How the 2005 Draft should be handled

Status
Not open for further replies.

andora

Registered User
Apr 23, 2002
24,304
7,365
Victoria
Cosis said:
Nothing quite like the fan of a big market club. They always seem to think its their god given right to screw the market up for everyone else.

Hey, when was the last time the Leafs won a Cup with their overpaid free agency wrought cash bought team anyhow? Not only cant the leafs draft but they cant even build a team right with money! Ha. :joker:

ah, just like a defenseless small market fan... i hope that sounds as dumb as your post here does

Cosis said:
When was the last time the Leafs won anything?!?

why are you venturing outside of the actual topic? stay on topic
 

mazmin

Wig like a mink skin, soft like Twinkie dough
May 15, 2004
3,399
1,130
Winnipeg
T2M said:
Let's all agree that, by and large, drafting 17 and 18-year olds is detrimental to long term development. Sure, Sidney can play in the NHL as an 18 year old, but most guys can't. Why not agree to push the draft age back a year, start playing September, and next summer draft away at the newly crowned class of 2006. Every prospect suffers the same, there is no need to try to average things out so that your team might move up and get Crosby. If you're going to get him that team had better stink up the NHL for a season AND still win the lottery. That seems fair to me and it helps every team in the NHL get on the right track in terms of prospect development.

That's how I see it too (see the #10 post of this thread). I haven't heard any other way that seems to work. If the lockout last's two full years and top players like Sidney Crosby play pro hockey (WHA?, AHL?) would they still be eligible to be drafted? Or would he be a free agent?
 

neophool*

Guest
good grief

who knows what they are going to do, but as i see it doing the "average" idea won't happen, nor will keeping the draft order the same as last years but re-doing the lottery. They'll probnably have a 2 or 3 tier weighted lottery. playoff teams, like it was said in this thread before, will have NO chance at winning the lottery.

Then there could either be a tier of non playoff teams, or 2 tiers of non playoff teams. they will probably be weighted if there's 2, but if there's just 1 tier of all the non playoff teams, i could see the league just giving them all an equal shot at winning the lottery for the first pick.

heh. if the NHL gets smart and sneaky, they'll fix the lottery so the rangers or blackhawks or Kings will win the lottery and get crosby into a big market. ugh.
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
Cosis said:
In no way shape or form should every team have a fair chance at Crosby. Thats the dumbest suggestion I have ever heard.

It certainly ain't as dumb as all the crap and half-assed rationalizations you have posted on this thread.

I believe an equal chance for the 30 teams is the only fair way possible. Nothing else comes close.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Vlad The Impaler said:
It certainly ain't as dumb as all the crap and half-assed rationalizations you have posted on this thread.

I believe an equal chance for the 30 teams is the only fair way possible. Nothing else comes close.


Why?

Given that it usually takes multiple years to hit bottom and get up from there, and the fact that the teams who are at the top have the converse be true, whether they got there by deep pockets or years of drafting, it is unlikely that they will rise or fall that dramatically in one year . . . I ask again . . .

Why should those teams already loaded have an equal chance with rebuilding teams? The usual reason for such an opinion is because someone supports a team who is at or near the top . . . I admit an assumption here, but a logical one. I see no fairness there. True, no system will be entirely fair, but we have to choose between bad and worse if there is no year. Your option is much worse as it will very likely reward a team who is loaded and penalize teams who are not.

That says a lot about the NHL though doesn't it, fans of teams used to having their thumbs on the scale just can not understand when they do not get every trip to the pig feeding slop go their way.

It matters little though what you or I think. I will say again, I would bet dimes to dollars whatever system is chosen will not allow any playoff team from last year a chance to move up to the top five let alone to number one.
 
Last edited:

Cole Caulifield

Registered User
Apr 22, 2004
27,967
2,465
Jaded-Fan said:

The question wasn't adressed to me but I'll answer anyway.

Because you (not specifically you, but everyone) have NO idea who is a contender or a bottom dweller at this point.

