
Im shocked at the harsh criticisms being put forth about this writer.. this article is amazingly insightful at contains valuable information.

I suggest you read his other daring exposes:

World is round.. Like a Circle!

New Pope - Not a Muslim

Mcdonalds: A Dead End Career Path After All?
 

Chayos

Registered User
Mar 6, 2003
4,922
1,152
Winnipeg
babybruin said:
I believe in the NHL draft lottery, the highest you could move up was 4 places. Thus, only the worst 5 teams have a shot at the #1 overall pick.

So your saying the 5 worst teams for the 04/05 season should get teh best chance?

The way I see it the teams who picked in the top 5 in last years draft were "rewarded" for their poor finish in the 03/04 season with a high draft pick. There were no games played in 04/05, so how can you say these same teams should get an advantage in the draft order selection. Teams who were good in 03/04 could have just as easily had a horrid year and ended up in the bottom 5 for last season for all we know.

The Draft will be a a 30 ball Lottery with a reverse 2nd round for no other reason than the big money teams gave on revenue sharing, so this will be their be thier victory.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
JohnnyReb said:
As many have stated, those teams with past suckage have already been compensated.

Doesn't matter. That's how the draft works, you keep getting compensated as long as you suck, there is no table limit. This principle is directly responsible for the ascension of Quebec/Colorado and Ottawa, etc.

Until games are played proving otherwise, Tampa are the champs, and Pittsburgh & Washington suck.
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
JohnnyReb said:
'I, small market fan, used to excusing my team's incompetent management by blaming a lack of money, want my shot at Crosby because now that I am getting my way financially, I want that to continue, deserving of it or not.'

Sort of like that homeless guy complaining that the free lunch bag given to him by the local charity is not enough because it didn't come with a free university education and corner office job.

But you really don't care to get that analogy, will you?

(see? two can play the hysterics game)

I happen to be a fan of a small market team, one that would have quite a good chance at drafting Crosby in any sort of weighted lottery. Not that I wouldn't love to have him on my team, but I wouldn't blink if another of the lower teams in the lottery got a chance to pick him first. My team would be getting an excellent prospect regardless (Crosby would just be the icing on the cake). That team would be Atlanta, who already has a few franchise type players.

As far as I know, the management of Atlanta has been given the thumbs up by most. A good part of that because of their patience. Sure, there have been a few questionable moves here and there. But far less than most teams in the past five years. It's safe to say that the Thrashers have stayed within a budget during their existance.

Now, I can't speak for the other smaller market teams but you seem to have painted them all with the same brush. In this case, you weren't even on the same continent. Doesn't it make you think that may be the case with many other small market teams? Given that you made a wide-sweeping generalization, I'm thinking the answer to that question is most likey a yes.
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
PecaFan said:
Doesn't matter. That's how the draft works, you keep getting compensated as long as you suck, there is no table limit. This principle is directly responsible for the ascension of Quebec/Colorado and Ottawa, etc.

Until games are played proving otherwise, Tampa are the champs, and Pittsburgh & Washington suck.


What do you mean it doesn't matter? They already got thier draft picks for sucking. What more do you want? Maybe we should let them pick the best player off of the playoff teams rosters. What a bunch of whiny babies.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Though if I were to be entirely 'my team' oriented I would love to use 2003-4's standings I very much like the 3 season averaging because it addresses the concerns set forth by some above, namely some movement each season by some teams in standings. There may be no perfect system granting that there was no season, but you can pretty well guarentee that there would not be a huge amount of movement had there been a 2004-5 seasons, there never is. But use a longer period of measurement and you always reduce the variability in predictions and the chance for someone getting screwed. I like the system they seem to have chosen even though it rewards CBJ and not my team, because it is as fair as you are going to get. As I said above, I could live with Columbus getting a top pick much more than a Stanley Cup favorite ending up with him. Do I even need to explain why?
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
HABSoluteDMB11 said:
HABSoluteDMB11 said:
In my opinion Washington shouldn't have a shot at him even though they were in the bottom five, as they got Ovechkin in the last draft, and the chances of them getting the first overall pick again would've been slim to none
This is the last response I am going to make to you because I am not going to get into a war of words on a message board. First of all I said you are AT LEAST a teenager not that you were one, second I was NOT saying anything negative about your position, only that you should respect other people's opinions because I clearly stated my feelings on Washington were my opinion. And again, I said that it was your choice to have a cartoon avatar, which is fine with me I don't care what it is, I was using that as an example of one of your choices that I personally would not make as an adult, we all have our opinions and we are all entitled to them, people shouldn't be judged based on them, if I had stated in a factoral manor that Washington can not have the first pick that would be different I would be expecting to get flamed for that, but it was my opinion that they shouldn't get it, big difference
I am not attempting to engage in a war of words with you, however you once again missed the point I wanted to make. Use of words such as “should†(or specifically shouldn’t) often indicates an authoritative stance. Nowhere in your posting did you specify that you were addressing the statistical possibility of Washington winning the draft lottery in two successive years. In actually (and based on the themes running through this thread) your post could (note the use of the modifier) have been taken as an argument to discount Washington (or any other bottom five team) from the overall number one draft position because they have already been awarded high draft picks. My use of Columbus et al was an attempt at hyperbole to demonstrate the irrationality of discounting one team based on previous drafting positions.

