draft lottery proposal by Gary B

[norrisnick]

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.

The Blues are in bad bad shape. Their playoffs presence was based solely on the play of a player they unceremoniously showed the door in favor of Patrick Lalime. Nashville are almost undoubtedly better than St. Louis right now(they almost were in '04). The Blues are a prime example of why using the standings from the past 3 seasons is a really dumb idea, IMO the weakest of the playoff teams last season. And a couple that didn't make it are on the upswing.

 

[Marshall]

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.

Please stop. It's absurd.

 

[Bruwinz37]

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?

So if they had Lang, Gonchar, Nylander and Grier they would not have accounted for 6-8 more points? Heck, they dumped Lang early and he was their best player. That is nonsense, there is no way they would have been in the bottom 5.

I agree in most situations is to base it on the season, but there was no season. I think it is a lousy idea to raise the draft age too and I am sure it would be challenged in court and the NHL would lose, bad.

A complete random lottery is the best way to go. You are right, 3-4 seasons back dont mean anything. If they lower the FA age (which they probably will) half the league will be FA's.

Not to mention it would bring some attention to the league/draft if EVERYONE had an equal shot at getting the next one. Snake the draft so the guys at the bottom get a couple players as well. Its the only fair way.

 

[WC Handy*]

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.

Can't say that I have... but I'm married to an Irish/German who grew up as not only an only child but as an only grandchild who is very used to getting her way. I know 'fierce' very well.

 

[HSHS]

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.

 

[norrisnick]

Please stop. It's absurd.

You deny they were a team over .500 from '99 until the '03-'04 season? Losing Calle Johansson was pretty much the only change between 92 pt team and what showed up in '03-'04. They should have played much better than they did.

Their biggest mistake was letting go of Wilson a couple seasons ago. They had the players to win, just not the system.

Jagr, Lang, Gonchar, Bondra, Nylander, Konowalchuk, Grier, Carter. They dismantled a team that should have been a playoff team in the locked out year, to ensure they didn't leave the bottom 5.

 

[WC Handy*]

You deny they were a team over .500 from '99 until the '03-'04 season? Losing Calle Johansson was pretty much the only change between 92 pt team and what showed up in '03-'04. They should have played much better than they did.

Their biggest mistake was letting go of Wilson a couple seasons ago. They had the players to win, just not the system.

Jagr, Lang, Gonchar, Bondra, Nylander, Konowalchuk, Grier, Carter. They dismantled a team that should have been a playoff team in the locked out year, to ensure they didn't leave the bottom 5.

I hope you realize that you're only making the case for using a weighted system where the most recent years are weighted more heavily than the earlier years.

 

[norrisnick]

I hope you realize that you're only making the case for using a weighted system where the most recent years are weighted more heavily than the earlier years.

I've been stating the case for quite some time that they are all obsolete. Even the most recent set of standings would be the equivalent of a two year gap in seasons. Since there is a full year of mystery action/inaction in there.

Look at where Carolina and Chicago finished in '02 and where they finished in '04. Look at where Tampa and Calgary finished in '04 and where they finished in '02.

That is the gap we are looking at when using the '04 standings to determine which are the strong and weak teams now, and thereby figuring out what draft position teams "deserve".

 

[me2]

Just make every draft eligble player a UFA for 1 year only then send them to a special draft to be held concurrently with the 05-06 draft. Special draft positions to be calculated from averaging the 03-04 and 05-06 seasons standings/points.

Everybody wins, and you can't get fairer.

 

[Mess]

Just make every draft eligble player a UFA for 1 year only then send them to a special draft to be held concurrently with the 05-06 draft. Special draft positions to be calculated from averaging the 03-04 and 05-06 seasons standings/points.

Everybody wins, and you can't get fairer.

What exactly is the difference between making them UFA and just not drafting them until a new CBA is in place or when ever you want ..

All undrafted players are by nature UFA ..NO ??

 

[me2]

What exactly is the difference between making them UFA and just not drafting them until a new CBA is in place or when ever you want ..

