draft lottery proposal by Gary B

[WC Handy*]

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.

Did I read all of your post? All SEVEN words?

As I've already pointed out in this thread, the only people that keep focusing on the missed year are the people who want a chance at Crosby their team doesn't deserve. You, as a Blues fan, fit that description perfectly. The Blues simply do not deserve any chance at Crosby, let alone the same shot as the Predators or the Penguins or the Capitals.

The only option here is to base the draft order off of the results that have actually happened (which might explain why the league is leaning towards such a system). You should be happy that you're even getting any chance at Crosby instead of complaining that the Predators have a better chance.

 

[topshelf331]

As i edited in the previous post, If you threw crosby out of the equation i would still think it should be conducted unweighted.

 

[topshelf331]

Did I read all of your post? All SEVEN words?

Short or not, you selectively read it and made assumptions.

 

[HockeyCritter]

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.

I contend that the fans that know Crosby also know Brule and Johnson. The “average†fan certainly will not posses significant knowledge of any of those players (execpting what the papers print - and we all know how reliable the media can be).

Signing or not signing Crosby should not be the League's focus, and if it is shame on them.

Once the CBA is signed the League needs to focus on correcting the on ice product. That is paramount to ensuring the continued health of the game. It doesn’t matter if Crosby, Ovechkin or Maurice Richard himself were putting the skates if the game is unwatchable. Dressing any hyped up kid isn’t going to improve the product. Crosby (despite the rhetoric of these boards) isn’t going to improve the product. The game needs to showcase the speed, skill, and hard hitting that it was designed for as opposed to the clutch/grab trapfest it has become. Rule changes and restoring the fans trust is what the League needs to concentrate on. Dubbing Crosby the Next One or the Savior and sending him to a “big†market isn’t going to attract and keep fans if the game is boring.

 

[WC Handy*]

Short or not, you selectively read it and made assumptions.

Says the guy who just quoted 7% of my post...

 

[WC Handy*]

I contend that the fans that know Crosby also know Brule and Johnson. The “average†fan certainly will know have knowledge of any of those players.

I guarantee you that's not true. I work with plenty of people well aware of Crosby and view him as the NHL's LBJ and would have no clue who Brule or Johnson are.

Signing or not signing Crosby should not be the League's focus, and if it is shame on them.

Once the CBA is signed the League needs to focus on correcting the on ice product. That is paramount to ensuring the continued health of the game. It doesn’t matter if Crosby, Ovechkin or Maurice Richard himself were putting the skates if the game is unwatchable. Dressing any hyped up kid isn’t going to improve the product. Crosby (despite the rhetoric of these boards) isn’t going to improve the product. The game needs to showcase the speed, skill, and hard hitting that it was designed for as opposed to the clutch/grab trapfest it has become. Rule changes and restoring the fans trust is what the League needs to concentrate on. Dubbing Crosby the Next One or the Savior and sending him to a “big†market isn’t going to attract and keep fans if the game is boring.

You say all that as if they must choose to either focus on Crosby or to focus on improve the quality of play. They can, and will, do both.

 

[topshelf331]

Says the guy who just quoted 7% of my post...

I was responding to 100% of that subject, you on the other hand maybe 50%.

 

[WC Handy*]

I was responding to 100% of that subject, you on the other hand maybe 50%.

I've responded with relevent posts to everything you've said. You, on the other hand, have focused on nothing that I've said to you.

 

[HockeyCritter]

I guarantee you that's not true. I work with plenty of people well aware of Crosby and view him as the NHL's LBJ and would have no clue who Brule or Johnson are.

Is that because the follow the sport or because they read the newspapers that have already dubbed the kid the best thing since sliced bread?

I believe the latter is the more accurate assessment of the situation.

 

[WC Handy*]

Is that because the follow the sport or because they read the newspapers that have already dubbed the kid the best thing since sliced bread?

I believe the latter is the more accurate assessment of the situation.

The average fan doesn't follow the sport like we do. They watch the games when they're on and catch SportsCenter from time to time. By doing only this, they should know who Crosby is. But, I have NEVER heard Brule or Jack Johnson's names on TV.

 

[topshelf331]

I've responded with relevent posts to everything you've said. You, on the other hand, have focused on nothing that I've said to you.

What have I missed? I responded to your Crosby complex, your draft system, and your personal jabs.

 

[topshelf331]

The average fan doesn't follow the sport like we do. They watch the games when they're on and catch SportsCenter from time to time. By doing only this, they should know who Crosby is. But, I have NEVER heard Brule or Jack Johnson's names on TV.

