draft lottery proposal by Gary B

[I in the Eye]

Easy . . .Pure selfishness on the part of those who want to add a top pick to a team already loaded, taking advantage of the lost season to make demands that totally subvert the intention of the draft and ignore how much better stocked their teams already are compared to others.

How about the bottom half teams go into a lottery for the top draft picks, and the top half teams go into a lottery for 2005 playoff matchups (to challenge in a 2004/2005 Stanley Cup tournament)... Bettman determines which teams will be in the top or bottom half based on a formula... The results of the Stanley Cup tournament determine the rest of the 2005 draft order...

If it makes sense for their to be a draft, then I assume that it also makes sense for their to be a Stanley Cup playoffs (both being based on a 2004/05 regular season that doesn't exist)... One is a reward for those bad in 2004/05 (high draft picks)... One is a reward for those good in 2004/05 (playoff spots)... If it makes sense for Bettman to decide who are the worst teams in the league, then I assume that it also makes sense for Bettman to decide who are the best teams in the league... If Bettman has the power to decide who is more deserving of Crosby (the prize for the worst team), then Bettman also has the power to decide who is more deserving of the Stanley Cup (the prize for the best team)...

The bad teams have their 2005 'reward' for being bad (top draft picks), and the good teams have their 2005 reward for being good (playoff revenue and challenge for the Stanley Cup)...

Fair?

 

[Jaded-Fan]

.......

What I personally actually thought was most fair was having three groups of ten, based on an aggregate of the past 3 years to remove some of the year to year varience of rising and falling some have complained of, and have three lotteries, one for choices 1-10, another 11-20, another 21-30. You can not know 100% what would have happened had there been a 2004-5 season, however, let us say that it is your job to try, to come as close as you can with some random system. What I set forth above I believe would come closest to approximating the results of that lost season and result in the fewest number of teams ending up far from where they would have had their been a season. You genuinely believe the system proposed in this thread or worse, a totally random 30 balls in a hat, would result in a fewer number of teams ending up far from where they would have had their been a season? Tell me that with a straight face.

 

[norrisnick]

What I personally actually thought was most fair was having three groups of ten, based on an aggregate of the past 3 years to remove some of the year to year varience of rising and falling some have complained of, and have three lotteries, one for choices 1-10, another 11-20, another 21-30. You can not know 100% what would have happened had there been a 2004-5 season, however, let us say that it is your job to try, to come as close as you can with some random system. What I set forth above I believe would come closest to approximating the results of that lost season and result in the fewest number of teams ending up far from where they would have had their been a season. You genuinely believe the system proposed in this thread or worse, a totally random 30 balls in a hat, would result in a fewer number of teams ending up far from where they would have had their been a season? Tell me that with a straight face.

See any system that includes more than one year is autmatically shot to hell. Way too much change has happened in those 3 years. Not to mention the change that has happened since the last season ended.

No amount of looking solely at standings will bring you anywhere close to the best approximation of the strengths of the teams. Especially not when you start combining years. Should Tampa sitting near rock bottom in '02 factor into their draft chances coming off a Cup win? Should Carolina competing in the '02 finals factor into their sitting at the bottom in '04? That's why draft order is determined by the one mose recent season.

And yet again, all those seasons have already been accounted for with their respective drafts.

Go through the extra effort and take everything into account or randomize it completely and let chance take its course.

 

[Ola]

It makes just as much sense as giving the bottom dwellers an extra set of picks just because there wasn't hockey played and they had no chance to improve. It is the teams that were at the top and are fading that IMO are the weakest right now. They don't have as bright of a future as the teams that have been hoarding the prime picks the last few years do.

That's about as big of a mockery as handing Washington Crosby on top of Ovechkin for sucking it up and holding a firesale to improve their draft odds.

Are you serious? I can't understand how you are thinking. It isn't logical. It might make one team(the one that gets Crosby) too good so we must use a system that could affect the entire league for a decade...

Lets say we get a order where Philly gets 1. overall, 2. Ottawa, 3. Toronto 4. NJD.

That would without a doubt again set them far apart from the rest of the east. They already have allot of good players in their system. You talked about retooling, well a top 3 pick would pretty much gaurantee all of the teams mentioned above that they wouldn't have to rebuild. Further they would be much more compensated then their weak competition were last year.

BTW what position where Washington in when they had their firesale? Oh you don't know. Big suprise. Had Washington not tryed to become competetive for a pretty long period of time before they decided to rebuild? By what logical way of thinking is it fair to give Crosby or any other top 3 pick to Ottawa while Washington picks 30th overall?