This gets around the whole X number of balls, average the last 3-5 years etc. I don't think you can get fairer than averaging the season before and season after the missing season.

All undrafted players are by nature UFA ..NO ??

But they need to either have a draft or make them UFA. So make them UFA, but only for 1 year as a special case for this year only.

 

[Johnnybegood13]

I've been stating the case for quite some time that they are all obsolete. Even the most recent set of standings would be the equivalent of a two year gap in seasons. Since there is a full year of mystery action/inaction in there.

Look at where Carolina and Chicago finished in '02 and where they finished in '04. Look at where Tampa and Calgary finished in '04 and where they finished in '02.

That is the gap we are looking at when using the '04 standings to determine which are the strong and weak teams now, and thereby figuring out what draft position teams "deserve".

I believe thats why Bettman has propossed the 3-4 year weighted lottery,the only fans that seem to hate this are the ones of either the top 5 or bottom 5 but in the end it seems fair!

 

[Boltsfan2029]

Just make every draft eligble player a UFA for 1 year only then send them to a special draft to be held concurrently with the 05-06 draft. Special draft positions to be calculated from averaging the 03-04 and 05-06 seasons standings/points.

Everybody wins, and you can't get fairer.

Are you saying as UFA they can sign with any team they choose, stay with that team for a year & then be drafted away by another team? Or are you saying they can choose to sign as UFA or wait for the special draft?

If it's the first choice, that certainly doesn't seem "fair" to the team that has the player for that one year...

 

[HSHS]

Are you saying as UFA they can sign with any team they choose, stay with that team for a year & then be drafted away by another team? Or are you saying they can choose to sign as UFA or wait for the special draft?

If it's the first choice, that certainly doesn't seem "fair" to the team that has the player for that one year...

exactly... it makes no sense since there is no team that is going to sign players for one year except Crosby. Why would you pay a bonus, salary, and development just to get nothing in the end.

The only logic of this idea is if you are a Habs fan.

 

[norrisnick]

I believe thats why Bettman has propossed the 3-4 year weighted lottery,the only fans that seem to hate this are the ones of either the top 5 or bottom 5 but in the end it seems fair!

Which is utterly stupid. What does the '00-'01 season have to do with the '05 draft? Tampa didn't get a lottery pick in the '04 draft because they sucked ass 2-3 years ago.

Using the '03-'04 standings is already bad enough, going even further back is mind-boggling. If the league is going to predict the stronger and weaker teams so as to find a "deserving" way to weight the lottery they need to look at something other than standings (like say roster turnover) to do so.

 

[HSHS]

I thought that Marshall or HC would respond to this but I guess I'll try to help you out a bit..... I doubt you'll read it all but I wanted to give a little more than this time.

You deny they were a team over .500 from '99 until the '03-'04 season? Losing Calle Johansson was pretty much the only change between 92 pt team and what showed up in '03-'04. They should have played much better than they did.

Agreed 100%... I don't want to get into specifics but by bringing in Jagr after watching him destroy us completely changed the team dynamics and ending up upseting an already good team. Add the firing of Wislon (biggest mistake), the hiring of an inexperienced coach, the disrespect of Calle and other team vets... and you had the making of a big disaster... When the owner puts all his eggs, and cash, in the wrong basket and the team underachieves for 4 years (I don't agree that looking at .500 as successful), something needs to change. And losing +20M/yr with a 50M payroll something did give.

Their biggest mistake was letting go of Wilson a couple seasons ago. They had the players to win, just not the system.

100% agree as I said above.

Jagr, Lang, Gonchar, Bondra, Nylander, Konowalchuk, Grier, Carter. They dismantled a team that should have been a playoff team in the locked out year, to ensure they didn't leave the bottom 5.