The Red Wings are the perfect exemple of a team that will have changed considerably when NHL is back. A lot of guys are going to be retiring (Yzerman), some euros may never come back (Lidstrom), some guys they've got under contract will become UFAs, etc. And many other teams are in this situation. Some teams will benefit greatly as their talented prospects and young players will have matured during the lost year.

I'd bet there will be many surprises in the standings when the NHL comes back.

Besides the bottom dwellers have already been compensated with high 1st rounders for their 03-04 season. I don't see why they should get twice the reward.

As Vlad said, an equal chance for all 30 teams is the fairest way to go IMO.
 

red devil

Registered User
Oct 14, 2004
8,724
12,216
If I were to choose draft order, I would rank teams by Stanley Cups since the 1967 expansion. :D

Seriously though the draft should be an equal lottery for all 30 teams. The reason is that teams that are considered to be the better teams, will have to dump players if a salary cap is implemented. If the NHL is starting over with a new system then every team should be given equal chance at getting the first pick. From year to year you can't predict where teams are going to end up, so using a weighted lottery system is not the best option. In the 2001-2002 year Carolina finished with 91 pts, while Tampa Bay finished with 69 pts. If teams can turn around this quickly going from good to bad, and bad to good a weighted lottery should not be used.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
E = CH² said:
The question wasn't adressed to me but I'll answer anyway.

Because you (not specifically you, but everyone) have NO idea who is a contender or a bottom dweller at this point.

The Red Wings are the perfect exemple of a team that will have changed considerably when NHL is back. A lot of guys are going to be retiring (Yzerman), some euros may never come back (Lidstrom), some guys they've got under contract will become UFAs, etc. And many other teams are in this situation. Some teams will benefit greatly as their talented prospects and young players will have matured during the lost year.

I'd bet there will be many surprises in the standings when the NHL comes back.

Besides the bottom dwellers have already been compensated with high 1st rounders for their 03-04 season. I don't see why they should get twice the reward.

As Vlad said, an equal chance for all 30 teams is the fairest way to go IMO.


Very doubtful. No team is going to be gutted, at worst the Detroits and Torontos of the world may have to shed a player or two, no matter how this plays out. The dynamics of what you have as far as NHL seasoned players will not change enough to make an equal chance for all teams be fair. As I said, there is not the flux in the NHL from year to year as you imply. Tampa Bay sucked a long time before winning as an example.

But once more, in my opinion it does not matter if you think that is fair or not, if I think it is fair or not. It is my strong opinion that the equal shot for all thoughts are a fantasy, no way in hell that will be what happens. If there were odds offered I would bet the house on that.
 

Kardi

Registered User
Jul 28, 2004
4,447
6
Interwebs
Jaded-Fan said:
Why should those teams already loaded have an equal chance with rebuilding teams? The usual reason for such an opinion is because someone supports a team who is at or near the top . . . I admit an assumption here, but a logical one. I see no fairness there. True, no system will be entirely fair, but we have to choose between bad and worse if there is no year. Your option is much worse as it will very likely reward a team who is loaded and penalize teams who are not.

That says a lot about the NHL though doesn't it, fans of teams used to having their thumbs on the scale just can not understand when they do not get every trip to the pig feeding slop go their way.


and whos fault is it that there on the bottom? don't blame the big market teams for spending money to actually put out a GOOD team.. and hell what about the leafs there old and apprently we have a balls farm team.. the avs, wings are in the same boat, if there is a hard cap these teams will be over the cap (i think).. what makes a team like pittsburg with 4-5 very good prospects a better team to get another good pick in the draft?.. you can say the same thing for washington atl and other lower level teams

get out of here with this small market/crap teams need to get strong picks.. 3-4 years later your team wouldn't be able to resign them anyways so whats the point :lol
 