Being that we are actually fans from the same city, i can attest to this. Noit many people i know who are actully big nhl fans know prospects fot the next draft beyond crosby.

 

[HockeyCritter]

The average fan doesn't follow the sport like we do. They watch the games when they're on and catch SportsCenter from time to time. By doing only this, they should know who Crosby is. But, I have NEVER heard Brule or Jack Johnson's names on TV.

Just for my own edification (and to clarify your point) Are you stating that fans that know Crosby only know his name because of the media hype/circus surrounding him and since the media conveniently “forgot†to mention Brule and/or Johnson they have no knowledge of him? Where as the hardcore fan knows not only Crosby but Brule and Johnson as well?

Because if that is your point, I don't think those fans (I call them "casual") would care a great deal where Crosby ends up and his playing would not compell them to see a game.

 

[WC Handy*]

Yes, that is what I'm saying and I disagree that these 'casual fans' wouldn't watch to see what Crosby is capable of... especially when you consider ESPN will promote the hell out of his games.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Yes, that is what I'm saying and I disagree that these 'casual fans' wouldn't watch to see what Crosby is capable of... especially when you consider ESPN will promote the hell out of his games.

Marketing of a single player hasn't helped ESPN's cause in the past, what makes you think it will happen now?

Then again, I know a few hockey fans here who would go to games just to boo this kid - - they’re that sick of hearing about him (to be fair, they're ready to boo Ovechkin as well). And of course I’ll be there to watch, but then again I am a season ticket holder and a hopelessly devoted hockey fan (so I'm a lost cause reagardless).

PS: What city are you in?

 

[WC Handy*]

Marketing of a single player hasn't helped ESPN's cause in the past, what makes you think it will happen now?

Actually it has. It helped a ton when Lemieux made his comeback a few years ago. I still remember his first game back... I was watching the game at an Applebee's and it's the only time I've ever seen an NHL game on at a restaurant like that that didn't include the Blues (there's your answer to what city I'm in).

That said... it probably won't help all that much. But you've gotta know that the league plans on riding this Crosby hype for all it's worth and pushing back his drafting year wouldn't be in their plans at all.

BTW... as for raising the age to 19. What I'd like the league to do is institute some sort of system that requires them to go pro once they are drafted. So, if Crosby wasn't ready to leave juniors he simply wouldn't opt in this year.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Actually it has. It helped a ton when Lemieux made his comeback a few years ago. I still remember his first game back... I was watching the game at an Applebee's and it's the only time I've ever seen an NHL game on at a restaurant like that that didn't include the Blues (there's your answer to what city I'm in).

That said... it probably won't help all that much. But you've gotta know that the league plans on riding this Crosby hype for all it's worth and pushing back his drafting year wouldn't be in their plans at all.

BTW... as for raising the age to 19. What I'd like the league to do is institute some sort of system that requires them to go pro once they are drafted. So, if Crosby wasn't ready to leave juniors he simply wouldn't opt in this year.

But how long did it last? How many people became fans because of that?

I have a problem with requiring a kid to become pro right after the draft . . . too many variables. The NHL is unique in the fact that it can take kids four to six years after they are drafted to reach the NHL.

 

[WC Handy*]

I have a problem with requiring a kid to become pro right after the draft . . . too many variables. The NHL is unique in the fact that it can take kids four to six years after they are drafted to reach the NHL.

You didn't read what I wrote.

Players wouldn't opt into the draft until they are ready for professional (Pro doesn't necessarily mean NHL) hockey. So instead of players getting drafted at 18 years old and playing in juniors for 2 years before gonig to the AHL, they opt in when after they're done with juniors and then they get drafted and go stright to the AHL (or NHL or ECHL). College players would opt in after they decided they were done with NCAA hockey. And European players would have to commit to coming over before opting in (rather than this crap of wondering if your draft pick is ever going to come over).

 

[HockeyCritter]

You didn't read what I wrote.

Players wouldn't opt into the draft until they are ready for professional (Pro doesn't necessarily mean NHL) hockey. So instead of players getting drafted at 18 years old and playing in juniors for 2 years before gonig to the AHL, they opt in when after they're done with juniors and then they get drafted and go stright to the AHL (or NHL or ECHL). College players would opt in after they decided they were done with NCAA hockey. And European players would have to commit to coming over before opting in (rather than this crap of wondering if your draft pick is ever going to come over).