What about Columbus? Sure they have a handful(not more) of really promosing prospects and are maybe 3-4 years away from beeing a decent team. How would it affect them if the had 14 teams picking ahead of them in the West?

Finally, what would happend if Wasington got Crosby? They might in 4 years be in a position that Ottawa without a doubt will be in next year. Ohh thats a big mockery. Take away a 1st overall pick from Ottawa&Quebec(the old Colorado Avs. FYI) and give it to a rival in their division and we would without a doubt have seen a diffrent history in the NHL. And don't bring any more BS about over compensating weak teams because 95% of them would still have sucked in 04-05. Not a chance in a million that the Caps would have made the PO's. Not a chance in a million that Columbus/Atlanta/New York Rangers/Pittsburg would have been contenders....

 

[norrisnick]

Are you serious? I can't understand how you are thinking. It isn't logical. It might make one team(the one that gets Crosby) too good so we must use a system that could affect the entire league for a decade...

Lets say we get a order where Philly gets 1. overall, 2. Ottawa, 3. Toronto 4. NJD.

That would without a doubt again set them far apart from the rest of the east. They already have allot of good players in their system. You talked about retooling, well a top 3 pick would pretty much gaurantee all of the teams mentioned above that they wouldn't have to rebuild. Further they would be much more compensated then their weak competition were last year.

BTW what position where Washington in when they had their firesale? Oh you don't know. Big suprise. Had Washington not tryed to become competetive for a pretty long period of time before they decided to rebuild? By what logical way of thinking is it fair to give Crosby or any other top 3 pick to Ottawa while Washington picks 30th overall?

What about Columbus? Sure they have a handful(not more) of really promosing prospects and are maybe 3-4 years away from beeing a decent team. How would it affect them if the had 14 teams picking ahead of them in the West?

Finally, what would happend if Wasington got Crosby? They might in 4 years be in a position that Ottawa without a doubt will be in next year. Ohh thats a big mockery. Take away a 1st overall pick from Ottawa&Quebec(the old Colorado Avs. FYI) and give it to a rival in their division and we would without a doubt have seen a diffrent history in the NHL. And don't bring any more BS about over compensating weak teams because 95% of them would still have sucked in 04-05. Not a chance in a million that the Caps would have made the PO's. Not a chance in a million that Columbus/Atlanta/New York Rangers/Pittsburg would have been contenders....

Since you apparently don't know what I'm talking about I guess I can't reply to your first comment since I don't know what you are talking about.

Then lady luck was smiling on them. I don't think a top 4 pick will save Toronto or the Devils. Toronto is crumbling fast with no young blood and the Devils will go the way of their captain, doubly so if Niedermayer high tails it out of there. Philly has big money issues until they can dispose of Leclair and Amonte. Ottawa actually is sitting in pretty good shape, that is until all their players are due for new contracts.

Washington was last I do believe, and they did everything in their power to make sure they stayed there. Because Washington has a damn nice group of young talented players? They had a good team (not so much coaching), but sold it to guarantee Ovechkin. You want to reward that by also giving them Crosby?

Not much more than if they picked ahead of everyone else. #1 and #60 or #30 and #31. If you need to add to a couple of positions the later might be a better option for you. Plus they've traded up for #1 before.

You are mighty sure of yourself aren't you? Atlanta is a playoff team next year, should have been last year had the Snyder tragedy not occured. I agree the Rangers probably won't make too much noise but the others have solid young players that coupled with a strategic UFA or two (that are out there and readily available) could very well have entered the playoff fray (assuming your hypothetical '04-'05 isn't running on the old CBA).

Regardless looking at the standings from the last few seasons is not the best way to go about determining the draft lottery. To little of the right information and too much of the wrong.

 

[I in the Eye]

What I personally actually thought was most fair was having three groups of ten, based on an aggregate of the past 3 years to remove some of the year to year varience of rising and falling some have complained of, and have three lotteries, one for choices 1-10, another 11-20, another 21-30. You can not know 100% what would have happened had there been a 2004-5 season, however, let us say that it is your job to try, to come as close as you can with some random system. What I set forth above I believe would come closest to approximating the results of that lost season and result in the fewest number of teams ending up far from where they would have had their been a season.

It's an interesting system, IMO... But no more (or less) fair than any of the other formulas...

