A better idea for this draft...

[hawksfan50]

The contending theories:

1. Post-pone for 1 year= fairest way...will never happen= NHL needs Crosby now!

2. The 3 ball max. less upto 2 of them back for each of upto 2 years of the last 3 played making playoffs....seems fairest idea...but still some team that was a bottom feeder in last season played (2003/04) might get very unlucky and draft last or near last --even with 3 balls in the draw;some team who finished near the top in last season played could get lucky at get the #1...so a double unfairness could result by the vagaries of luck...

3. An equal shot at #1 = 1 ball for every team...favoured by the recent high finishers/ perenial powers/ and former big spender abusers....giving i to them could enhance the probabilities of the double unfairness scenario--eg. a worst case scenario where a DET gets #1 and a CHI drafts last or near the end of round one--rubbing it in in effect for a team recently a leader in the fan misery index!

4.Revert to usual criteriia of past drafts and base on finish of last season played + weighted lotto of 14 non-playoff teams with a limited move up of 4 more spots than the pre-lotto position....wanted by the porrest finishers of 2003/04....or perhaps a modified version of this (equal chance at #1 for 14 non-playoff teams from 2003/04).


Procedure #2 seems to be the most rumoured compromise--but why not do this:


Hold a preliminary draw--put 3 balls only into the revolving drumbowl...one ball representing each of the 3 proposed procedures to hold a draft this year...thus the worst unfairness potential (procedure #3) would still have a 1/3 chance of being implemented,and the most fair to the recent "les miserables" (procedure #4) would also have at least a 1/3 chance of being implemented ...the middle compromise position (procedure #2) still has a 1/3 chance of going through too ....


IF however--either procedure #2 or #3 do win in the pre-lim. draw,one could limit their draw to just 1 ball being drawn for #1 --then reverting back to the finishes of 2003/04 for the rest of the draft so as to avoid hurting any of the "miserables" too much...


Will the NHl be so wise? No...so we probably get DET winning Crosby and the miserable Blackhawks getting unlucky (again) and drawing the last ball (#30) = a double kick in the teeth to Blackhawks fans...

Click to read more...

 

[Debrincat93]

sorry but im a believer that the best idea for the draft is to still average the last 3 years, you can bomb 1 year or maybe some of a 2nd but if you were good that 1 other year, u aint gonna get the pick u wanted, and u dont deserve it...

that way it gives the consistant bad teams a good spot at picking

what id want if i wanted to be a greedy wing fan, a 1 ball 30 balls in there for draft order, wings cant go anywhere but down in the draft, therefore wed have a better pick then 28 or something

 

[ProctorSilex]

I say they just hand him to Mike Milbury and the Islanders. It'll be more of a shocking crap shoot where he ends up when that idiot gets his hands on a prospect.

 

[The Old Master]

sorry but im a believer that the best idea for the draft is to still average the last 3 years, you can bomb 1 year or maybe some of a 2nd but if you were good that 1 other year, u aint gonna get the pick u wanted, and u dont deserve it...

that way it gives the consistant bad teams a good spot at picking

what id want if i wanted to be a greedy wing fan, a 1 ball 30 balls in there for draft order, wings cant go anywhere but down in the draft, therefore wed have a better pick then 28 or something

i agree, but there are too many greedy pepole out there to do it that way

 

[Dave is a killer]

since their was no season ... everyone gets an equal shot 1 ball per team

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

I say they just hand him to Mike Milbury and the Islanders. It'll be more of a shocking crap shoot where he ends up when that idiot gets his hands on a prospect.

 

[Levitate]

No...so we probably get DET winning Crosby and the miserable Blackhawks getting unlucky (again) and drawing the last ball (#30) = a double kick in the teeth to Blackhawks fans...

what the crap, you picked #3 overall last year, quit complaining

 

[salty justice]

what the crap, you picked #3 overall last year, quit complaining

Picking #3 last year is more evidence of Chicago's bad luck. We had the 2nd worst record last year, but of course a team less than 4 spots above us has to knock us out of the top 2 in what was considered a draft with only 2 real superstars! I like Barker, but Chicago has had a long history of bad luck.

