Poll: If Season is lost, most likely draft scenerio?
- Thread starter Jaded-Fan
- Start date
- Status
amazingcrwns
drop the puck
Voted for an equal chance for all teams. It's the only fair way to determine who should get a shot at the #1 pick. I only went with one year because I don't think we'll lose next season in addition to losing this season so having one super draft won't be necessary. If we lose 2 seasons I think that there will be 2 seperate drafts, (one for each year lost) with another completely random order for each year.
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
go kim johnsson said:
You misunderstand the question. It does not matter when the draft happens, be it June or five years from now, everyone involved with the NHL has been fairly clear that before hockey begins again, after a new CBA is signed, there will be a draft. The only question is what form it will take. Hence this poll.
If for some reason there is a draft...
Wouldn't mind seeing them use last years finish, but the first 10 teams to draft are put into a lottery with an equal chance to be selected, and no team can drop more than 10 positions from their original draft position. After the first team is selected, the next 10 teams are put into the lottery (2 thru 11), again with an equal chance to win. Continue until the draft order is complete. There is no way to do this that everyone will be happy with, but the worst teams still have the best draft position, and better teams have a chance to move up in the draft order up to 10 positions.
Wouldn't mind seeing them use last years finish, but the first 10 teams to draft are put into a lottery with an equal chance to be selected, and no team can drop more than 10 positions from their original draft position. After the first team is selected, the next 10 teams are put into the lottery (2 thru 11), again with an equal chance to win. Continue until the draft order is complete. There is no way to do this that everyone will be happy with, but the worst teams still have the best draft position, and better teams have a chance to move up in the draft order up to 10 positions.
Another possibility is that the new CBA changes the draft to only one round and lets all other players be free agents that try and latch onto to an AHL or European team until a scout suggests they sign them to an NHL contract.
If the agents dont win a court case making Crosby a UFA, the PA could agree with the league to do something about the draft in negotiations as part of a CBA deal.
Maybe let the non-playoff teams get a 1st round pick in last years finish order, then let all teams in the same order get a 1st round pick, so non playoff teams will really benefit. But there would be a lot of young, cheap free agents
If the agents dont win a court case making Crosby a UFA, the PA could agree with the league to do something about the draft in negotiations as part of a CBA deal.
Maybe let the non-playoff teams get a 1st round pick in last years finish order, then let all teams in the same order get a 1st round pick, so non playoff teams will really benefit. But there would be a lot of young, cheap free agents
I reckon their should be a weighted lottery. The teams who have screwed/sucked in the last 2 years have a better shot at Crosby while the teams who picked layer like Tampa and Detroit still have a shot at Crosby but much less than weaker teams. I is unfair on the teams who suck to have an equal lottery as Crosby could very easily end up at say Detroit and the chance of him going to a strong team is increased.
But then again, if we are in a new salary capped, everyone is equal world, and had to go through the massive contrat shuffling to achieve that, why should it matter what happened in the past. Isnt everyone now equal and deserving of the same chance to start? Especially if a team like Ottawa was forced to shed $5mil in contracts to get uinder a cap, and Pittsburgh was forced to pick them up with revenue sharing money from Minnesota and Columbus.
But why? You can't tell me that Pittsburgh hasn't improved due to the draft- they selected Malkin and Fleury in the 1st round. Carolina has added Ladd and Staal. Florida's gained Olesz and Horton. Why should the worst teams in the past 2 years be allowed to add even more without seeing where they'd finish with these new assets? Granted, Pittsburgh, Carolina and Washington will still more than likely finish at the bottom because their best young guys won't be in the NHL yet, but we'd at least know for sure.
Why should there be a relationship between last year's standings and this year's postponed draft? If the draft isn't going to be based on the next season's standings then the positioning should be random.
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
misterjaggers said:
Instead of what you hope will happen (you being fans of all the teams who did make the playoffs next year), is this what you really think will in fact happen? I of course can understand the hopes, and can understand as well making arguments for why that hoped for scenerio 'should' happen, but do you all genuinely think that any scenerio will include teams who made the playoffs the last season for which there was a record? Just throwing that out as I have serious doubts.
Jazz
Registered User
I would not mind if the age eligiblity raises to 18 years, from the current 17. So if the season is lost, and is saved for (part of) next season, have it in the CBA that the age has raised a year.
The biggest potential benefit is that the draft would be less of a crap-shoot and you will have a better idea of which prospects will pan out or not...
(All of this will never happen though....)
The biggest potential benefit is that the draft would be less of a crap-shoot and you will have a better idea of which prospects will pan out or not...
(All of this will never happen though....)
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
I dont think it's fair to use last years standings. Lets be honest when the 2003-2004 season started who really thought the Caps would be one of the worse teams in the NHL? Once it became clear they weren't gonna do much is when they starting selling off their stars. But one could have easily argued they were the favorite to win their division along with Tampa.
