Jaded-Fan
Registered User
norrisnick said:And the teams that were bad got their picks in the '02, '03, and '04 drafts.
And as I say above, I have not sniffed a game of playoff hockey involving my team for five years now. Want to trade?
norrisnick said:And the teams that were bad got their picks in the '02, '03, and '04 drafts.
Too bad. You've been compensated for those 5 years. Piss and moan to your teams management if you want some sympathy... you sure as hell won't get it from us.Jaded-Fan said:And as I say above, I have not sniffed a game of playoff hockey involving my team for five years now. Want to trade?
MontrealCruiser_83 said:Too bad. You've been compensated for those 5 years. Piss and moan to your teams management if you want some sympathy... you sure as hell won't get it from us.
I was merely saying that this is a business, not pre-school. Remember that? Back when everybody got an A for effort in fear of hurting another students feelings. Poor baby, no playoffs for 5 years. Do you want a cookie? You've been compensated for those 5 years. Do you think your team deserves special treatment for the draft? Because that's how you're making it sound.Jaded-Fan said:I certainly do not want . . . or expect . . . sympathy from you or anyone. I was merely responding to the argument of Norris with the obvious counter argument. I am not sure what you were doing with that comment but if it felt good have at it.
Jaded-Fan said:I have not sniffed a game of playoff hockey involving my team for five years now.
I have to agree... by the 'equalization' theory of the draft (and I'm a small-market guy who believes pretty strongly in the importance of this element of the draft), teams who did poorly in the 01/02 draft have already been compensated with players like Nash, Lehtonen & Bouwmeester... just like the lesser teams of 02/03 were compensated with Fleury, Staal, Horton & Zherdev, and the lesser teams of 03/04 were compensated with Ovechkin, Malkin & Barker.norrisnick said:A lightly weighted look at 2004 or nothing at all. Looking at '03 and '02 is beyond absurd at this point.
MontrealCruiser_83 said:I was merely saying that this is a business, not pre-school. Remember that? Back when everybody got an A for effort in fear of hurting another students feelings. Poor baby, no playoffs for 5 years. Do you want a cookie? You've been compensated for those 5 years. Do you think your team deserves special treatment for the draft? Because that's how you're making it sound.
MontrealCruiser_83 said:Piss and moan
Radek27 said:Wow somone has thier panties in a bunch! Your team will have a chance at the #1, but not as good as ours, so why are you complaining?
Anyone else find it strange this club(NYR) has never had a #1 overall draft pick in it's history?
How about we give my team an extra 10 pts in the standings right from the get-go? Your team will have a chance at the playoffs, it just won't be as good as ours. Your idea doesn't sound so hot when it doesn't favor you, eh?Radek27 said:Wow somone has thier panties in a bunch! Your team will have a chance at the #1, but not as good as ours, so why are you complaining?
MontrealCruiser_83 said:How about we give my team an extra 10 pts in the standings right from the get-go? Your team will have a chance at the playoffs, it just won't be as good as ours. Your idea doesn't sound so hot when it doesn't favor you, eh?
MontrealCruiser_83 said:How about we give my team an extra 10 pts in the standings right from the get-go? Your team will have a chance at the playoffs, it just won't be as good as ours. Your idea doesn't sound so hot when it doesn't favor you, eh?
NYR469 said:the rangers have had the #1 pick once...they took Andre Veilleux 1st overall in the 1965 draft.
The Rangers the last three years have finished 6th, 12th and 10th which would not even qualify them for a lottery because only the bottom five teams are eligible to win the lottery for number one overall pick.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?
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?
Kritter471 said:If they're going back three years, here's the "order" of points.
17.) TB 268 pts
Radek27 said:Wow somone has thier panties in a bunch! Your team will have a chance at the #1, but not as good as ours, so why are you complaining?
Anyone else find it strange this club(NYR) has never had a #1 overall draft pick in it's history?
Regardless of what team I cheer for, you sir are an idiot.MontrealCruiser_83 said:How about we give my team an extra 10 pts in the standings right from the get-go? Your team will have a chance at the playoffs, it just won't be as good as ours. Your idea doesn't sound so hot when it doesn't favor you, eh?
Jaded-Fan said:And as I say above, I have not sniffed a game of playoff hockey involving my team for five years now. Want to trade?
Newsguyone said:Because you're team has all ready been rewarded for its mediocrity.
With a salary cap, I don't even see the need to reward bad teams with high draft picks.
Maybe it should be a 1/30 shot every year, with the flow reversed in the second round.
To me it's a travesty that a team like the Caps can unload Jagr, GOnchar and Lang and end up with the first overall pick.
ryz said:Regardless of what team I cheer for, you sir are an idiot.