Draft Lottery Article - everyone a chance, weighted past three seasons

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
For whatever it is worth, and no clue if he is just recycling older rumors:

There is talk that each NHL team will be entered in a lottery based on their performance over the past three seasons, giving every club a chance at the No. 1 pick and the ensuing selection of Junior phenom Sidney Crosby. Of course, the league would likely hold this lottery at a board room table in Manhattan and issue a press release to announce the results, keeping with the boring tradition of year's past.


http://netsports.hockeychannel.com/default.asp?c=hockeychannel&page=nhl/news/ADN3968997.htm

or here

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/default.asp?c=sportsnetwork&page=/nhl/news/ADN3968997.htm
 

Duff88

Registered User
May 7, 2002
5,101
114
Of course, the league would likely hold this lottery at a board room table in Manhattan and issue a press release to announce the results, keeping with the boring tradition of year's past.

I hope that does not happen, it would be a great idea for the league to broadcast it live. I think it would be really exciting to see, and alot of people are going to whine and scream injustice if the results are only announced afterwards in a press release.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Duff88 said:
I hope that does not happen, it would be a great idea for the league to broadcast it live. I think it would be really exciting to see, and alot of people are going to whine and scream injustice if the results are only announced afterwards in a press release.


I think that part was more a swipe at the NHL leadership than an actual prediction.
 

MontrealCruiser_83*

Guest
They better take 2002-2003 team salaries into consideration. As if weighing it in the first place wasn't nuts, now disgraces like Washington and New York will have a good shot? Not gonna happen.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
MontrealCruiser_83 said:
They better take 2002-2003 team salaries into consideration. As if weighing it in the first place wasn't nuts, now disgraces like Washington and New York will have a good shot? Not gonna happen.


Washington under a 3 year weighting would not have a great shot . . .they fall somewhere in the middle if I remember correctly. The Rangers though, have 'earned' their place in the top ten missing the playoffs for how many years running now?
 

NYRangers

Registered User
Aug 11, 2004
2,850
0
MontrealCruiser_83 said:
As if weighing it in the first place wasn't nuts, now disgraces like Washington and New York will have a good shot?

Yeah its a big scam. They are weighting it so the worst teams have a good shot. More so than better teams. What a disgrace.

:biglaugh:
 

MontrealCruiser_83*

Guest
Jaded-Fan said:
Washington under a 3 year weighting would not have a great shot . . .they fall somewhere in the middle if I remember correctly. The Rangers though, have 'earned' their place in the top ten missing the playoffs for how many years running now?
Washington would have a better shot than they deserve. Using team salaries as a stipulation would even it out a whole lot. And are we rewarding teams in the draft for not having the players to compete or because they are too incompetent to manage a team of All-Stars? Don't give me that Rangers BS. If anything, they should be restricted from a top-10 pick.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
FLYLine4LIFE said:
Its going to be weighted. Like it or not Wing and Philly fans(Eklund).


I wasn't expecting it not to be.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,948
7,655
why should they take team salary into consideration, besides the fact you're obviously bitter about teams who had the ability to spend money? :shakehead
 

Large_Farva*

Guest
MontrealCruiser_83 said:
Washington would have a better shot than they deserve. Using team salaries as a stipulation would even it out a whole lot. And are we rewarding teams in the draft for not having the players to compete or because they are too incompetent to manage a team of All-Stars? Don't give me that Rangers BS. If anything, they should be restricted from a top-10 pick.

You are brilliant.
 

Cole Caulifield

Registered User
Apr 22, 2004
27,967
2,465
It doesn't change much for the habs. We'll still have about the same chance wether it's weighted or not. But I reaaaally hope it's not weighted.

But if they're gonna weight it, use the last 4 years so it makes a little sense (it's been 4 years since we've had 30 teams).
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
MontrealCruiser_83 said:
Washington would have a better shot than they deserve. Using team salaries as a stipulation would even it out a whole lot. And are we rewarding teams in the draft for not having the players to compete or because they are too incompetent to manage a team of All-Stars? Don't give me that Rangers BS. If anything, they should be restricted from a top-10 pick.

We aren't "rewarding" anything. The number one overall pick is not a "reward." My proof? Which would a team rather do, win and make the playoffs or lose and receive the number 1 pick? It's compensation and oppurtunity. The reasons for using the reverse standings for determine the draft order should only ever have to do with play on the ice regardless of the reason for the play on the ice.

I find it a "farce" (to use Manny Legace's term) that teams that made the playoffs each of the past three years are even in this lottery.
 