 

[borro]

Picking #3 last year is more evidence of Chicago's bad luck. We had the 2nd worst record last year, but of course a team less than 4 spots above us has to knock us out of the top 2 in what was considered a draft with only 2 real superstars! I like Barker, but Chicago has had a long history of bad luck.

You don't deserve Anson Carter! :] Just kidding...you do!

 

[modestfwd]

They shouldn't hold a draft this year. Instead they should move the age up a year. No 2005-2006 megadraft, just draft at 19 instead of 18. You do this and there is no problem, except that Crosby is not given out until next season, which is more fair than anything else out there.

Also, the NHL is already more of a crap shoot than every other sport's draft. At 19 players will be closer to their potential, you will get a better idea of how they will end up. Think about it: A year after every draft, when all the posters here do "re-dos" of the draft, look at their drafts. I can garuantee you that the top tens from a year later will pan out better than the ones from a year before. Of course hindsight is 20-20, but some one here has to understand what I am getting at.

 

[bigjags*]

I really hope he goes to the Rangers. This would be best possible solution for the NHL. PLus him and Jagr on a line..sweet

 

[Wisent]

sorry but im a believer that the best idea for the draft is to still average the last 3 years, you can bomb 1 year or maybe some of a 2nd but if you were good that 1 other year, u aint gonna get the pick u wanted, and u dont deserve it...

that way it gives the consistant bad teams a good spot at picking

Same here. Anything else seems absurd to me.

 

[gretzky1545]

They shouldn't hold a draft this year. Instead they should move the age up a year. No 2005-2006 megadraft, just draft at 19 instead of 18. You do this and there is no problem, except that Crosby is not given out until next season, which is more fair than anything else out there.

Also, the NHL is already more of a crap shoot than every other sport's draft. At 19 players will be closer to their potential, you will get a better idea of how they will end up. Think about it: A year after every draft, when all the posters here do "re-dos" of the draft, look at their drafts. I can garuantee you that the top tens from a year later will pan out better than the ones from a year before. Of course hindsight is 20-20, but some one here has to understand what I am getting at.

i'm not sure that scouting reports, and their ability to predict success in the NHL, will improve that greatly from 18 year olds to 19 year olds. now you can make other arguments for the raising of the age limit in the draft, or argue that even a slight improvement in player prognostication is worthy of a rule change, but without delving much further into any analysis, i'm not particularly impressed with that potential rule change. and btw, baseball's draft is easily the biggest crapshoot of any draft.

 

[Puckhead]

sorry but im a believer that the best idea for the draft is to still average the last 3 years, you can bomb 1 year or maybe some of a 2nd but if you were good that 1 other year, u aint gonna get the pick u wanted, and u dont deserve it...

that way it gives the consistant bad teams a good spot at picking

what id want if i wanted to be a greedy wing fan, a 1 ball 30 balls in there for draft order, wings cant go anywhere but down in the draft, therefore wed have a better pick then 28 or something

The reason I disagree is that there are several very bad teams, who have already won their respective high draft picks in the last three seasons and have been rewarded by selecting players who were deemed the best in their draft class. The Rangers, Penguins, Capitals and Hawks, not to mention, Columbus, Atlanta and Florida, have all underachieved or frankly stunk up the joint in varying degrees. They have all had high picks in the drafts over the last few seasons, and therefore have been awarded for being so pathetic.

