Vlad The Impaler said:
Are you being sarcastic or do you completely fail to see what the NHL is about and what the entry draft tries to accomplish?
The Entry Draft tries to bring some parity to the league. Leveling the draft and giving every team an equal oportunity at the 1st pick runs counter to that goal.
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.
That is a very rare occurance. Generally speaking, even if you go from a Consecutive PO strak to missing the PO's you still end up with a 10-15 pick. Your talent core may have been greatly reduced but the core is still there and is good enough to keep you from the bottom 5 in the standings.
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.
First off, I had yet to state my opinion one way or the other. You need to cool down a little bit. Your taking this way too personally when I was simply asking a question.
Secondly, as I said, that kind of occurance is rare. I admit that it happens but it is rare for a team to implode like that and usually doesn't happen.
YOu don't understand what my defintion of fair is. I define fair as being a level playing field. Under a "fair" system every team in the league would have an equal shot at the first pick. The NHL's entry Draft is based on performance, by its very definition a performance based system cannot be "fair". It is reverse weighted and designed to favor the lesser performing teams, therefore, it is not "fair".
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?
Again, you're taking this too personally, back off for a second and cool down. As you just said, the NHL entry draft is based on performance. A team that historically perorms well(St. Louis/Toronto) should not have the same cahcne at the number one pick as a team that historically performs badly(Pittsberg, Pheonix, Chicago). To "level the playing field" runs counter to the Draft's goal and that needs to be understood.
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.
As you said, you don't know what will happen but you can make assumptions. More importantly: you can make assumptions based on the history of that teams past performance. Baring some remarkable breakthrough the NHL's draft is going to be made based on those assumptions. I know that isn't "fair" to a team like Toronto or St. Louis(and note, I am a Blues fan) but the Entry draft isn't designed to be a fair system. It is designed to be a wieghted system.