This is where I have the biggest disageement. You mentioned earlier that the team "tanked" to "guarantee" Ovechkin. Nothing could be farther from the truth. First, there is not guarantee. What, they had like a 12% chance to win and lucked out. No team would throw away a playoff run for a chance to maybe select Cam Barker, AJ Thelen, etc... Was there a side effect of the salary dump as you call it?? Sure. But it was a team wide reconstruction to prepare for the new system. Its not like they were well above .500 when they made this strategic choice.

The biggest reasons for the "dump" of players was not salary... it was compensation.

Kono was first traded near the beginning of the season. He left before Cassidy letting it be known that he would not resign with Caps as long as Cassidy was there. They traded for what they thought was equal value in Bates. They believed they were getting the same player in return. WRONG!. GMGM also had a "thing" for Jonas Johannson. In their eyes this WAS a hockey decision. Not a dump. Has they not traded him, Kono would be an UFA and they would not have JJ in their system. In 2005-2006 season, this is a NET GAIN for the Caps.

Jagr was 100% salary dump. His salary would be roughly 1/3 of their new budget going forward. Plus, he was a sore that would not let the Caps move forward. The Caps in return for Jagr got 7M/yr in salary relief AND Carter. NET GAIN for the 05-06 Caps. Since you mentioned Carter... Carter was traded for Jared Aulin. Had he not been hurt, he would have been on the Kings roster. Many Kings fans were upset with losing him. Aulin played well in his first AHL season and should develop into a good player. Carter is now an UFA. 05-06 Caps, this is a NET GAIN.

Bondra was traded next and broke nearly everyone's heart. Bondra would have been a UFA except for a 5M club option for 04-05. Could the team have exercised that option??? Perhaps especially with Jagr gone. GMGM really didn't think that they would. So, PB would have been a UFA. Instead of nothing, they get 2rd pick from Ottawa this year (which could be a 30-40 given the lottery weighting and snake) and Brooks Laich. Brooks may be a 3-4 line man and who knows about the pick. Hockey wise it is a NET GAIN for the 05-06 Caps. But to the fans, just seeing that trade happen is a NET LOSS for us all. But good managers take out emotion ala NE Pats.

Lang was next. The teams leading scorer and had 3 more years at 5M/yr. Not too bad cosidering. In return they got Tom Fleischmann and 1st rounder 2004 Mike Green. While they are good prospects who may develop to 2 liner and 2-4 Dman respectively. Lang was a proven player and still on the payroll. This was probably 70% salary dump and 30% hockey move. For the 05-06 Caps this is a NET LOSS.

Net went Gonchar. He was an RFA... look at his award. The Caps weren't about to pay that money. In return they got Shoane Morrisson, 2004 1st rounder Jeff Shultz, and 2004 2nd rounder Mikhail Yunkov. This was 100% hockey move given their new budget of ~30-40M. This is a NET GAIN for the 05-06 Caps.

Nylander played like 2 games for the Caps in 04. He was going to be an UFA. In return the Caps get a 2nd rounder in 2006. The Nylander wasn't in the Caps future plans. The pick isn't in the 05-06 seasons plans. NET WASH.

The last trade many didn't understand from a hockey sense or a salary dump sense. The only reason was that the Caps were expecting to miss the 04-05 season. Or, as you suggest, to completely tank for Ovechkin. Grier was a Caps type player. He didn't make too much so it wasn't for salary reasons. He was signed for 04-05 but would have been an UFA for the 05-06 season. In return the Caps got Jacob Klepis. All indications are that he could be a valuable 1-2 liner if he develops more defensively. He's probably not in the 05-06 Caps plans. NET WASH.

You statement that this team would have been playoff contenders with the above players doesn't hold much water given their FA status. Had their been a season, only Grier, Lang, and Jagr would have been on the team for 04-05 if no lockout. The rest would have been waivers players and AHLs. They would have been lucky to get out of the bottom 10.

The future though is now looking good for this team. The new salary structure, their broad prospect base, and limited current signings make this team a viable contender in 3-4 yrs. Not next year or the year after.

I doubt you will ever see a knowledgeable Caps fan demanding an unreasonable shot at #1. What we care about is the top 10 pick, given this teams rightful place in the bottom 10 of teams.