Who determines when they are "ready'? (Unless you mean to use age as the determining factor)

(And I do understand “pro†means various leagues)

I think it would be rather difficult to have guys go into the AHL (unless the whole AHL/NHL affiliate agreement is revised) as most AHL guys are affiliated with a NHL franchise.

I have no problem with the draft continuing the way it has, except for the age - - I think it should be 19 - -heck I wouldn't mind if it were 20 (thought that might be difficult because a 19 year old can play in juniors but a 20 year old cannot)

 

[WC Handy*]

Who determines when they are "ready'?

The same thing that determines when a football or basketball player is ready to give up his eligibility and enter the draft.

I think it would be rather difficult to have guys go into the AHL (unless the whole AHL/NHL affiliate agreement is revised) as most AHL guys are affiliated with a NHL franchise.

You're still not reading what I wrote. They wouldn't go to the AHL until they get drafted.

The point is to basically copy the NFL/NBA drafts in the sense that players lose their eligibility in their leagues if they go pro. Not only would this make busts less likely because they have had more time to develop, but it would build up more hype around the draft because players would only be a couple years away instead of 5 years away.

 

[HockeyCritter]

The same thing that determines when a football or basketball player is ready to give up his eligibility and enter the draft.



You're still not reading what I wrote. They wouldn't go to the AHL until they get drafted.

The point is to basically copy the NFL/NBA drafts in the sense that players lose their eligibility in their leagues if they go pro. Not only would this make busts less likely because they have had more time to develop, but it would build up more hype around the draft because players would only be a couple years away instead of 5 years away.

I see what you're saying - but I don't know how that would translate to hockey . . . . basketball and football use college as "training" grounds for undrafted players. Right now hockey has junior hockey and there are limits to how long a player can stay in juniors. I'm not mentioning college hockey because a student can stay there for the full four years. If there was a place for these "undrafted" players to go, then it might work.

But I don't think this is a major issue . . . . I do want to see the draft age raised to 19, but otherwise, I have no problem on how the NHL draft works nor the need for a major overall. That may change after seeing how the new CBA shakes out (but I doubt it).

(And as an aside, it's rather lovely to have a conversation with a person (even if he doesn't agree with you) and remain civil - - sadly that seems to be a rare occurrence.)

 

[WC Handy*]

I'm going easy on ya because we typically agree

Seriously though... I don't see the big advantage to raising the draft age to 19. Drafting would be slightly better because teams would have an additional year to evaluate players (who would have an additional year to develop). But, I really think it's important to increase interest in any aspect of the league and I think doing what I suggested would make the draft more interesting to average fans. I know quite a few people that don't even care who the Blues have in their organization until they're at the AHL level.

 

[HockeyCritter]

I'm going easy on ya because we typically agree

Seriously though... I don't see the big advantage to raising the draft age to 19. Drafting would be slightly better because teams would have an additional year to evaluate players (who would have an additional year to develop). But, I really think it's important to increase interest in any aspect of the league and I think doing what I suggested would make the draft more interesting to average fans. I know quite a few people that don't even care who the Blues have in their organization until they're at the AHL level.

Why thank you kind sir . . . . But I gather you've never argued with a Italian/Russian from New York (granted she's living in Northern VA right now) . . . we can be pretty fierce.

It seems like you want the draft to be more of a “sure fire†hit than an “art with a bit of science†- - - that would be nice and if that were the case draft picks would have a lot more value than they currently have. (Goodness what a horribly constructed sentence).

Of all the issues facing the League right now, I don’t think the draft (other than what to do about the 2005 class) is of any major significance.

And I love watching the AHL team (I’m rather happy that it has moved to Hershey where I can see the prospects more than twice a year) and I do follow the younger players in college and juniors - - but I think we’ve already established that I’m a rather hopelessly devoted hockey fan.

 

[BigE]

Personally, I like our draft better than any other draft in pro sports. The MLB is too out there, absolutely anyone could go at anytime. The NFL can be broken down into who's going to go almost by every 3 picks for every round. The NBA and in particular NHL are good mediums, there is a bit of an art too it. A good scouting group can win you a lot of games.

 

[norrisnick]

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.

They had a good team that was over .500 for the 4 years prior to the last season. They were not a bottom dwelling team until somehow they stopped playing to their abilities the last season, so they got rid of every player they could to maintain lottery status. They have a group of young talented players now (the post you are quoting was answering a series of questions).

They guaranteed themselves a lottery shot by selling off their team so they couldn't accidentally win games. A little overstated for effect, but that's what they did with the proper system they had a team capable of competing they just gave up.