Is a draft not based on actual finish legally defensible?

[London Knights]

Suing the league over something like that is a one way ticket to screwjobs for the next 20 years too. Suddenly the linesmen start to be jerks with the offside calls. Scrums become penalties you have to kill. Suspensions come a little more stiff. The NHL would not tolerate a lawsuit by a team, especially in it's fragile state.

 

[borro]

That's what I thought. I would assume, then, that as I said there would be no basis for any type of legal action as the teams would have agreed to the process, whatever it may be.

What if you vote no on the CBA? That means you did NOT agree to it. I would certainly vote know from a Caps perspective without having draft surety.

 

[djhn579]

What if you vote no on the CBA? That means you did NOT agree to it. I would certainly vote know from a Caps perspective without having draft surety.

Hmmm...

I didn't vote for Bush. Does this mean I can sue the US to get my president put in office?

 

[borro]

Why not let teams buy balls (at $1million/ball) and apply the cost to the cap?

An interesting idea might be to require the winner to be $1M under the lowest payroll this year. Therefore these team that get Crosby. lets say for discussion sake Colorado, would be at say 17M and have to endure 3-4 years where they may not make the playoffs. Thats who should get Crosby anyway. Then take the pool of players they have and make them available to non-playff teams. Foote and Hedjuk and Tanguay would look sweet in Caps uni.

 

[borro]

Hmmm...

I didn't vote for Bush. Does this mean I can sue the US to get my president put in office?

Maybe if he said he wanted to toss aside democracy and make rule subject to the "whim" of the masses. No, it's like make the election more based on blue states.

 

[borro]

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.

Actually I have made other proposals. You just chose to comment on that one. I am sure it just doesn't meet your interest. I suggested these GM's should pick the team they think is last. If they can pick BPA, they can pick worst team out there.

Note: You are going on the ridiculous assumption that they have changed. You could not prove that any more than I could prove they stayed the same. The difference is keeping the draft that way actually attempts to resolve by order of finish, instead of just making up a proposal that gives greedy teams the right they WOULD NOT have had without a strike. Give all the GM's a vote. Let them suggest 5 teams for the worst team and vote. If the Caps then fall 1st or 5th, I would see that as fair. I see any proposal not based on order of finish as random and unacceptable.

 

[MykeAbner]

Maybe if he said he wanted to toss aside democracy and make rule subject to the "whim" of the masses. No, it's like make the election more based on blue states.

So voting on the CBA (and, therefore, the draft system) is the equivalent of tossing democracy aside? Wow, you're a real thinker.

 

[MykeAbner]

I see any proposal not based on order of finish as random and unacceptable.

Bingo. That is absolutely 100% the way it should be. Being that everyone finished with a record of 0-0-0-0, everyone should have an equal chance.

 

[garry1221]

What if you vote no on the CBA? That means you did NOT agree to it. I would certainly vote know from a Caps perspective without having draft surety.

it's a majority rule doesn't matter who votes no, so long as the majority vote yes (do you think that every team voted yes on the last cba? if you would vote no without having draft surety then you'd come off looking like a whiny little baby that didn't get his way. as a businessman if you publically did this all your clients would automatically head for another business partner, thus leaving you in the dust

 

[borro]

So voting on the CBA (and, therefore, the draft system) is the equivalent of tossing democracy aside? Wow, you're a real thinker.

So using a CBA to hose fair drafting based on performance is completely acceptable? It seems to me you have not given it a thought.

 

[borro]

it's a majority rule doesn't matter who votes no, so long as the majority vote yes (do you think that every team voted yes on the last cba? if you would vote no without having draft surety then you'd come off looking like a whiny little baby that didn't get his way. as a businessman if you publically did this all your clients would automatically head for another business partner, thus leaving you in the dust

The CBA needs a line item veto!

No to the greedy robber barons who want to add Crosby to Montreal or Toronto.