Dadof5boys

Registered User
May 25, 2003
1,596
61
Murfreesbo Tennessee
Visit site
Vlad The Impaler said:
I believe an equal chance for the 30 teams is the only fair way possible. Nothing else comes close.
This is how I see it as well. How can one predict how a team will fare in a season without actually playing the season? Detroit could fall apart; the Wild could have made another cup run or they could have stank up the joint and finished last in the league. Columbus and Phoenix could have made the playoffs and Nashville and St. Louis miss them... No one knows. I would assume that a new CBA would have to be in place before an actual draft would occur. It looks as if it could happen without a season being played; therefore, the only fair way to determine the draft order IMO is putting 30 team balls in a sack (1 for each team) First ball picked drafts 1 second ball 2 and so on....
 

hawksfan50

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
13,980
1,964
IF there is no season this year,when the 2005 draft eventually is held (new CBA or under a replacement player/non CBA resumption)--providing a court does not rule the entire 2005 draft crop free agents--THEN the 2005 draft would likely be a 3-tiered lottery--with the top ten worst finishers from 2003/04 being in the first tier of ten = the only ones with a chance for Crosby--it would not be the usual only move up 4 more positions (ie. only worst 5 have chance at #1 as in the past lottos)
but rather any of these first tier being able to go #1 if they win the lotto;repeat in draft for each of 2nd and 3rd tiers of ten who can move up to #11 and #21 respectively if they win their tier's lotto...this is the rumour stated by Doug Maclean to a Columbus radio station several weeks ago...this 3 tier system seems the fairest way IMO,to allocate a balance between protecting the interests of the worst from the last played season with those of better teams who finished higher
but who might slip back if any season had been played in 2004/05....for example,
some body might argue that a Detroit or a Tampa Bay might slip back some--but certainly it would be unfair to think they could be in the 10 worst category--hence they deserve no shot at #1;conversely,it might be argued that a Columbus or Chicago could improve maybe even to mid-pack--but in the interests of liklihood and balancing out their interests as some of the worst of the last season played,they deserve a chance at #1.........so because of the balancing of all these considerations ,the NHL would reward more teams a chance to move up more than they ordinarily would BUT within reason (hence the 3 tiers)...if this syatem were used then a team using the same slot as determined in inverse from finish of 2003/04 could again only drop down 1 slot after the lotto if it did not win its tier lotto...

A 2nd variation could however be used: EAch of the 3 tiers will lotto for position within its tier...in this variation,each draws a ball from 1-10 to determine placing within its tier...so #1 pre-looto could end up selecting at #10 if it were so unlucky...

It is not yet clear which of the 2 variations the NHL might go with if it did in fact use the 3 tiered lotto ---both variations could be deemed "fair" --the former giving more weight to the finishes of the last season played,the latter letting chance take care of some possible "improvement factor" that might have occured if a season had been played this season...


Of course for more reasons that I care to mention,the LOGICAL thing the NHL should do is just award Crosby to Chicago...that might not be fair,but almost necessary and smart in order to revive a half-empty building and embarrassment
to hockey from a once proud franchise,vital media market,and central point of emanation of information to the sports fans in America..........to re-grow hockey in the USA,NYR,CHI,and LA are the most vital media markets--but NYR will fill thier seats regardless,LA is too late west Coast and too far from Eastern time zones--ONLY CHICAGO,for both local and national marketing reasons makes sense to house the Nextky...MAKE IT SO!
 

kimzey59

Registered User
Aug 16, 2003
5,658
1,914
Explain something for me.

Everybody in this thread keeps crying for a "fair" system to determine the Draft order. Why SHOULD the system be fair? I can understand a Dispersal draft(like the ones on the Mock draft board) being done as fairly as possible, but not an entry level Draft. The point of an entry level draft is to give the worst team the best players. It is designed to NOT be fair. Why should a team like Toronto, Detroit, St. Louis, Philly, Ottawa or Colorado(teams with multi-year PO streaks) be given any chance at all for the number 1 pick?
 

