Fan 590's Howard Berger: Contentious debate about draft

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Or one of Calgary or Tampa, who have middle of the pack chances at winning? Oi vey...

That's exactly what I want to see the league prevent. The potential level of impropriety that the league could be cast in would be terrible at this juncture in the league's history. It would be as bad as a large maket team getting the pick. And that is from someone whose favorite teams include both Calgary and Tampa. I would NOT want to see either of these teams get a pick in the top 10 because of the appearance of fixing the draft. The scandal would be brutal IMO.

The weaker non-playoff teams from the past few years deserve the picks. Let them participate in a lottery, not the teams that have been consistent playoff teams. And that's a fan of a team who missed the playoffs for seven consecutive years and could take advantage of the weighted system to get a shot at Crosby. To me it just wouldn't be ethical.

 

[PecaFan]

So why not have the draft based on last season's results? Why bother with any weighted system at all?

I wouldn't have a big problem with that. It's clearly the third best solution. (#1 is no draft at all, raise draft age one year permanently, #2 is weighted draft)

The point of the weighting is just to sift a little randomness in there, so team #2 doesn't necessarily get the second overall pick twice, etc.

 

[NYRangers]

Everyone needs to realize. No system will make everyone happy. Simple as that.

Yes, it makes sense to say..."Toronto or whoever should have a shot at Crosby since we don't know what would have happened". Were they likely to get him if a season was played? No -- you all know that. But the arguement holds some water.

Negatives: Detriot or someone who obviously wouldn't have a high pick ends up there.

Then on the other hand you have..."It should be only the top 5 have a shot of Crosby using a system that goes back X years".

Negatives: How do we know a team outside those top 5 couldn't finish last? We don't. They could get screwed.

It comes down to this. What is more fair? A team like NJ, TB, DET ends up drafting Crosby or a team like CHI, WAS, COL, PIT drafts him.

If you were a betting man which group would you have betted on (to get 1st pick) if a season was going to be played? Obviously, the bad teams.

That way sure isn't perfect. Any supporter has to realize it has its flaws. But its by far the best and most accurate solution to what would have gone down.

 

[HSHS]

This ain't the NFL.
And let me clear up confusion:
Right now the Wings should be playing hockey. If they were, they'd be doing so without Hull, without Schneider, maybe without Chelios and Yzerman.
If the NHL had been succesful in getting it's salary cap, the Wings might also be playing without Datsyuk.

So how in the world is it fair to say this year's red wings team should pick in the same spot as the President's Trophy winning team of last year, when the team, in all liklihood, is no longer of that caliber?

Not the NFL, but the draft is the draft. Same concepts for all NA sports. None of them ever address losing players BEFORE the year is played.

If the wings, leafs, Caps, Pens, etc. are losing players, have a less players signed, etc., then they simply need to sign UFA when the CBA is signed. Drafting players will not help you for the next few years. So why do you care about future roster verses draftees???? AHHHHH Sidney, I forgot.

As far as draft position goes, you have to prove you suck first and the top teams haven't done that yet.

 

[HSHS]

In the absence of a definitive selection order the common sense approach would be to default back to the last definitive result. Otherwise, why bother having a draft at all. The league would be better off raising the age to 19 and declaring all players eligible for the 2005 draft now eligible for the 2006 draft. Neat and simple with no tears from Toronto or Detroit.

Would be funny to see all these Det and Toronto fans hoping their teams suck in order to get the high pick next year if the age was raised.... Oh, no they won't... nor would the management let them. They just want something for nothing (mayor don't go on about your 100m revenue losses again.)

 

[X0ssbar]

Don't think this one has been posted yet:

"NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman reportedly made it clear to the general managers last week that a "weighted lottery" would be used to determine the selection order whenever the 2005 draft, which was canceled along with the season, is held. The issue is particularly significant this year because Crosby, seen as the best prospect since Mario Lemieux, will be available.


Normally only the bottom five teams get a shot at the first pick in the draft. This year, all teams are expected to be eligible, with performance over the past several seasons factored into a not-yet-determined formula to give teams such as Columbus and Atlanta a better shot than Detroit or New Jersey, for example.