Do you still fail to see the difference?

Regarding my choice of avatar – perhaps you see it as childish or immature, but as someone who works with middle school kids, I happen to embrace my inner child. So what if I let it out by selecting a Japanese anime character
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
DARKSIDE said:
Would you care to elaborate on whom the so-called top teams are? Because, there are a number of teams that will be moving up and some taking a step back.

Here's my top teams that I wouldn't want to see get Crosby. However, if they win the lottery, so be it. We will all have to live with it. But in my mind, there are only a handful of teams I consider as the best:

Top Teams:

1.Tampa Bay
2.Ottawa
3. Philadelphia

Teams taking a step back:

Detroit - Age & Free agency
Colorado - Age & Injuries
Toronto - Age & Free agency
New Jersey - Age & Free agency

Teams on the way up:

Calgary
San Jose
Florida
Chicago
Buffalo
Atlanta
And yes, Pittsburgh and Washington

Worse:

Carolina, so lets just give them Crosby if we truly want to help a weak Sister!

In addition, you listed Boston. They have half roster signed at the present time and if a team is able to reload under a cap, then the GM did a fine job. The game Hockey and its teams will be much different in 2005 or 2006.
Why do you think Florida, Washington, Pittsburgh et al are on the upswing? I see Washington and the Rangers fighting for dead last.
 

hockeyfan33

Registered User
Feb 18, 2003
282
0
Visit site
PecaFan said:
Doesn't matter. That's how the draft works, you keep getting compensated as long as you suck, there is no table limit. This principle is directly responsible for the ascension of Quebec/Colorado and Ottawa, etc.

Until games are played proving otherwise, Tampa are the champs, and Pittsburgh & Washington suck.


There was no 04-05 season, so unless you are god there is absolutely NO WAY to know how the standings would have turned out, hence no way should a team that sucked in 03-04 and got reward with that years draft, be rewarded again for 04-05.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
HockeyCritter said:
Why do you think Florida, Washington, Pittsburgh et al are on the upswing? I see Washington and the Rangers fighting for dead last.

Add Pittsburgh to that list. We have a few nice prospects, but are still years away, Maffy struggled for instance in the AHL, we are very very young almost everywhere. Malkin will not be here next year no matter what. Someday we may have a bright future if some of these prospects pan out, an iffy thing at best in any prospect no matter how good, but no matter what we will not be competing for a playoff spot next year and very well could be near the bottom.
 

signalIInoise

killed by signal 2
Feb 25, 2005
5,857
0
Latveria
For a moment, let's take it as a given that a high draft pick is the reward for sucking.

I guess the reward for not sucking is winning some games?

If the non-sucky teams were denied their reward this year, how in good conscience can you give the sucky teams their reward?
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
hockeyfan33 said:
There was no 04-05 season, so unless you are god there is absolutely NO WAY to know how the standings would have turned out, hence no way should a team that sucked in 03-04 and got reward with that years draft, be rewarded again for 04-05.

Again, let us say for instance that Toronto or Detroit or Colorado wins that equal draft and gets Crosby. Either you all are right and they get gutted getting perhaps a 50/50 chance at Kessel next year, or they are not gutted at all (my opinion) and competing for the Cup next year 'WITH CROSBY' as an unearned addition. Tell me again how either of the only two possible scenerios above is 'fairer' than having a team who will very very very likely suck again next year, who very very very likely would have sucked and 'earned' a top pick last year had there been a year, get a top pick?