Malkin, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Zherdev, Nash, Heatley, Fleury, Lehtonen, Ruutu, Bouwmeester, okay so the Rangers even suck at drafting, but my point is this...I feel the teams who have overspent, and done relatively well, like Philly, Toronto, Dallas, aswell as teams who are just very good, like New Jersey, and Detroit, will have to adjust to the new landscape of the NHL. There will be buy outs and having to not qualify certain players, all to get under the new cap. These teams will all look very different, and in many ways will be a few steps behind the poorer sister clubs, who couldn't afford or refused to pay high priced players in the past. On top of them having to let go of some very good players, thus hurting their chances at finishing at or near the top or even competing for a playoff spot in some cases. So I don't feel they should be hit with the double whammy of losing out on Crosby or some of the other top picks. I realize it would never happen but, I think each team that had a first rounder would get an equal shot at Crosby. At the very least I hope they go with the weighted system, whereby each team would have a chance, but the bottom feeders have a better one.

 

[The Old Master]

The reason I disagree is that there are several very bad teams, who have already won their respective high draft picks in the last three seasons and have been rewarded by selecting players who were deemed the best in their draft class. The Rangers, Penguins, Capitals and Hawks, not to mention, Columbus, Atlanta and Florida, have all underachieved or frankly stunk up the joint in varying degrees. They have all had high picks in the drafts over the last few seasons, and therefore have been awarded for being so pathetic.

Malkin, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Zherdev, Nash, Heatley, Fleury, Lehtonen, Ruutu, Bouwmeester, okay so the Rangers even suck at drafting, but my point is this...I feel the teams who have overspent, and done relatively well, like Philly, Toronto, Dallas, aswell as teams who are just very good, like New Jersey, and Detroit, will have to adjust to the new landscape of the NHL. There will be buy outs and having to not qualify certain players, all to get under the new cap. These teams will all look very different, and in many ways will be a few steps behind the poorer sister clubs, who couldn't afford or refused to pay high priced players in the past. On top of them having to let go of some very good players, thus hurting their chances at finishing at or near the top or even competing for a playoff spot in some cases. So I don't feel they should be hit with the double whammy of losing out on Crosby or some of the other top picks. I realize it would never happen but, I think each team that had a first rounder would get an equal shot at Crosby. At the very least I hope they go with the weighted system, whereby each team would have a chance, but the bottom feeders have a better one.

when are you no longer a poor team?...when you win! and that hasn't happend yet. no one knows what will happen, but we all know has happend. so going on what we know instead of what we think might, just use the average like zetterburg 40 said.

 

[Puckhead]

Same here. Anything else seems absurd to me.

I can understand why you feel that way, but is it not equally absurd to keep rewarding teams that have done nothing to improve themselves over a period of 3-5 years? I understand that some teams take the route of building thru the draft, but I don't see all of the lower end teams doing that. Chicago has the money to compete, why then should they be awarded for choosing to line their pockets rather than give their fans something to cheer about. Atleast Toronto and Philly fans, while not having won a cup, spend money and have gone deep in the playoffs more often than not. I think that something radical has to be done, because everything has changed and these bad teams will be given every opportunity now to compete on an equal footing with the big boys. The one problem is they have in most cases a stable of very good young players which they have managed to stockpile due to them finishing so poorly year after year, whereas the more successful teams will now lose the one edge they had, and that is luring the high priced talent. So not only do they lose the ability to lure the high priced talent, but they get hit with not being able to draft the best players available. I realize there is a lot to sift thru here, but I hope I have made my point.

 

[Puckhead]

Picking #3 last year is more evidence of Chicago's bad luck. We had the 2nd worst record last year, but of course a team less than 4 spots above us has to knock us out of the top 2 in what was considered a draft with only 2 real superstars! I like Barker, but Chicago has had a long history of bad luck.

You can choose to call it bad luck, but with an owner like Bill Wirtz, and a GM like Bob Pulford, those of us who choose to live in the real world, call it JUSTICE!

 

[ProctorSilex]

You can choose to call it bad luck, but with an owner like Bill Wirtz, and a GM like Bob Pulford, those of us who choose to live in the real world, call it JUSTICE!