 

[Kritter471]

The CBA needs a line item veto!

No to the greedy robber barons who want to add Crosby to Montreal or Toronto.

Wow. Although many people may want to compare the owners to the robber barons, that's just... no. Especially since one of the teams you mention (the Leafs) is overtly generous with their revenue being distributed to their employees.

As far as the legalities, someone else addressed this, but it's the answer to your question. No team would have the right to sue with regards to the draft because it will be in the CBA, which is a contract between the NHL (and it's teams) and the PA, and therefore has been agreed upon already.

 

[senate]

The CBA needs a line item veto!

No to the greedy robber barons who want to add Crosby to Montreal or Toronto.

or Washington

 

[MykeAbner]

The CBA needs a line item veto!

No to the greedy robber barons who want to add Crosby to Montreal or Toronto.

As opposed to the whiney babies that caused this lockout in the first place because they couldn't afford to ice a team?

 

[MykeAbner]

Yeah, I'm willing to bet that you are only here because you love the attention that other people give you. The topic itself proves that you have no idea as to how these things work.

 

[Chaos]

Actually I have made other proposals. You just chose to comment on that one. I am sure it just doesn't meet your interest. I suggested these GM's should pick the team they think is last. If they can pick BPA, they can pick worst team out there.

Note: You are going on the ridiculous assumption that they have changed. You could not prove that any more than I could prove they stayed the same. The difference is keeping the draft that way actually attempts to resolve by order of finish, instead of just making up a proposal that gives greedy teams the right they WOULD NOT have had without a strike. Give all the GM's a vote. Let them suggest 5 teams for the worst team and vote. If the Caps then fall 1st or 5th, I would see that as fair. I see any proposal not based on order of finish as random and unacceptable.

And as someone has already mentioned, every team finished this past season 0-0-0-0. Game. Set. Match. You Lose.

 

[Tap on the Ankle]

No the fairest way would be redo the lottery from the draft before. Whoever wins, wins.

How in the name of all that is rational is that fair? Rewarding the Penguins, Blackhawks, Capitals, and co. for a season which they did not suck in?

Face it, man, no single team has gained anything from this lockout. The contending teams like Ottawa, Toronto, Colorado, Tampa Bay, Vancouver, etc have all lost out on a chance to win the Cup this year. Big market teams like Detroit, New York R, Toronto, Philly, etc. lost out on potentially millions of dollars of profit since no season was played. It is arguable that these teams lost more in this lockout than the teams that blew chunks last year.

The only fair way to handle this situation is to increase the draft age to 19. If that is not plausible, then give each team one ball only.

 

[xander]

[/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

best post in the entire thread. Neither option (30 balls in a hat/weighted lottery) is fair, so cancel the thing and do it next year.

 

[PecaFan]

Wait...in your very previous post, you stated it was a first place team that had never finished last. Now its the top 3-5 teams? So which is it?

It's both. The biggest fall I'm aware of is 20 spots. So you can pretty much guarantee that none of the top ten teams would have got the #1 spot overall.

Ultimately, it's this simple: We have a choice. We can implement a system that's accurate, but not 100% perfect, or go completely random, that is a system that will nearly 0% accurate.

Which should we choose?

To know where I fall, when I asked my employees when their programming projects would be finished, I asked them to be as accurate as possible in their estimations, rather than spin a wheel that said "one day", "two weeks", "three months", "four years"...

Not even trying to be as accurate as possible simply because you can't be perfect is insane.

 

[MontrealCruiser_83*]

What if you vote no on the CBA? That means you did NOT agree to it. I would certainly vote know from a Caps perspective without having draft surety.

You can vote no all you want but majority wins and that's just the way it is. And if you don't want to sign the CBA, goodbye Washington. Perhaps you would vote no. But that's why you're on a message board making ridiculous statements and not head of operations for Washington.

Caps probably won't get Crosby, neener neener neener.