You genuinely believe the system proposed in this thread or worse, a totally random 30 balls in a hat, would result in a fewer number of teams ending up far from where they would have had their been a season? Tell me that with a straight face.

To make a long story short, with a straight face, honestly, I genuinely believe that I can’t answer your question… I don't know which system is better...

To make a short story long…

With a straight face, honestly, I'm not arrogant enough to say that I know what the actual results would have been – to be able to make a comparison to what the results of the formulas (any of them) would be compared to what would have actually happened...

Even with what is happening right now in the world as I type this (let alone what would have happened in a parallel universe) I only see an approximation of myself and others due to resolution of examination… Fact is, I’ll never have the means to precisely examine or verify anything to degrees of infinity… And even if I could, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle would leave me with another factor that would be infinitely uncertain...

Therefore, I don't know if the systems proposed in this thread would have ended up close or far from what the results would have been... There are just too many things going against my predictions… And that's where I'm coming from... Nobody knows… No one can predict what the results would have been… No one can predict which formula is better than the other… as no one can predict what the results actually were (to compare the formulas too)… May as well have an owner shootout contest in the middle of center ice, IMO (at least skill is involved)…

I think that having the draft in itself is an absurd exercise (given no season)... IMO, there is no need to have a draft this year - only a want... Therefore, wait a year (and raise the draft age to 19) so that the draft is fair for all teams… I think that defining a formula (and doing so with a straight face) to capture the essence of what the 2004/05 would have been, is an even more absurd exercise – IMO, it’s Bettman playing hockey god... Theoretically, everything that would have happened in 2004/05 can be reduced to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin... Pragmatically, it can't... I don't like the idea of one man (or a group of men in an office) deciding what variables should be included and what variables shouldn't be when determining what the results of 2004/05 were... and therefore, which teams are more deserving than others... There is only one unit that measures what truly does exist, and that's time... Time measured that there was no 2004/05 season... Therefore, IMO, there should be no rewards handed out to the top and worst place finishers of the 2004/05 season...

I genuinely believe that it makes about as much sense to hold a draft this year as it does to hold a Stanley Cup tournament (not much sense at all)... IMO, to be fair and logically consistent though, do both - or do none... Why is one acceptable, but the other not?

 

[Ola]

The biggest loosers so far in the lockouts are(probably) the veteran teams, Wings, Toronto and a few other teams. But should the biggest "loosers", in the lockout, have the top draft picks? The worst teams should always draft first, thats the bottomline. Then we have teams that intentionally trys to suck under a period of time to get high picks ect. Thats really unfortunate and thats why there always will be somekind of lottery.

But with Bettmans proposed system a avg.(%-wise) of 4 picks in the top 10(anywhere from 1-10) will go to teams that have made the PO's three straight years, played in the SC finals/won cups the last 3 years.

With a straight face, Ottawa would have been really good in a 04'-05'. Well their plane could have crashed on the way to a away game if not they would have been really good. Philly would've been my 2nd ranked team in the league. Colorado would have been good. The Red Wings would've been really good. Tampa would have been as dangerous as they where last year. NJD without a doubt would have been one of the top 5 teams in the east after the regular season. I am not trying to be a arrogant I know it all guy but in hockey it takes time to build a team, to establish a system. People talk about Atlanta like they would have been contenders next year, IMO no way jose. Why would they be able to do in a short period of time what it took Quebeck/Colorado twice the amount of time and what Ottawa haven't accomlished yet. Take a look at their defense... Overall IMO its safe to say that onlt one or two teams would have been positive suprises in 04-05, one or two would have been negeative suprises. Like Dallas/Minnesota in the past.

With this proposed system from Bettman there is a huge possibility that some really really weak teams are hurt tremendously while some of the powerhouses the last 5-15 years hit jackpot. Good teams wouldn't only be awarded high picks, they would'be been awarded high picks at the cost of weak teams. Good teams not only have a shoot at Crosby, they have a shoot at all top 10 picks.

Plus that there is a worst case scenario where the top 4 teams in a division potentially cold walk away with overall picks 1-4 while the weakest team in that division which been out of the PO's 4-7 years drafts 30th overall. Its in the hands of faith and faith have a tendency to........

Its just obvious that Bettman isn't up to the task of running anything other then a contract negotiation. Look what he have done to the product on ice, and now this. Something that could be potentially worse....