 

[HSHS]

Which is utterly stupid. What does the '00-'01 season have to do with the '05 draft? Tampa didn't get a lottery pick in the '04 draft because they sucked ass 2-3 years ago.

Using the '03-'04 standings is already bad enough, going even further back is mind-boggling. If the league is going to predict the stronger and weaker teams so as to find a "deserving" way to weight the lottery they need to look at something other than standings (like say roster turnover) to do so.

I agree with the further back as an equal weighting as more recent years as mind boggling.

I disagree 100% that they should attempt to look at teams UPCOMING problems such as aging and salary constraints.

I believe that there should be some LIGHT weighting on past years with NO TEAM getting more than TWICE the amount of balls as another. But what we think doesn't matter at all...

 

[norrisnick]

I disagree 100% that they should attempt to look at teams UPCOMING problems such as aging and salary constraints.

I believe that there should be some LIGHT weighting on past years with NO TEAM getting more than TWICE the amount of balls as another. But what we think doesn't matter at all...

Why not? There are all these posts about the unmentionable horror of a "stacked" team getting a top 5 pick. Looking at what these teams are now and will be in the immediate future will make that less likely. Rather than dumping Crosby in Atlanta's lap to run amock with Kovalchuk, Heatley, Lehtonen, Coburn, etc... That, and a couple other examples of likely destinations using past results, would IMO create a bigger competitive imbalance than Crosby ending up in Jersey, Toronto, St. Louis, etc...

I hear ya, being a fan is tough when you have to watch stupid decisions being made.

 

[HSHS]

Why not? There are all these posts about the unmentionable horror of a "stacked" team getting a top 5 pick. Looking at what these teams are now and will be in the immediate future will make that less likely. Rather than dumping Crosby in Atlanta's lap to run amock with Kovalchuk, Heatley, Lehtonen, Coburn, etc... That, and a couple other examples of likely destinations using past results, would IMO create a bigger competitive imbalance than Crosby ending up in Jersey, Toronto, St. Louis, etc...

I hear ya, being a fan is tough when you have to watch stupid decisions being made.

I just feel uneasy about looking forward and trying to project. That goes against everything the draft is about, ie looking forward.

You must either skip it, use actual historical data (even if arbitrarily), or use equal chances.

One won't happen

Two I don't like the "double reward"

Three all teams, even in this black hole the NHL is in, are not equal.

So, I think that the best of the worst choices is to give:

Using 2003-04 standings:
Top 5 5 balls (2.2%)
5-10 6 balls (2.7%)
10-15 7 balls (3.1%)
15-20 8 balls (3.6%)
20-25 9 balls (4.0%)
25-30 10 balls (4.4%)

Therefore no team gets greater than twice the other... there is a 95.6% chance that my Caps won't get the first pick again.

Most people are arguing for either a 3.3% chance for their team (equal odds) and others for some 5-10% chance for their Caps/'Guins/Hawks/Jackets etc etc etc. Here's something in the middle that I think would be a compromise and reasonable.

But that's just me and I don't matter to these people.

 

[norrisnick]

I just feel uneasy about looking forward and trying to project. That goes against everything the draft is about, ie looking forward.

You must either skip it, use actual historical data (even if arbitrarily), or use equal chances.

One won't happen

Two I don't like the "double reward"

Three all teams, even in this black hole the NHL is in, are not equal.

So, I think that the best of the worst choices is to give:

Using 2003-04 standings:
Top 5 5 balls (2.2%)
5-10 6 balls (2.7%)
10-15 7 balls (3.1%)
15-20 8 balls (3.6%)
20-25 9 balls (4.0%)
25-30 10 balls (4.4%)

Therefore no team gets greater than twice the other... there is a 95.4% chance that my Caps won't get the first pick again.

Most people are arguing for either a 3.3% chance for their team (equal odds) and others for some 5-10% chance for their Caps/'Guins/Hawks/Jackets etc etc etc. Here's something in the middle that I think would be a compromise and reasonable.