 

[MojoJojo]

best post in the entire thread. Neither option (30 balls in a hat/weighted lottery) is fair, so cancel the thing and do it next year.

What about teams that traded draft picks from the cancelled draft?

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

The question is about finish. Many teams would have never had a chance and they know it. They are using the strike to be greedy.

I still like my way of having the GM's who are so able to pick the BPA pick the worst team to best. I bet you would get a surprisingly good result. You poll all the GM's on who would have finished worst. 2nd to worst etc. If you wait to 2006 to have the 2005 draft you waste a year and still base the draft of one year performance on 2. To make changes you risk a reasonable lawsuit in my mind.

The Caps would not have gotten the first overall pick if they did not firesale their whole team. Any team can firesale a team, any team can intentionly tank a season. Noone knows who would have been in the bottom.

Sorry there is no legal way the Washington Capitals will be assured of a top 5 pick because they tanked 2003-0004

 

[CGG]

It's both. The biggest fall I'm aware of is 20 spots. So you can pretty much guarantee that none of the top ten teams would have got the #1 spot overall.

Boston tanked from 8th overall to last place in 1997. A top 10 team would only have to fall to 26th in order to get a chance (lottery) at the #1 overall pick nowadays. So we're talking 10th to 26th, a 16-place fall. We know Boston fell harder than that, so it could happen again. And just because no one has actually gone from first to last (in recent history) doesn't mean it could never happen. So therefore you can't possibly guarantee that none of the top ten teams would have got the #1 spot.

Ultimately, it's this simple: We have a choice. We can implement a system that's accurate, but not 100% perfect, or go completely random, that is a system that will nearly 0% accurate.

Whatever system you have in mind will be completely inaccurate as well. The only problem is, no one will be able to prove it, because no one knows what would have happened in 2004-05. Therefore it's just as inaccurate as a random draw.

Give Atlanta the #1 pick because they've been awful in the past? That's crap, they probably would have made the playoffs. Give Toronto the #30 pick? That's crap too, they have to flush away half their roster and play a guy named Kukumberg on their 1st line next year because of salary cap issues, no way you can tell me they'll be decent just because they were before.

It reaches the point of absurdity if you're trying to claim only a select few teams should have a shot at the #1 pick overall. If you use 5, how is it that the 5th worst team from prior years can be "accurately" predicted to be the worst (i.e. chance at #1 pick) but that 6th worst team has zero chance at being the worst?

 

[SmokeyClause]

I'm not sure the league would want to fight a legal battle after the strike we just had. If I were a team like the Caps or Rangers and found a team like Colorado or Philly won and got to draft Crosby, would it be reasonable to seek the draft for 2005 be put aside because it is not based on order of finish? There exists no right of top teams to have a chance at Crosby, and no precedent to allow this kind of draft. It seems to me a team could easily argue that a draft not based on actual finish is too biased against history and is unfair to the "losers" whoever they may be.

It wouldn't work. There are no government statutes in place that mandate draft orders be derived through the use of the previous season's results. The reason the draft orders are the way they are is because of the CBA. Because they were no longer under the old CBA, that provision is lost.

The NHL's new CBA will reinstitute the draft in similar fashion to the previous CBA, but they will likely make an exception for the 2005 draft and lay out the ground rules based upon agreed upon procedures. Because the Capitals and the Rangers (and whatever bad teams you can think of) will likely have to sign this (unless the NHL uses majority rules on this matter), they have no legal recourse to complain. Rest assured the NHL will cross its T's and dot its I's with regards to this and all other issues pertaining to amateur player's rights.

This is just false hope created by a fan of a team who could potentially lose out on Crosby.

 

[LordHelmet]

So using a CBA to hose fair drafting based on performance is completely acceptable? It seems to me you have not given it a thought.

You got Ovechkin for your past performance... Sorry, you've already been compensated for your teams suckiness..

borro, you're a Caps homer and nothing more.