 

[King'sPawn]

What I personally actually thought was most fair was having three groups of ten, based on an aggregate of the past 3 years to remove some of the year to year varience of rising and falling some have complained of, and have three lotteries, one for choices 1-10, another 11-20, another 21-30. You can not know 100% what would have happened had there been a 2004-5 season, however, let us say that it is your job to try, to come as close as you can with some random system. What I set forth above I believe would come closest to approximating the results of that lost season and result in the fewest number of teams ending up far from where they would have had their been a season. You genuinely believe the system proposed in this thread or worse, a totally random 30 balls in a hat, would result in a fewer number of teams ending up far from where they would have had their been a season? Tell me that with a straight face.

I had a similar idea, except not have three separate lotteries. The team that's in 11th place gets screwed out of getting a great pick, and only HOPES he can keep his draft position.

But why not break the teams down into three categories, from 1-10, 11-20, and 21-30. Give the first 10 teams 3 balls, the middle teams 2 balls, and the last 1 ball. You can either base the rankings off of the last year played, or you can go by the past couple seasons where the most recent years have the highest weight.

It's not a perfect system, and a team or two could get screwed. But, the chances of Columbus, Pittsburgh, Washington, etc. getting the short end are very small.

The reason why I think, in one way or another, every team should at least have a chance at a good pick for the lockout, is because I'm the fan of a team who has endured freak injuries the past two years. You seriously never know what can happen in a year.

 

[Johnnybegood13]

I genuinely believe that it makes about as much sense to hold a draft this year as it does to hold a Stanley Cup tournament (not much sense at all)... IMO, to be fair and logically consistent though, do both - or do none... Why is one acceptable, but the other not?

Unless you have 18 draft rounds next year a lot of kids are going to be very disappointed

 

[WC Handy*]

So because the last few seasons the bottom dwellers got their juicy draft picks they should be rewarded with them again in '05?

Once again... you're looking at the irrelevant past and have no interest in finding the most fair system.

You should be ecstatic that Bettman's alleged proposal even weights the lottery for the historically struggling teams given that they have already been given their appropriate draft positions for those poor finishes.

Your post might have made a little bit of sense if my team was one of the 'historically struggling teams'. I'm one of the few here that admit that my team doesn't deserve any shot at Crosby and my team was a 7 seed last season.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Washington was last I do believe, and they did everything in their power to make sure they stayed there. Because Washington has a damn nice group of young talented players? They had a good team (not so much coaching), but sold it to guarantee Ovechkin. You want to reward that by also giving them Crosby?

What "good" team? The team that missed the playoff three of the last six seasons (not to mention being able to string together a total of THREE playoff wins), or the $50-million payroll that was contending for last place? What "group of young talented players" did Washington field? Kolzig? Bondra? Witt?

And how did Washington "guarantee" Ovechkin? Is not the purpose of a lottery to ensure that teams do not "tank"? Remember Washington finished 28th in the League that year.

 

[HockeyCritter]

I genuinely believe that it makes about as much sense to hold a draft this year as it does to hold a Stanley Cup tournament (not much sense at all)... IMO, to be fair and logically consistent though, do both - or do none... Why is one acceptable, but the other not?

Unless you have 18 draft rounds next year a lot of kids are going to be very disappointed

Not if the draft age is permanently raised to 19 (as the League has been rumored to want to do for the past several seasons).

 

[Marshall]

"Washington was last I do believe, and they did everything in their power to make sure they stayed there. Because Washington has a damn nice group of young talented players? They had a good team (not so much coaching), but sold it to guarantee Ovechkin. You want to reward that by also giving them Crosby?"

Most of this is completely inaccurate.

 

[HockeyCritter]

"Washington was last I do believe, and they did everything in their power to make sure they stayed there. Because Washington has a damn nice group of young talented players? They had a good team (not so much coaching), but sold it to guarantee Ovechkin. You want to reward that by also giving them Crosby?"

Most of this is completely inaccurate. The Caps stunk before the fire-sale. People seem not to remember that.

We don't need no stinkin' facts.

 

[Bruwinz37]

What "good" team? The team that missed the playoff three of the last six seasons (not to mention being able to string together a total of THREE playoff wins), or the $50-million payroll that was contending for last place? What "group of young talented players" did Washington field? Kolzig? Bondra? Witt?

And how did Washington "guarantee" Ovechkin? Is not the purpose of a lottery to ensure that teams do not "tank"? Remember Washington finished 28th in the League that year.

All true, but I could guarentee that if the Caps kept Grier, Lang, Gonchar, and Nylander they probably would have finished off a bit better and that would have kept them out of the bottom 5.