GirardIsStupid

Registered User
Dec 15, 2002
4,518
377
Visit site
I doubt it'll be weighted towards losing teams. With the small market clubs wanting blood shed against the big market clubs, you can bet the latter will push hard (and have done so) for an equally wieghted draft lottery.
 

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,832
13,330
A lightly weighted look at 2004 or nothing at all. Looking at '03 and '02 is beyond absurd at this point.
 

Steve L*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2003
11,548
0
Southampton, England
Visit site
jericholic19 said:
I doubt it'll be weighted towards losing teams. With the small market clubs wanting blood shed against the big market clubs, you can bet the latter will push hard (and have done so) for an equally wieghted draft lottery.
Its just a case of the original poster finding articles that support his desperate view that will give his team the best chance to get the #1 pick.

If I could be arsed, I could do the same with a bunch of reports stating the draft will be unweighted and that it will give everyone an equal chance.
 

MontrealCruiser_83*

Guest
Tawnos said:
We aren't "rewarding" anything. The number one overall pick is not a "reward." My proof? Which would a team rather do, win and make the playoffs or lose and receive the number 1 pick?
And which of those two options do the teams have the ability to dictate? That's right, losing.

Tawnos said:
I find it a "farce" (to use Manny Legace's term) that teams that made the playoffs each of the past three years are even in this lottery.
That's such garbage. Hell, your lucky enough that the league hasn't contracted the teams that haven't made the playoffs in each of the past 3 seasons. How about being thankful for that? Dirty leeches.

If the NHL doesn't make this a 1/30 televised Draft Lottery, it'll be their first major marketing mistake of the new CBA. Wouldn't be a good start but I wouldn't expect anything more from that dullard Bettman.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
MontrealCruiser_83 said:
And which of those two options do the teams have the ability to dictate? That's right, losing.

Umm... what exactly is your point there? Are you accusing teams of playing poorly on purpose to receive a higher draft pick? While you may be right and you may be wrong... I will repeat to you again. The reason why a team is good or bad should never have anything to do with the draft order.

MontrealCruiser_83 said:
That's such garbage. Hell, your lucky enough that the league hasn't contracted the teams that haven't made the playoffs in each of the past 3 seasons. How about being thankful for that? Dirty leeches.

I hope you were being sarcastic, because that's the most disgraceful thing I've ever heard.

MontrealCruiser_83 said:
If the NHL doesn't make this a 1/30 televised Draft Lottery, it'll be their first major marketing mistake of the new CBA. Wouldn't be a good start but I wouldn't expect anything more from that dullard Bettman.

I agree about the televised part. The 1/30 thing I've already stated my opinions on.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Steve L said:
Its just a case of the original poster finding articles that support his desperate view that will give his team the best chance to get the #1 pick.

If I could be arsed, I could do the same with a bunch of reports stating the draft will be unweighted and that it will give everyone an equal chance.


Be my guest . . . post this 'bunch of reports stating the draft will be unweighted and that it will give everyone an equal chance.'

And before you get into my motives look back over the threads that I have started, and you will find that my threads are any hockey news if I come across it.

I have my preferences but I back them up. Now it is your turn, make me an idiot. If there are bunches how about linking them right here.
 

Isles72

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,520
465
Canada
boy , talk about beating a dead horse

even if its slightly weighted , its still going to boil down to pure luck .

get some sleep and worry about it when the time comes
 

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,832
13,330
FLYLine4LIFE said:
So "if" they are bad next season they will get there reward for the 07 Draft.
And the teams that were bad got their picks in the '02, '03, and '04 drafts.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
FLYLine4LIFE said:
So "if" they are bad next season they will get there reward for the 07 Draft.


Which has a pretty good looking kid named Kessel in it. And their fans would have earned the honor by sitting through one bad season of hockey. It has been five years since I have seen a single playoff game that my team has been involved in. Why should some team potentially get Crosby and Kessel for having one bad year after being favored to win it all for most of the last two decades?

But move fair aside, far more articles seem to say weighted than not. It does not go as far as I would like but carping about it will do me about as much good as those who are carping about it being 1 in 30. What is going to happen is going to happen.
 

N.Y. Orangeman

Registered User
Mar 15, 2002
2,279
538
myspace.com
norrisnick said:
And the teams that were bad got their picks in the '02, '03, and '04 drafts.


At least the teams that received the pick was bad to begin with and not just "hypothetically bad."

I really can't fathom how top-tier franchises can complain about having a shot (albeit a small, unequal one) at the top pick in the draft when they otherwise would be relegated to the lower part of the rounds.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->