"I'm OK with that as long as it's weighted properly," Wilson said. "Whatever the weighting factors are -- and there's many you can bring into the equation -- I'd like to think it ends up being fair to the San Jose Sharks, but I'll know better when they announce it." "

Link

 

[Coffey77]

How can you not see merit to the "our players are a year older"
In Detroit, a year older most likely means not as good.
In Atlanta or Nashville or Columbus, that likely means better.

There are two "fair" ways to do this.
1) Everyone gets an equal shot.
2) Hold off until next year, and then group both draft years together.

Another idea I heard on the boards was to hold the next draft at mid-season, based on the record at mid-season.
At least this draft order would be based on real, recent results.

I like the idea of having a draft at mid-season. Doesn't look like an option the NHL is looking at though.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Don't think this one has been posted yet:

"NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman reportedly made it clear to the general managers last week that a "weighted lottery" would be used to determine the selection order whenever the 2005 draft, which was canceled along with the season, is held. The issue is particularly significant this year because Crosby, seen as the best prospect since Mario Lemieux, will be available.


Normally only the bottom five teams get a shot at the first pick in the draft. This year, all teams are expected to be eligible, with performance over the past several seasons factored into a not-yet-determined formula to give teams such as Columbus and Atlanta a better shot than Detroit or New Jersey, for example.


"I'm OK with that as long as it's weighted properly," Wilson said. "Whatever the weighting factors are -- and there's many you can bring into the equation -- I'd like to think it ends up being fair to the San Jose Sharks, but I'll know better when they announce it." "

Link

But, but, but . . . . The Sens' GM said otherwise . . . ummm . . . I think . . . errrrrrr . . . .

 

[Ismellofhockey]

The point of giving high picks to the bad teams is to reward the fanbase of those teams somehow.
Well no one played a season and everybody suffered equally so why should a particular team deserve a high pick this year? Granted it should be a weighted lottery but I think a snaking draft would be a good idea to even out most imbalances caused by that lottery.

Because without a lottery and with a cap affecting high priced teams, it's not really much fairer: think about Chicago, which is a much improved team getting the 1st overall and St-Louis which has lost many players to UFA getting a low pick. Both those teams are in a situation entirely different than last year so how would using last year's standings be fair to them? Chicago gets a huge advantage and St-Louis gets the shaft.

Using a 5 year average is even worse, a bad team 5 years ago has already been given the help it deserved for those years of mediocrity.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

The point of giving high picks to the bad teams is to reward the fanbase of those teams somehow.
Well no one played a season and everybody suffered equally so why should a particular team deserve a high pick this year? Granted it should be a weighted lottery but I think a snaking draft would be a good idea to even out most imbalances caused by that lottery.

Because without a lottery and with a cap affecting high priced teams, it's not really much fairer: think about Chicago, which is a much improved team getting the 1st overall and St-Louis which has lost many players to UFA getting a low pick. Both those teams are in a situation entirely different than last year so how would using last year's standings be fair to them? Chicago gets a huge advantage and St-Louis gets the shaft.

Using a 5 year average is even worse, a bad team 5 years ago has already been given the help it deserved for those years of mediocrity.

Good points.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

This is nothing but trying to get something for nothing. Its embarassing for the league IMO.

Err.
The league always gives the best pick to the worst team. Every league does. Isn't that "getting something for nothing"?

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

So for no lousy seasons, perhaps even winning a Cup, a team potentially gets a top if not the top pick? How is that fair? A

It's completely fair.
No season.
No way to create a draft order.
So give everyone an equal chance.

Why should Washington get Crosby and Ovechkin simply because they decided to drop Lang, Gonchar and Bondra?
It's bloody ridiculous.
Especially if the NHL wins a salary cap, and the teams that traded draft choices to get those overpriced players will no longer be able to afford those guys.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Err.
The league always gives the best pick to the worst team. Every league does. Isn't that "getting something for nothing"?

Nothing? You try suffering through what passes for hockey like I have the past few years. High draft picks are not worth it, not at all, but in any event it was not for nothing.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

they just want something for nothing (mayor don't go on about your 100m revenue losses again.)