Kardi

Registered User
Jul 28, 2004
4,447
6
Interwebs
why should a losing team always be awarded for being ****?
its harder to win then it is to be a lose
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Kardi said:
why should a losing team always be awarded for being ****?
its harder to win then it is to be a lose

:shakehead


I am left utterly speechless . . . amazing, you win the prize for this one.
 

kimzey59

Registered User
Aug 16, 2003
5,658
1,914
Kardi said:
why should a losing team always be awarded for being ****?
its harder to win then it is to be a lose


The idea of an Entry Draft is to get those ***** teams up to the level of the winning teams. It isn't about "rewarding" them for being bad, it is about giving them a better chance to compete. Why should a team like Toronto or Detroit be given a chance to increase their talent pool when they're already the most talented teams in the league? The goal of the entry Draft is to create parity in the league. Giving the best teams more talent runs counter to that goal.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
John Flyers Fan said:
What is the fault of those teams ... that the Carolina's, Pittsburgh's, Nasville's don't generate enough revenue ???


I addressed in that other thread that you and I went back and forth in. You seem to have abandoned addressing back when faced with facts.
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
Jaded-Fan said:
Why?

Given that it usually takes multiple years to hit bottom and get up from there, and the fact that the teams who are at the top have the converse be true, whether they got there by deep pockets or years of drafting, it is unlikely that they will rise or fall that dramatically in one year . . . I ask again . . .

Why should those teams already loaded have an equal chance with rebuilding teams? The usual reason for such an opinion is because someone supports a team who is at or near the top . . . I admit an assumption here, but a logical one. I see no fairness there. True, no system will be entirely fair, but we have to choose between bad and worse if there is no year. Your option is much worse as it will very likely reward a team who is loaded and penalize teams who are not.

That says a lot about the NHL though doesn't it, fans of teams used to having their thumbs on the scale just can not understand when they do not get every trip to the pig feeding slop go their way.

Well, your assumption is wrong, as I support no team. That sucks, eh? I could just as well reverse the argument and tell you there is a great number of fans of disgraceful, pathetic franchises who have been bottom feeding the last few years with a huge, stupid smile on their face who are right now crying that they deserve the pick for the same selfish motive. But you probably already know that.

The fact of the matter is, there are three kinds of people:

1-Those who are extremely biased and are looking for a system which favors their team (and it's funny that you think I amk in that category, as I think you are the one who fits the profile to a T)

2-Those who think they are clever enough to figure out a loaded formula that will be flawless, and they are wrong

3-Those who are properly acknowledging the situation, and invariably come to the same conclusion I did.

A second assumption you make is that this will very likely mean a "loaded team" will win the lottery. An equal chance for all means just that: an equal chance for all.

Please define the term loaded and tell me who are the loaded teams in the NHL. Although I am saddened to agree with Carl'O-Holix-Whatsmynamethisweek, he does have a point. Are the Bruins, for instance, more loaded than Florida? Or the Penguins? I mean, the Hurricanes are in super pathetic shape and if you average years, they likely get screwed.

It remains highly subjective as to who is loaded. Keep in mind that we routinely see teams going to the SCF and then disappearing. Buffalo, Anaheim, Carolina are all examples. Minnesota had a good run two years ago and they still suck. And under your system they get screwed. The Devils I believe once won a cup and then missed the playoffs. Things change all the time. There are reversal of fortune.

The fact of the matter is, the system in place is that you get higher picks if you did not perform well in the previous season. Teams such as the Caps, Penguins and Hawks all got their high pick in 2004 thanks to the previous season. And so on.

Another fact is that, no matter how smart one is, it is impossible to accurately predict how the standings would look like at the end of a season that doesn't take place. It just cannot be done.

There are no strong teams. No playoff run. No nothing. There aren't any losers or winners.

The NHL has put a simple system in place that, in reality, DOES not reflect "how loaded" a team is. The current system is an ABSTRACTION. I'm not saying it's bad or anything. But it remains a very simple system to avoid having to make judgment calls and subjective evaluations of "how loaded" a team really is.

Because I can garantee you that otherwise, certain teams would get higher picks. The current system has flaws but is a nice way to settle things. You win more games, you get a lower pick. You lose more games, you get a higher pick.

Without a NHL season, that simple, effective but flawed system does not exist.