Regardless....that was two years ago now. Likely half the league will be FA's so I am for a non weighted draft where each team has an equal shot at the top pick and then have the draft snake each round. There is no way that the bottom feeders of two years ago should be rewarded for their ineptitude when there is no season to base it off of. They were rewarded for sucking and got their prize.

 

[topshelf331]

The draft should be a complete random lottery. You cant draft based on what probably would have happened.


I think the previously stated idea of just making the draft age 19 would be great. Or at least postpone the current draft until it can be cunducted based on something. Like the 1st half of the season. Sure the bad teams might be rewarded twice. But at leastit would be based on something and ultimately the teams with a better chance to win the cup, wouldnt risk missing the playoffs for better draft seeding. Just make it to where whoever drafts first in the 1st half draft cant draft first half of the regular draft.

 

[WC Handy*]

You cant draft based on what probably would have happened.

Which is exaclty why you base the draft on what DID happen.

 

[topshelf331]

Which is exaclty why you base the draft on what DID happen.

You mean nothing? Cause thats what happened.

 

[WC Handy*]

You mean nothing? Cause thats what happened.

Wow... what a surprise... another fan who wants his team to get a shot at Crosby that his team doesn't deserve that continues to focus on the missed season.

 

[HockeyCritter]

All true, but I could guarentee that if the Caps kept Grier, Lang, Gonchar, and Nylander they probably would have finished off a bit better and that would have kept them out of the bottom 5.

Regardless....that was two years ago now. Likely half the league will be FA's so I am for a non weighted draft where each team has an equal shot at the top pick and then have the draft snake each round. There is no way that the bottom feeders of two years ago should be rewarded for their ineptitude when there is no season to base it off of. They were rewarded for sucking and got their prize.

Unlikely as even with those guys (and by the by Nylander only played three games with the Caps as we was injured for most of the season) they were hardly out of the bottom three . . . .

And honestly with a new CBA and lockout on the horizon, why should any team that is clearly NOT going to make the playoffs hang on to players who will be free agents?

Any system not based on seasonal results is going to be unfair. The best solution would be to permanently raise the draft age to 19. Barring that, weighted seasonal results are the best indicators of what would have been the most likely occurred during the season. I do find it rather curious that most of these scenarios go back three seasons, what is so special about the number three? Why three, why not two or four?

 

[WC Handy*]

While I understand where you're coming from, the best solution isn't to keep Crosby out of the league for a year.

 

[HockeyCritter]

You mean nothing? Cause thats what happened.

(Based solely on this line of reasoning) To extrapolate further, would not the logical conclusion be no results = no draft?

EDIT: Because sometimes Critter's brain goes faster than her fingers.

 

[HockeyCritter]

While I understand where you're coming from, the best solution isn't to keep Crosby out of the league for a year.

Says who? Why does Crosby rate special attention? What about Brule? What about Johnson? Don’t they rate? Aren’t they “important†to the league? To focus solely on Crosby is extremely short sighted and does a great disservice to him, the rest of the draftees, and the sport.

The league has more important issues to deal with than whether or not the Golden Boy gets to play this season. I know some GMS and fans have their knickers in a twist over this kid, but really, does he need the stigma of being the “prize†in a manipulated draft?

I'd argue the opposite, it would be in the best interest of the league to Crosby and his entire class sits out the year. They should wait until the June 2006 because any draft scenario the League can contrive will certain taint the selection process and brand those involved (unjustly to be certain, but it will be there).

This is the perfect opportunity for the League to do what it has wanted for several years, raise the draft age.

 

[WC Handy*]

To focus solely on Crosby is extremely short sighted

Sorry, but it's not. The league would benefit from him getting drafted this year, in a year when they need all the help they can get. Many average fans know who Sidney Crosby is and have heard about him for a couple years. They don't know Brule.

 

[topshelf331]

Wow... what a surprise... another fan who wants his team to get a shot at Crosby that his team doesn't deserve that continues to focus on the missed season.

Did you read all of my post or what. I guess you couldnt rebut to my response. Do i think my team deserves a shot at crosby, as much as the next. But Id rather it be based on the play of a current team. Since the last season, we have had a draft where the worst teams drafted 1st. 2 seasons worth of players have retired and prospects have further developed. Those teams may now be the least worthy of a top end pick for all we know. The teams from the last season played are gone forever and 1 season removed.


Edit: IF you throw crosby completely out of the equation, I would still want the draft conducted in the same way, unweighted or based on the play of the current play of the teams.