But that's just me and I don't matter to these people.

Aside from hyperanalyzing teams to try to determine strength and pure random even odds, that's the most reasonable scenario I've seen. It gives credence to the most recent results but doesn't lock into them completely.

 

[me2]

Are you saying as UFA they can sign with any team they choose, stay with that team for a year & then be drafted away by another team? Or are you saying they can choose to sign as UFA or wait for the special draft?

Option 1, just a delayed 05 draft. In the meantime they have to get around the "players have a right to play if they are old enough" argument. So why fight it if the 18+ year olds will sue for the right to play. Just give them the right for 1 year if they are good enough. Renting Crosby for 1 year in TO or NYR or MTL or Atlanta isn't going to tip the balance of the league. As for the other prospects, 95-99% wouldn't have played in the NHL as 18 year olds anyway, so its business as usual for them.



Half the people are saying the draft order should be based on past history (Col, Was, Pits) . Half are saying that is unfair as the we don't know what would happen in the missing year and what teams will tank in the new capped UFA so give everyone the same chance (TO, Det, Philly).

Can't get a better estimate of what might have happened than interpolating results for the missing year.
If Pittsburgh sucked in 04 and they still sucked in 06, chances are they would have sucked in 05.
If Atlanta win the SC in 06 chances are they'd have been a contender for the playoffs in 05.
If TO goes from making the playoffs in 04 to making the playoffs in 06, chances are they'd have been a playoff contender in 05.
If Detroit goes from #1 in 04 to just missing the playoffs in 06, well then they get pick somewhere around 15 to match their decline.

Lets cut this baby in half.

If it's the first choice, that certainly doesn't seem "fair" to the team that has the player for that one year...

As for the team, its not at all unfair. No unfairer than signing a 31+ year old UFA to a 1 year contract. A year is a year is a year, a UFA is UFA is UFA. The player isn't their long term prospect to lose, so they gain everything (1 year) and lose nothing.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

As for the team, its not at all unfair. No unfairer than signing a 31+ year old UFA to a 1 year contract. A year is a year is a year, a UFA is UFA is UFA. The player isn't their long term prospect to lose, so they gain everything (1 year) and lose nothing.

I have to disagree on that one. IMO, when a team signs a 31-yo UFA, they're expecting he could be gone in a year.

When a team signs an 18-year old, especially one with this much hype, they certainly expect he'll be around long term. Why waste time & money working on a player that good only to almost certainly lose him?

Take a look at all these threads around here regarding Crosby and the draft. The only reason these good folks are upset about the draft is Crosby, whether they admit it or not. If the chance at drafting God causes this much uproar, you really think signing him and losing him for nothing (I don't recall you mentioning any compensation for the team that signed him) is going to be acceptable to his temporary team?

I'd be very upset if my team signed someone under these terms. What a waste of time and resources that would be. That would definitely be losing something -- a year of your coach's teaching, a year of learning from teammates, only to see him take those lessons and apply them against you.

 

[The Old Master]

ok if its all about crosby take him out of the mix, have the draft with last yr.s standings with out crosby. but first have a draft lottery just for corsby. but you have to cut 8 players [put them back in the draft] from your nhl roster from last yr. for a chance [not too hard to do if your a chi. hawk cap, or bluejacket] and there won't be a sure thing you'll get him.

 

[WC Handy*]

Aside from hyperanalyzing teams to try to determine strength and pure random even odds, that's the most reasonable scenario I've seen. It gives credence to the most recent results but doesn't lock into them completely.

I bet nobody here is surprised that you're most approving of the weighted proposal that increases the Wings' chances of getting Crosby.

 

[topshelf331]

I bet nobody here is surprised that you're most approving of the weighted proposal that increases the Wings' chances of getting Crosby.

I disagree also. I think the wings deserve as much of a shot at a top end pick as the next team. But that is a comprimise i could stomach.
Unlike the rediculous multi-season weighted system.