So. You think that finishing last is a way to EARN something.
That's how backwards this argument is.

In fact, if the NHL gets its cap, the draft should be abolished.
So should rookie contract limits.
Everybody not under contract should be a UFA.
WIth everyone able to spend the same amount of money, it would be perfectly fair to everyone.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Nothing? You try suffering through what passes for hockey like I have the past few years. High draft picks are not worth it, not at all, but in any event it was not for nothing.

Yeah.
Like Detroit fans know nothing about suffering through terrible hockey.
(Run off and check the NHL record books and view Detroit's record from 1970-1985.)
And then come back and cry for me about Nashville's tough 5 or 6 years, and see how much sympathy you get.

Those sucky teams are going to get their salary cap.
And now they want feel entitled to another reward for "mediocrity," even though they never actually "earned" it.
Good lord.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

It's completely fair.
No season.
No way to create a draft order.
So give everyone an equal chance.

Why should Washington get Crosby and Ovechkin simply because they decided to drop Lang, Gonchar and Bondra?
It's bloody ridiculous.
Especially if the NHL wins a salary cap, and the teams that traded draft choices to get those overpriced players will no longer be able to afford those guys.

Once more . . . for the thousandth time, Washington is highly unlikely to get both. Their chances in a weighted lottery with 3 or 4 season average will be likely something like 5% or less.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Yeah.
Like Detroit fans know nothing about suffering through terrible hockey.
(Run off and check the NHL record books and view Detroit's record from 1970-1985.)
And then come back and cry for me about Nashville's tough 5 or 6 years, and see how much sympathy you get.

Those sucky teams are going to get their salary cap.
And now they want feel entitled to another reward for "mediocrity," even though they never actually "earned" it.
Good lord.

Where did Detroit draft from 1970-85? Near the bottom or top?

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Where did Detroit draft from 1970-85? Near the bottom or top?

Following every season they finished near the bottom, they had a pick near the top.

 

[se7en*]

And now they want feel entitled to another reward for "mediocrity," even though they never actually "earned" it.

How ironic. Teams like Detroit, Toronto, et al want to be rewarded with Crosby despite not doing anything to 'earn' it.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Once more . . . for the thousandth time, Washington is highly unlikely to get both. Their chances in a weighted lottery with 3 or 4 season average will be likely something like 5% or less.

But they'll have a much, much better chance than Detroit or St. Louis or Colorado.

And they don't deserve it in anyway, shape or form

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

How ironic. Teams like Detroit, Toronto, et al want to be rewarded with Crosby despite not doing anything to 'earn' it.

Nobody has.
No one has played.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

But they'll have a much, much better chance than Detroit or St. Louis or Colorado.

And they don't deserve it in anyway, shape or form

Thanks for agreeing . . .

You are absolutely right, under no scenerio does 'Detroit or St. Louis or Colorado' (or about a half dozen other teams) 'deserve it in anyway, shape or form.'

 

[se7en*]

I think its a very, very big stretch to believe that Detroit would have sucked enough for the '05 season to make a reasonable case for the 1st overall pick.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I think its a very, very big stretch to believe that Detroit would have sucked enough for the '05 season to make a reasonable case for the 1st overall pick.

Yes it is.
But then again, if the NHL had won its $40M cap, Detroit's roster would have been totally different.
Hull was already gone. Yzerman, Schneider and Chelios would not have been able to fit under the cap. RFA Datsyuk wouldn not have fit under the cap.
So take last year's Detroit, subtract Hull, Yzerman, Chelios, Schneider, Datsyuk.

You're looking at a team that would probably be on the playoff bubble.
WIth good luck, they still finish 5th or 6th.
With bad luck, they're 10th or 11th in the conference, and maybe much worse if they decide to sell off at the trade deadline ....

Either way, this indicates something fundamental to the argument.
A team's fortunes can change mightily in one year.
Therefore, it is totally unfair to base anything on year old results.

 

[HSHS]

DIE THREAD DIE!!!!!!!

Would someone please end this misery!!!???