Sorry, but argue until you are blue in the face, I can see no way to make your position 'fair' or anything but a greedy grab by those who have had it there way for years and years.
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
PecaFan said:
Doesn't matter. That's how the draft works, you keep getting compensated as long as you suck, there is no table limit. This principle is directly responsible for the ascension of Quebec/Colorado and Ottawa, etc.

Until games are played proving otherwise, Tampa are the champs, and Pittsburgh & Washington suck.

That's not how the draft works, my friend, and I defy you to find any definition that claims otherwise.

Drafts are conducted based on the previous year's results. They purpose of drafts is to ensure, or more accurately, promote parity, by allowing teams that did not do as well in the previous year, first crack at players that may help them in the next year.

In this case, all teams that did not do well in the previous year, were given first crack at players that were supposed to help them in future years. Quebec/Colorado and Ottawa never received two first round draft picks for each year they sucked. They got one, and if they sucked again the next year, they got another. They never got a two-for-one special, as many are advocating they get now.

At issue is that nobody can say with any certainty who would have sucked if a season had of been played. Forget the year before, because teams have already been compensated for that. There is nothing that says they should continue to be compensated "just because."
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
Jaded-Fan said:
Add Pittsburgh to that list. We have a few nice prospects, but are still years away, Maffy struggled for instance in the AHL, we are very very young almost everywhere. Malkin will not be here next year no matter what. Someday we may have a bright future if some of these prospects pan out, an iffy thing at best in any prospect no matter how good, but no matter what we will not be competing for a playoff spot next year and very well could be near the bottom.
I didn’t have them fighting for last because I thought a few of their better prospects are a wee bit older and would be playing in Pittsburgh whereas the Rangers and Washington have very, very young and inexperienced teams. I still see Pittsburgh as being bottom five.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
JohnnyReb said:
That's not how the draft works, my friend, and I defy you to find any definition that claims otherwise.

Drafts are conducted based on the previous year's results. They purpose of drafts is to ensure, or more accurately, promote parity, by allowing teams that did not do as well in the previous year, first crack at players that may help them in the next year.

In this case, all teams that did not do well in the previous year, were given first crack at players that were supposed to help them in future years. Quebec/Colorado and Ottawa never received two first round draft picks for each year they sucked. They got one, and if they sucked again the next year, they got another. They never got a two-for-one special, as many are advocating they get now.

At issue is that nobody can say with any certainty who would have sucked if a season had of been played. Forget the year before, because teams have already been compensated for that. There is nothing that says they should continue to be compensated "just because."

Please, that is sophistry at its worst. '.. nobody can say with any certainty who would have sucked if a season had of been played'? You can not make an educated guess? If the US went to war with Lichtenstein we do not know how it would turn out, but we could make a pretty good educated guess. This is not far off from the same difference. Had there been a 2004-5 season (the issue at hand, right? Not really even the debatable who is going to get hit by the CBA this year) any of those bottom five teams, or even bottom ten, had about as much of a chance to win the stanley cup vs. Detroit, Colorado, Toronto, etc. as Lichtenstein would have against the US in an all out war.

But to placate you all the league seems to have not only agreed to give everyone some shot, though a heavily weighted one, but also will snake the draft. How much more ballsy can some teams/fans get?
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
cw7 said:
I happen to be a fan of a small market team, one that would have quite a good chance at drafting Crosby in any sort of weighted lottery. Not that I wouldn't love to have him on my team, but I wouldn't blink if another of the lower teams in the lottery got a chance to pick him first. My team would be getting an excellent prospect regardless (Crosby would just be the icing on the cake). That team would be Atlanta, who already has a few franchise type players.

As far as I know, the management of Atlanta has been given the thumbs up by most. A good part of that because of their patience. Sure, there have been a few questionable moves here and there. But far less than most teams in the past five years. It's safe to say that the Thrashers have stayed within a budget during their existance.

Now, I can't speak for the other smaller market teams but you seem to have painted them all with the same brush. In this case, you weren't even on the same continent. Doesn't it make you think that may be the case with many other small market teams? Given that you made a wide-sweeping generalization, I'm thinking the answer to that question is most likey a yes.

I was responding to the assertation that big market teams don't deserve a high pick because they have always had a silver spoon in their mouth, and shouldn't be compensated because of it. The original poster then used an analogy that wouldn't apply to a lot of teams, and generalized with it. So I generalized right back, pointing out that two could play the hysterics game.

