Is a draft not based on actual finish legally defensible?
- Thread starter borro
- Start date
- Status
So could a team like Calgary demand that it is unfair that they had a cinderella year that potentially could have been a flash in the pan and say they deserve to be treated as a bottom feeder? Or could a team say that New York paid too much money to call themselves a bottom feeder. Or that Toronto didn't win a Cup so they deserve to be one of the benefactors for a better chance to win?
Whatever draft scenario is determined is going to have to go through a voting process with the board of governors and obviously there are going to be arguments. The teams that were successful aren't going to accept having 0% chance at Crosby, and the teams that failed to succeed aren't going to accept equal opportunity for all teams. Compromise somewhere in the middle is going to have to be reached and accepted by the teams and there will be no way to challenge the results after that.
Besides, there is no point totals to compare. Year to year there are some pretty big differences in the standings. Yes there are teams that are consistently in the playoffs, but even their position fluctuates. Detroit is really the only team that year in and year out has been at or near the top of the Western Conference.
Whatever draft scenario is determined is going to have to go through a voting process with the board of governors and obviously there are going to be arguments. The teams that were successful aren't going to accept having 0% chance at Crosby, and the teams that failed to succeed aren't going to accept equal opportunity for all teams. Compromise somewhere in the middle is going to have to be reached and accepted by the teams and there will be no way to challenge the results after that.
Besides, there is no point totals to compare. Year to year there are some pretty big differences in the standings. Yes there are teams that are consistently in the playoffs, but even their position fluctuates. Detroit is really the only team that year in and year out has been at or near the top of the Western Conference.
London Knights said:
And even Detroit wouldn't have been a lock to make the playoffs last season.
No season=No results=No draft ranking
MontrealCruiser_83 said:
No the fairest way would be redo the lottery from the draft before. Whoever wins, wins.
Nope... because that's assuming that every team would of finished in the same position. Then again, it seems pretty evident that you legitimately believe that's what would of happened. Thank god you're not making any important decisions.borro said:
borro said:
Please, other than the fact that it would give Washington a great shot at Crosby, why do you think this is a fair way to do it? NO ONE knows what would have happened this past year. What if all of a sudden the LA Kings stopped all getting hurt, and that "curse" went to, say, Detroit? Or maybe Kiprusoff is a fluke and sucks ass big time, and Calgary is again a bad team? Or maybe all of a sudden Turco forgets how to stop a puck, and the Stars drop to the bottom of the league? You are going on the ridiculous assumption that teams would perform essentially the same, and thats just not the way things are. Too ****ing bad.
I could attain at least thirty afidavits attesting to the fact the Red Wings suck.Newsguyone said:
PecaFan
Registered User
jericholic19 said:
Actually, under the rumoured NHL plans, the chances are excellent that a good team will get the top pick. All those little chances add up to become big chances, when you look at the good teams collectively.
McJadeddog
Registered User
Chaos said:
no team since 1970 has finished first one year and then finished last the next year... i dont know about before 1970 cause i didnt look, but id be surprised if this has *ever* happened (other than the original 6 days).... so, yeah they *do* know that.... simply wouldnt happen, period
McJadeddog
Registered User
Chaos said:
man, 2 strikes in one thread.... myself and a few other posters have posted on the importance of one years final standings determining the next years standings.... they are HIGHLY correlated in fact.... so yeah, we can say with pretty much a garantee that the top 3-5 teams would not, under any circumstance, finished last in the league had their been a season this year... facts are facts
Don't you think all 30 teams would pick their own team as the team that "would have finished worst" if it meant a shot at Crosby?borro said:
Would you be willing to guarantee that there's no possible way that the Boston Bruins would have finished dead last in 1996-97? After all, they were 8th overall in the league the year before.jadeddog said:
Or how about the Quebec Nordiques. Your correlation study would have guaranteed that they would finish last overall again in 1992-93 since they were last (or 2nd last) in each of the 3 previous seasons. Oops, they finished 4th overall in 1992-93.
Numbers are all fine and pretty, but there's always exceptions to the "We sucked last year, therefore we'll suck this year too!" mentality.
Boston:
1995-96 91 pts, 8th overall
1996-97 61 pts, last overall
Quebec:
1989-90 31 pts, last overall
1990-91 46 pts, last overall
1991-92 52 pts, 21st overall
1992-93 104 pts, 4th overall
Steve L*
Registered User
The fairest way to do it is for everyone to have 1 ball each, there was no season, noone finished last, noone deserves the #1 pick more than anyone else.
Whos to say the Flames wouldnt have sucked after reaching the finals like the Canes and Panthers did and got a lottery chance out of it?
Whos to say the Flames wouldnt have sucked after reaching the finals like the Canes and Panthers did and got a lottery chance out of it?
