Draft Lottery Results

[HFNHL Commish]

The winner of the 2006 HFNHL Entry Draft Lottery is...the Nashville Predators! Congratulations Tony, and good luck in sorting out the Kessel/Staal/Toews/Johnson mess!

Not a bad problem to have.

The rest of the lottery played out as follows:

1. Nashville Predators
2. Colorado Avalanche
3. Toronto Maple Leafs
4. Dallas Stars
5. Pittsburgh Penguins
6. Phoenix Coyotes (one position penalty for violating minimum OV rules)
7. Los Angeles Kings (one position penalty for violating minimum OV rules)
8. Atlanta Thrashers
9. New York Rangers
10. Vancouver Canucks
11. Carolina Hurricanes
12. Florida Panthers
13. Montreal Canadiens
14. Calgary Flames

Click to read more...

 

[Ville Isopaa]

I demand a re-count!

 

[Ohio Jones]

I demand a re-count!

I don't blame you - not that there was anything fishy about the draw, but it sucks when you've really got one particular guy you're counting on, and now there's a very good chance he'll be gone before you pick.

Who could that be, I wonder?

 

[SensGod]

I don't blame you - not that there was anything fishy about the draw, but it sucks when you've really got one particular guy you're counting on, and now there's a very good chance he'll be gone before you pick.

Who could that be, I wonder?

Tell me about it...I'm going to go outside and let my neighbours make fun of me as they see a grown man cry in the middle of the street waiting for the first car to run me over.

 

[Fan.At]

I'm not yet sure what to do with that pick, so I'm listening to offers. Not saying that I will trade it for sure, but if the right offer comes along, i might go for it.

 

[Ville Isopaa]

I don't blame you - not that there was anything fishy about the draw, but it sucks when you've really got one particular guy you're counting on, and now there's a very good chance he'll be gone before you pick.

Who could that be, I wonder?

Especially as the forwards wouldn't improve my future offense all that much, even if some of them would look nice on a line with Crosby.. Kinda like for the Pens, how do you pick a Center at no.2 when you have picked Crosby and Malkin in the past 2 drafts..

 

[SensGod]

Especially as the forwards wouldn't improve my future offense all that much, even if some of them would look nice on a line with Crosby.. Kinda like for the Pens, how do you pick a Center at no.2 when you have picked Crosby and Malkin in the past 2 drafts..

drop me a line...

I'm at 4...I woudn't mind moving up if I can.

 

[Ohio Jones]

Especially as the forwards wouldn't improve my future offense all that much, even if some of them would look nice on a line with Crosby.. Kinda like for the Pens, how do you pick a Center at no.2 when you have picked Crosby and Malkin in the past 2 drafts..

If they're the best player available, you hope someone learns to play wing, or you turn the asset into others down the road - especially when there's no guarantee of getting a quick-turnaround player like Crosby who steps right in - most of these guys are a few years away. Look at Malkin, a guy who actually could have stepped right in if not for the absence of an IIHF Russian transfer agreement...

But I must admit, this year of all years, when defence is what everyone seems to be shopping for (I know I am), it's funny that all but one of the top players are forwards.

 

[MatthewFlames]

The Flames are also looking to move up as well... on offer are a couple of first round picks -- including the 14th....

 

[Tampa GM]

6. Phoenix Coyotes (one position penalty for violating minimum OV rules)
7. Los Angeles Kings (one position penalty for violating minimum OV rules)

Is this really a penalty? Just loosing one position in the draft for being under the OV rules?

 

[Donga]

6. Phoenix Coyotes (one position penalty for violating minimum OV rules)
7. Los Angeles Kings (one position penalty for violating minimum OV rules)

Is this really a penalty? Just loosing one position in the draft for being under the OV rules?

I agree Martin... Matt and Admin, i remember in one of the admin discussions that it was going to be something 3-5 spots not 1. In some cases, that like going from Kessel to Toews had they had a top 5 pick. If you want to penalised them it should like Staal to Okposo potential difference in terms of position. This will severely discourage going under 70OV. However, I'm willing to rescind on this stance should the team show me that they are going in the right direction. I know already some of the newer GM's are considering it but won't do it out of principle.

The way I see it, even the worst team in the competition must at least have one veteran "superstar" or superstar on their team. In the NHL, for the blues, it was KT. Pittsburgh had LeClair, Palffy before retirement, Crosby. Washington had Daniuis Zubrus, Oveckhin and Kolzig. I think you get the idea. So each team must have some "household" names. If anyone wants to get as bad as my Puglist team, you won't have my sympathy. Lets just say, I'm a reform HFNHL GM.

 

[Tampa GM]

My suggestion would be that Phoenix and LA would loose(yes) their 1st round picks. This would actually be a punishment and EVERYONE know the rules coming into the season.

I was one of the worst teams last season. This season I have improved 44 points and are back in the playoffs. It is possible to turn around a team.

 

[HFNHL Commish]

6. Phoenix Coyotes (one position penalty for violating minimum OV rules)
7. Los Angeles Kings (one position penalty for violating minimum OV rules)

Is this really a penalty? Just loosing one position in the draft for being under the OV rules?