So now, we are left with finding a way to a fair system. What are you going to do? Everybody has his favorite solution. Most of them usually involve a complex calculation that gives their favorite team a better shot at the pick. We could come up with a dozen different systems and they would all make sense, in a way. And they would all lead to different results. That leads me to think the only way to truly settle this is to just give an equal shot to everybody.

Besides, the teams who screwed the pooch the last few years got their higher picks already. Nobody needs to cry for them.

Also, it is my strong belief that any half-assed equity system of the sort you have in mind will cause a dangerous precedent. Teams disgrace themselves enough as it is to reach the #1 pick. If you put such a system in place, be fully prepare to turn the league into a ****ing joke EACH and EVERY season that precedes the end of a CBA. And that's a fact.

Teams will tank hard to get rewarded twice as much. We just shouldn't accept that because that's not what the NHL is about. Now, if you like that kind of stuff and do not care for the integrity of the sport, that's your business. But I do. And I like to think I'm smart enough and yet, I can't come up with ANY fair way to favor certain teams in the next lottery. I very much doubt you or ANYONE can come up with an objective system that favors certain teams above others.

I haven't seen a single one. The minute I see one, I will strongly support it you can be sure. I think things should be fair. But when you can't define what fair is, I believe completely random is the way to go.

I've seen dozens of variations on what the system should look like. Which one is the best? Why?
 

Kardi

Registered User
Jul 28, 2004
4,447
6
Interwebs
kimzey59 said:
The idea of an Entry Draft is to get those ***** teams up to the level of the winning teams. It isn't about "rewarding" them for being bad, it is about giving them a better chance to compete. Why should a team like Toronto or Detroit be given a chance to increase their talent pool when they're already the most talented teams in the league? The goal of the entry Draft is to create parity in the league. Giving the best teams more talent runs counter to that goal.
ok but how many years in a row do we need to see the same teams battling for a good pick in the draft + look at the teams like toronto and the wings.. there prospects talent are not even close to those teams that were balls for a bunch of years.. and with the looks of it, there will be no hockey this year, so most teams top prospects should be more then ready.. if you add fluery malkin whitney welch to pittsburgs team, they should be decent and not be at the bottom of the league AGAIN.. while for the leafs you add Steen Colaiacovo Kukumberg and Wellwood, plus who knows roberts neiwy amog leetch belfour all might be gone by then.. thats a pretty big hit if you ask me

so why should a team like pittsburg have a better chance then the leafs for example?
 

Garp

Registered User
Jul 5, 2004
773
82
Here
The best example of a team that went from bottom to top in only on year are the Sharks. In 2003, they finished i bottom 6 (was it 5?) and in 2004 they finished 24?

So maybe the Caps, with AO would have done the playoff...
Why would a team like washington or pittsburg that have more Superstars in the making than many other teams, should be drafting first.
I think that there should be an open weighted lottery. :teach:
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
kimzey59 said:
Explain something for me.

Everybody in this thread keeps crying for a "fair" system to determine the Draft order. Why SHOULD the system be fair?

Are you being sarcastic or do you completely fail to see what the NHL is about and what the entry draft tries to accomplish?

kimzey59 said:
Why should a team like Toronto, Detroit, St. Louis, Philly, Ottawa or Colorado(teams with multi-year PO streaks) be given any chance at all for the number 1 pick?

Because, unless you're completely dumb, you know those things can happen.

In 1997, the Boston Bruins drafted Joe Thornton first overall. It may come as a shock to you but right before that, Boston was in a TWENTY FOUR consecutive playoffs streak.

Under your dumb system and the dumb assumptions you and Jaded and all those bottom-worshiping freaks throw around, I'm sure Boston would not have had a chance at a lottery pick because some people have a total lack of discernment or ability to accept there is any probability that a team might suck one year after it didn't suck.

But it happens nonetheless, whether you realize it or not.

kimzey59 said:
The point of an entry level draft is to give the worst team the best players.