In my opinion, its not a big-market/small market issue. Some big market teams will have a better chance at Crosby than some small market teams. The Rangers for example, who more so than any other team are responsible for the mess we are in. How would people feel if they were to win the draft, get Crosby, then sign a whole bunch of free agents off of other teams (maybe even the RFA's), max out the Cap, and win the Cup next season? Would that be "fair?" There are some posters here who feel that their small market club "deserves" a better shot at Crosby, for having had to put up with the big market teams all these years. Hence the silver spoon remarks. That's not "fair" that's "revenge."

They've fought for an equal playing field. Now that they have it, they want some fields to be more equal than others.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
JohnnyReb said:
I was responding to the assertation that big market teams don't deserve a high pick because they have always had a silver spoon in their mouth, and shouldn't be compensated because of it. The original poster then used an analogy that wouldn't apply to a lot of teams, and generalized with it. So I generalized right back, pointing out that two could play the hysterics game.

In my opinion, its not a big-market/small market issue. Some big market teams will have a better chance at Crosby than some small market teams. The Rangers for example, who more so than any other team are responsible for the mess we are in. How would people feel if they were to win the draft, get Crosby, then sign a whole bunch of free agents off of other teams (maybe even the RFA's), max out the Cap, and win the Cup next season? Would that be "fair?" There are some posters here who feel that their small market club "deserves" a better shot at Crosby, for having had to put up with the big market teams all these years. Hence the silver spoon remarks. That's not "fair" that's "revenge."

They've fought for an equal playing field. Now that they have it, they want some fields to be more equal than others.

Where did I ever say anything like that. I basically argued a fairly simple proposition. The draft is a vehicle to get the first chance at new talent to the teams whose cupboards are most the most bare. You argued basically that the new talent should because of what is basically a loophole be, for this year, given an equal chance among loaded and berift of talent teams. Sorry, but you can not sugar coat reality and that is reality.
 

DARKSIDE

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
1,053
0
HockeyCritter said:
Why do you think Florida, Washington, Pittsburgh et al are on the upswing? I see Washington and the Rangers fighting for dead last.

I agree, the Rangers are weak with their current line-up, but I still believe that Carolina is the worse team in Hockey. As for Pittsburgh and Washington, they probably won't make the playoffs, but they will be better. Florida? they have an excellent chance of making the playoffs. It all depends if these teams want to sign some vets, and there will be a boatload of UFA's available. See, that's the bottom line of this whole argument, no one really knows what the present future will hold for these teams!
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
Jaded-Fan said:
Please, that is sophistry at its worst. '.. nobody can say with any certainty who would have sucked if a season had of been played'? You can not make an educated guess? If the US went to war with Lichtenstein we do not know how it would turn out, but we could make a pretty good educated guess. This is not far off from the same difference. Had there been a 2004-5 season (the issue at hand, right? Not really even the debatable who is going to get hit by the CBA this year) any of those bottom five teams, or even bottom ten, had about as much of a chance to win the stanley cup vs. Detroit, Colorado, Toronto, etc. as Lichtenstein would have against the US in an all out war.

But to placate you all the league seems to have not only agreed to give everyone some shot, though a heavily weighted one, but also will snake the draft. How much more ballsy can some teams/fans get?

So to take your war analogy to its NHL conclusion, if the US was forced to give Lichenstein half its nuclear arsenal, 1/3 of its naval fleet, 1/2 of its air force, and only be allowed to use its Category B troops, who would win the war?

You keep using past rules to justify your position. Not only is the past gone, but the rules have changed so drastically that they will never come back. Again, the one thing that made teams like Detroit, Toronto, Colorado etc. better was their ability to spend more money, thus keeping better players on their team. Not only is that ability gone, but they are actually being forced to help out the smaller market teams.

I ask you again, if Detroit cuts $30-40 million from their payroll, down to $37 million, and Atlanta adds $15 million, up to $35 million, which team will be better?
 

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
73,092
38,153
Jaded-Fan said:
Please, that is sophistry at its worst. '.. nobody can say with any certainty who would have sucked if a season had of been played'? You can not make an educated guess? If the US went to war with Lichtenstein we do not know how it would turn out, but we could make a pretty good educated guess. This is not far off from the same difference. Had there been a 2004-5 season (the issue at hand, right? Not really even the debatable who is going to get hit by the CBA this year) any of those bottom five teams, or even bottom ten, had about as much of a chance to win the stanley cup vs. Detroit, Colorado, Toronto, etc. as Lichtenstein would have against the US in an all out war.