Jeez... It's not only about the first overall pick. Not to mention that with the new NHL infrastructure, teams like Washington and Pittsburgh will already be at an advantage. Bettman (or whoever replaces him) will ensure that the important teams will have a shot at the Top10 and Crosby whether you like it or not.jadeddog said:
McJadeddog
Registered User
gc2005 said:
about the bruins in 96-97... no of course not, nowhere did i ever say that an 8th place team could not finish last the next season... in fact i believe i even went so far as to say that a 6th place team could (and has, the 88/89 NYI did it) finish last the next season.... i only commented on past history, and past history shows that the 1-5 teams have no chance of finishing last the next year.... i have no problem with giving the 6+ teams at least a chance at the top 5 picks, although of course a lower chance than the team who finished 30th
and again, your wrong, nowhere did i ever garantee that a last place team would again finish last the next season....all i did was say that past history has shown that they wont finish higher than a certain placing, although i cant remember the exact placing.... and generally speaking, as was proven by another poster who did some good work on how accurately one seasons standings predict the next years standings, teams just dont move that much in the standings..... i think the number ha came out with was that its somewhere between 65-70% accurate for predicting the next years standings.... thats a pretty dam good indicator
so yeah, both your points i agree with.... because i never claimed the two things you are saying i claimed, maybe you should actually READ my original post before you comment on it, just an idea.... numbers and facts are actual evidence as to what happens on a year to year basis..... anything else is just guessing and posturing
HockeyCritter
Registered User
- Dec 10, 2004
- 5,656
- 0
If you cannot base a draft on seasonal results . . . cancel it.
Permanently raise the draft age to 19 (something that has been proposed by the league in the past).
Sure, every one has got their knickers in a twist over Crosby. But it isn’t about the number one pick, it’s about picks 2-30 and I still haven’t heard a reasonable, equable solution put fort to address that issue.
EDIT: Because sometimes Critter’s fingers move faster than her brain
Last edited:
The Maltais Falcon
Registered User
No season since 1970 was ever cancelled either -- until this year. You can't say something simply would or would not ever happen. A draft lottery has to give every team some shot at winning the first-overall pick, even if it is a miniscule shot.jadeddog said:
HockeyCritter said:[/i]
If you cannot base a draft on seasonal results . . . cancel it.
Permanently raise the draft age to 19 (something that has been proposed by the league in the past).
Sure, every one has got their knickers in a twist over Crosby. But it isn’t about the number one pick, it’s about picks 2-30 and I still haven’t heard a reasonable, equable solution put fort to address that issue.
EDIT: Because sometimes Critter’s fingers move faster than her brain
Keep the draft age at 18 but have the NHL playing age eligibility at 20.
AHL teams could have 2 years with the parent clubs top prospects and the parent team could better gauge their prospects if they are NHL caliber.
If Crosby has the same effect in the AHL level as he did in the Q(impact wise, not point wise) then great, but if his junior success does not transcend into the AHL what are the chances that Crosby would make it in the NHL? If nothing it is a safe-guard for the teams when drafting over-hyped/exposed players.
In theory the quality of the AHL would increase and there would be a annual infusion of talent that would have otherwise never been seen at the farm level.
Basing a draft on could have or might haves does not make sense considering all of the variables. We have the numbers for the past few seasons why not use them as the base?
Anyways every team having an = chance sounds a lot like Communism, and as we know the owners and players greed make them all Capitalists.
It would be like saying every player will get paid $1.X million dollars(average salary)
There seem to be a lot of Caps-haters on this thread because they already had their #1 pick with AO.
Q: Toronto or Caps/any other team for the #1 pick?
My pick is the any option
jadeddog said:
And what about the teams that finished 2nd....or 3rd....or 4th.......or 5th? Do the names Anaheim and Carolina ring a bell? Both went to the Finals one year, and were terrible the next year. So in all probability, they know that the FIRST place team, and the FIRST place team ONLY wouldnt finish last the next year. But whose to say a first place team wouldnt finish, say, 5th worst in the league the next year, thus still giving them a shot at the #1 pick? Thanks for playing though.
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
borro said:
I suppose a franchise could theoretically take a league to court (See Davis, Al), but in this case it would be a losing proposition. Just as a negotiated CBA has exemtions from anti trust challenges by the players, it has the same protections to challenge by the owners. If a majority of owners vote for a CBA, all owners are bound by it's terms (draft rules, salary cap, whatever), whether they like it or not. A challenge might have some chance if it involved a matter largely internal to a team (Al Davis and the Los Oaklamentodale Raiders), but a term which inherently covers all tems would be almost impossible to challenge - it undermines the whole concept of a multi-employer bargaining unit in a CBA negotiation.
And on what grounds could a team sue? Just because a CBA changes the way some issue was handled (to the detriment of one team), does not give a team the right to sue. As a multi-employer bargaining unit, the league's goal is to get the best deal for the sum of all its members, not any individual team. Just like a player can't sue (and win) just because they were personally disadvantaged by the terms of a CBA that was negotiated on their behalf and ratified by their bargaining element, neither can a team. Did you see any teams sue when the draft lottery was introduced? Do you expect a big market team that doesn't like a salary cap to sue to challenge a new CBA that has one? No. Just as players give up individual rights when they bargain collectively, so do the teams.
BTW, you do know that for the first few years of the NHL draft (1963-????) the draft order was not based on regular season finish and was just a rotating round robin where the team who picked first one year picked last the next and all the other teams moved up one slot.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
Series Talk: ECQF: Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple Leafs (BOS Leads 2-1)- Latest: RiverbottomChuck
-
When was the last time you cried because of a playoff loss?- Latest: Aashir Mallik
-
-
Do players not play through injuries anymore (Nylander)?- Latest: Sidney the Kidney
