borro said:There exists no right of top teams to have a chance at Crosby, and no precedent to allow this kind of draft.
London Knights said:Detroit is really the only team that year in and year out has been at or near the top of the Western Conference.
MontrealCruiser_83 said:The fairest way would be one ball each. No doubt about that.
Flukeshot said:Defining "top teams" is not possible as there was no season.
Bruwinz37 said:This is the most ridiculous thread I have ever read.
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:No the fairest way would be redo the lottery from the draft before. Whoever wins, wins.
borro said:No the fairest way would be redo the lottery from the draft before. Whoever wins, wins.
I could attain at least thirty afidavits attesting to the fact the Red Wings suck.Newsguyone said:And even Detroit wouldn't have been a lock to make the playoffs last season.
No season=No results=No draft ranking
jericholic19 said:either way, the chances of a good team landing crosby are minute.
Chaos said:No, they dont know that. Injuries happen. Teams just play bad...teams come out of nowhere all the time, and the exact opposite could have happened. You like your way because it gives your Caps a chance to get rewarded a 2nd straight year for 1 year of tanking. Oh yeah, its a lockout, not a strike.
Chaos 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.
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: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.
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: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
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: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
gc2005 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.
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
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.
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: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
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
jadeddog 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
jadeddog 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
borro said:They would under something that could change franchise for 20 years! How can you say they won't sue when people sue McDonalds for the coffee being hot?Originally Posted by BigE
No NHL Franchise is going to take the NHL to court.