It is designed to give the worst PERFORMING teams the best players. It can't do do anything else than that. No team is performing at all this year, so this abstraction cannot be applied.

kimzey59 said:
It is designed to NOT be fair.

Incorrect.

kimzey59 said:
Why should a team like Toronto, Detroit, St. Louis, Philly, Ottawa or Colorado(teams with multi-year PO streaks) be given any chance at all for the number 1 pick?

More relevant question: Why should I trust some dude who totally fails to apply logic, and accept at face value what he thinks are the deserving and underserving teams for the 1st overall choice?

I have a vague idea of what certain teams might have done this year, but it is vague AT BEST. And I don't think some random loser knows any better so listing all these teams is cute but absolutely futile. The fact is, you don't know for sure if all those teams would have made the playoffs this year.

We can't be sure of anything. I don't even know what these teams lineups would look like! I don't know who would underachieve, who would overachieve, who would be hot or cold, who would get the injury bug, who would get ice time, who would be traded. I don't know which goalies would crumble. I have a vague idea but no certainty.

Neither do you, so stop pretending.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
We agree on one thing Vlad:

There is no 'fair' system, especially when the season is lost. I said so in my post, you said so in yours.

Where we differ is our views of what is a 'bad' solutioin as opposed to an even worse one. Totally random, in my view, has nothing but chance behind it, where using a finish order in some way, even one extra year removed from where usually looked to, will at least have some basis to it for reflecting helping the lesser teams.

To see how much look to 2004 as opposed to 2003 drafts. For the most part the tops and bottoms remained the same and very very little vast changes. Yes, you can pull an anonomly out here and there, but those are the exception, not the norm. Does the hypothetical anomoly get screwed? Yup. That said, it is much more 'fair' to screw one, which one we of course do not know because the season has not been played, rather than to screw almost every other one and reward almost every other 'undeserving' one. A system based on the 2004 finish is most fair, not an equally weighted system. Not perfect but more fair. It is pretty obvious that is so. As a ps, most of the movement seems to be within 5 or 6 slots up or down, so that tiered system, if you are shooting for fairness, would address that. You can move within three tiers as someone stated. However, personally I do not see it happening, I see some system that uses the 2004 final standings and has some weighting toward the non-playoff teams. I just do not see the NHL doing otherwise, not a 'fairness' opnion, but my guess as to the realities.

2004 finish order:
Round 1: 1. Pittsburgh; 2. Washington; 3. Chicago; 4. Columbus; 5. Phoenix; 6. NY Rangers; 7. Florida; 8. Carolina; 9. Anaheim; 10. Atlanta; 11. Los Angeles; 12. Minnesota; 13. Buffalo; 14. Edmonton; 15. Nashville; 16. NY Islanders; 17. St. Louis; 18. Montreal; 19. Calgary; 20. Dallas; 21. Colorado; 22. New Jersey; 23. Ottawa; 24. Toronto; 25. Philadelphia; 26. Vancouver; 27. Boston; 28. San Jose; 29. Detroit; 30. Tampa Bay

2003 finish order:
1. Florida; 2. Carolina; 3. Pittsburgh; 4. Columbus; 5. Buffalo; 6. San Jose; 7. Nashville; 8. Atlanta; 9. Calgary; 10. Montreal; 11. Phoenix; 12. N.Y. Rangers; 13. Los Angeles; 14. Chicago; 15. N.Y. Islanders; 16. Boston; 17. Edmonton; 18. Washington; 19. Anaheim; 20. Minnesota; 21. Toronto; 22. St. Louis; 23. Vancouver; 24. Philadelphia; 25. Tampa Bay; 26. Colorado; 27. Detroit; 28. Dallas; 29. Ottawa; 30. New Jersey
 
Last edited:

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
kimzey59 said:
The goal of the entry Draft is to create parity in the league. Giving the best teams more talent runs counter to that goal.

I agree on the parity goal. The system doesn't really achieve it, though. But it comes close and that's good enough.

However, I want to know who are the best teams. How do you determine which are the best teams and the worse teams? If your goal is parity, what is your system this year for the lottery? Indulge me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->