But to placate you all the league seems to have not only agreed to give everyone some shot, though a heavily weighted one, but also will snake the draft. How much more ballsy can some teams/fans get?

Poor example....with the US' record I'd take Lichtenstein.
 

X0ssbar

Guest
JWI19 said:
What do you mean it doesn't matter? They already got thier draft picks for sucking. What more do you want? Maybe we should let them pick the best player off of the playoff teams rosters. What a bunch of whiny babies.

So wait - your saying teams with winning records should get the highest draft picks?

Somebody should indeed contact Quebec/Colorado and Ottawa and tell them that they only had rights to high draft picks every other year or so no matter how bad their records were during their down years. When they ask why? Just tell them they are whiney babies and they should have become stanley cup contenders over night.

When did 'common sense' and 'rationality' leave this discussion?
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
What was your 'educated guess' on the 2003-04 Sharks? Pretty ugly huh? Or how about the 2002-03 Sharks? Potential Stanley Cup?

In the words of Chris Berman, "That's why they play the games". When they don't, you can't assume anything. The same people that are saying we CAN assume the 2004-05 standings are probably the same ones who blast prognosticators for their off-the-wall preseason predictions every year. And why do they do that? Because they all have a wait-and-see attitude. As in, let's wait and see what happens ON THE ICE.

Well, this year we can't. And if anybody, and I do mean ANYBODY, can figure out the 2004-05 NHL standings with zero games played, with players sitting out the entire season, with others developing their games in the AHL, CHL or NCAA, still others keeping in shape in the European elite leagues as well as lesser pro leagues like the ECHL, with un-signed UFA's still numbering in the 200's, with injuries coming out of the 2004 World Cup of Hockey and with an infinite amount of intangibles and imponderables permeating throughout the entire league and all 30 of its franchises...well, then I guess that person should have sent in his/her resume to the Vatican last week!
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
hockeyfan33 said:
There was no 04-05 season, so unless you are god there is absolutely NO WAY to know how the standings would have turned out, hence no way should a team that sucked in 03-04 and got reward with that years draft, be rewarded again for 04-05.

Again, it's not about predicting. Nobody is predicting anything. This decision has to be based on fact. It would be wrong to speculate, since as you say, it's impossible to do. And the only facts we have are that when hockey games were last played, Tampa, Detroit, Vancouver (my team, btw) etc are great, Pittsburgh, Washington, etc suck.

Look, if there has to be a draft (I've said choice #1 is to not draft and extend the draft age), we ultimately have only two choices:

(1) We give the top pick to teams who didn't suck in 03/04
(2) We give the top pick to teams who did suck in 03/04

That's a freakin' no-brainer, people.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
ACC1224 said:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan
Please, that is sophistry at its worst. '.. nobody can say with any certainty who would have sucked if a season had of been played'? You can not make an educated guess? If the US went to war with Lichtenstein we do not know how it would turn out, but we could make a pretty good educated guess. This is not far off from the same difference. Had there been a 2004-5 season (the issue at hand, right? Not really even the debatable who is going to get hit by the CBA this year) any of those bottom five teams, or even bottom ten, had about as much of a chance to win the stanley cup vs. Detroit, Colorado, Toronto, etc. as Lichtenstein would have against the US in an all out war.

But to placate you all the league seems to have not only agreed to give everyone some shot, though a heavily weighted one, but also will snake the draft. How much more ballsy can some teams/fans get?
Poor example....with the US' record I'd take Lichtenstein.

Hell, the Duchy of Grand Fenwick won.
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
Jaded-Fan said:
Where did I ever say anything like that. I basically argued a fairly simple proposition. The draft is a vehicle to get the first chance at new talent to the teams whose cupboards are most the most bare. You argued basically that the new talent should because of what is basically a loophole be, for this year, given an equal chance among loaded and berift of talent teams. Sorry, but you can not sugar coat reality and that is reality.

No. What I have argued is that there is no way of knowing which teams are loaded, and which are bereft of talent. Whose future do you think will be brighter? Atlanta or Toronto's? These teams you feel deserve a better shot at a higher pick have already gotten their first chances at new talent. Unless, as I asked earlier, you think all 2004 picks should go back into the draft? I mean, wouldn't that be "fair?"

The playing field is being levelled. You want it tilted just one last time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->