Without going into too much detail, the penalty was reduced from four draft positions to one because a few trades were accidentally approved that allowed both teams to slip below the OV floor...so basically, to some small degree, the Admin Team felt partially responsible.

It should also be noted that, in addition to the one position draft penalty, neither Phoenix nor Los Angeles was eligible to win the draft lottery.

 

[BlueAndWhite]

Ottawa has picks 10 and two picks in the 20's.

We want to move up into the top five, so if anyone's interested - keep us in mind.

 

[Ohio Jones]

Amazing how quickly the trade blod is in the water! "Bring on the draft", I hear you call...

Keep in mind, though - only teams eliminated from the post-season can execute trades, so Keith (for example) - you will have to wait until your Sens are either knocked out, or (ahem) win it all, before you can resume submitting trades.

 

[Tampa GM]

Without going into too much detail, the penalty was reduced from four draft positions to one because a few trades were accidentally approved that allowed both teams to slip below the OV floor...so basically, to some small degree, the Admin Team felt partially responsible.

It should also be noted that, in addition to the one position draft penalty, neither Phoenix nor Los Angeles was eligible to win the draft lottery.

I believe its up to Phoenix and LA to keep track on their OV limit at all times. Even if the admin team did agree to the trade, Phoenix and LA should have know that trade did put them under. I have been around the OV limit sometimes this season, when I did a trade I always counted what my new OV would be. Wasnt Phoenix and LA required to do the same?

I see no reason whatsoever to have an OV limit if you get almost no punishment at all for being under.

I do assume that if a team is under the limit next year they will also loose just one draft position?

Even to loose 4-5 position is no real punishment. Lets say your team is holding the 10th overall pick half way through the season, trade a few good players for prospects and all of a sudden they loose and loose and ends up with the 2nd overall pick. Even if they get a 5 position punishment that draftpick is still better then the pick they had midthrough the season.

Why dont let all GMS in the league to vote about the punishment? I strongly believe that no GM are satisfied with one draft position penalty.

 

[Ville Isopaa]

I already told the admins my thoughts about this when I noticed the infractions. I stick to it. And it's closer to Martin's opinion than the punishment they got.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

I believe its up to Phoenix and LA to keep track on their OV limit at all times. Even if the admin team did agree to the trade, Phoenix and LA should have know that trade did put them under. I have been around the OV limit sometimes this season, when I did a trade I always counted what my new OV would be. Wasnt Phoenix and LA required to do the same?

I see no reason whatsoever to have an OV limit if you get almost no punishment at all for being under.

I do assume that if a team is under the limit next year they will also loose just one draft position?

Even to loose 4-5 position is no real punishment. Lets say your team is holding the 10th overall pick half way through the season, trade a few good players for prospects and all of a sudden they loose and loose and ends up with the 2nd overall pick. Even if they get a 5 position punishment that draftpick is still better then the pick they had midthrough the season.

Why dont let all GMS in the league to vote about the punishment? I strongly believe that no GM are satisfied with one draft position penalty.

Martin, there simply isn't time to act as a democracy on an issue like this, as voting from every GM on every issue doesn't make sense. It's not like LA and Phoenix were purposely bagging the season to get a top pick, and if they were, this penalty rectifies that.

Losing a spot AND not being part of the lottery for a top 7 picking team is not a small penalty. Dropping from 10th to 11th isn't as big a deal, but that's not what we're talking about here (so I'm not sure why you use that as an example). I know the one year the Blues were in the 6th slot, we won the lottery and ended up getting Heatley. Phoenix and L.A. just lost that opportunity.

Let's get over this and move on.

 

[SPG]

My suggestion would be that Phoenix and LA would loose(yes) their 1st round picks. This would actually be a punishment and EVERYONE know the rules coming into the season.

Because of the nature of the league, a penalty like that would unfairly hurt a new GM if a GM was to resign or be replaced.

 

[HFNHL Commish]

Now that everyone's had a chance to voice their opinion, I'm going to make a few final comments and then this thread will be locked.

First off, I don't necessarily disagree with anyone who's calling for harsher penalties. However, in doling out justice, we have to be careful not to make things too bloody at the risk of decimating teams for any potential future GMs. That's a lesson that we learned with Columbus. The only reason that team recovered as quickly as it did was because one of our better, more dedicated GMs volunteered to take the franchise over.

Second, the decision to reduce the draft position penalty given to both Phoenix and Los Angeles was only reached after considered discussion amongst several Admin Team members. My personal feeling is that, while league-wide polls have their place, decisions such as this one are better reached by a small committee than by 30 GMs voting in the heat of the moment.

Lastly, this decision does not mean that a four position penalty, plus lottery ineligibility, will not be enforced in the future. As I explained previously, the Admin Team felt partly responsible for allowing this situation to occur, even though ultimate responsibility ALWAYS rests with the GM. Had the circumstances been marginally different, the full four position penalty would have been enforced.

Hopefully, that addresses everyone's concerns, regardless of whether or not you agree with the reasoning. If you feel that further discussion is absolutely necessary, please contact me via e-mail.