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
I can't pick any of those options, because it's still too dependent on what happens with the CBA. Here are my options and my pick:
1A. NHL and PA sign new CBA before Oct. '05 - draft done by last year's standings + new lottery
1B. NHL and PA sign new CBA before Oct. '05 - draft class pushed forward to 2006
2A. NHL successfully declares impasse before Oct. '05 and imposes their own CBA, draft done immediately using last year's standings + new lottery
2B. NHL successfully declares impasse before Oct. '05 and imposes their own CBA, draft classed pushed ahead to 2006.
3. Lockout continues indefinitely, no draft... ?
Well, leaving aside the real possibility of #3, the debate should come down to the issue of how to fairly determine the draft order, and in either case I would prefer to push the draft to 2006, to ensure that the most needy teams still get the top picks. A new CBA is going to have a big effect on the competitive balance of the league, so last year's standings are not meaningful enough to use for this draft, IMO.
Thus, I choose the B options of pushing the draft class into 2006, to make sure the top weights in the lottery are truly property of the most needy teams. 1B has to be the better option there too, because can you imagine basing it on a the standings of a replacement league in 2B? Heck, I'd vote for Montreal to sign Mario Roberge and some other guys from the LNAH to try desperately to finish last.
But my best incentive for the Cost Certainty Entry Draft is just to give the top weight in the lottery to the team with the lowest payroll, and work down the list in that order, regardless of position in the standings.
1A. NHL and PA sign new CBA before Oct. '05 - draft done by last year's standings + new lottery
1B. NHL and PA sign new CBA before Oct. '05 - draft class pushed forward to 2006
2A. NHL successfully declares impasse before Oct. '05 and imposes their own CBA, draft done immediately using last year's standings + new lottery
2B. NHL successfully declares impasse before Oct. '05 and imposes their own CBA, draft classed pushed ahead to 2006.
3. Lockout continues indefinitely, no draft... ?
Well, leaving aside the real possibility of #3, the debate should come down to the issue of how to fairly determine the draft order, and in either case I would prefer to push the draft to 2006, to ensure that the most needy teams still get the top picks. A new CBA is going to have a big effect on the competitive balance of the league, so last year's standings are not meaningful enough to use for this draft, IMO.
Thus, I choose the B options of pushing the draft class into 2006, to make sure the top weights in the lottery are truly property of the most needy teams. 1B has to be the better option there too, because can you imagine basing it on a the standings of a replacement league in 2B? Heck, I'd vote for Montreal to sign Mario Roberge and some other guys from the LNAH to try desperately to finish last.
But my best incentive for the Cost Certainty Entry Draft is just to give the top weight in the lottery to the team with the lowest payroll, and work down the list in that order, regardless of position in the standings.
Mr Bugg said:
Malkin or no Malkin the Pens still are the worse team in the league bar the Caps. Now i'd hate Crosby to go to the Caps, but if there were a season he'd be heading that way. So what if Fla got Olesz and Horton. They got them because they sucked. It is the teams who suck get the chance for #1. Its been like for a long time. I agree that just making the really bad teams have shot at crosby is bad but you have to give the crappy teams the best chance in the draft. Is it fair that he'd go to the Avs. Not really when they would likely be up their.
Since you already know that the first pick will be heading to the Caps, perhaps you can tell us when the lockout will end? ;-)J17ster said:
IMO, the only fair way to choose a draft order is to play a season and then base that order on those standings. Sure, some teams are more likely to finish near the bottom and some are more likely to finish near the top. But until they do, you can't just assign extra draft picks to a team. A good team who should make the playoffs (on paper anyway) could very easily have a few key injuries that drops them down quite a bit. A weaker team may just have that big jump in development and suddenly make the playoffs. For example, look at the Sens when Jacques Martin took over. He immediately had an impact on a team with good young prospects but a previously horrible record.
Combine all players eligible for the draft in one draft, and draft order should be set based on the standings from the latest season (and the parameters of the new agreement, although it's not likely the draft will change that much).
How do people think the Rangers would react to using last season's standings?
IMO, a draft doesn't happen without a CBA.
If the CBA has a cap or strong luxury tax, throw the rankings out the window have a lottery where everyone has an equal shot.
Theoretically, with a cap, everyone has the same opportunity to build a team, so why set the draft order based on last year's finish.
Chances are teams that finish high will not be able to keep all their players anyway, so they could use the cheap young health
If the CBA has a cap or strong luxury tax, throw the rankings out the window have a lottery where everyone has an equal shot.
Theoretically, with a cap, everyone has the same opportunity to build a team, so why set the draft order based on last year's finish.
Chances are teams that finish high will not be able to keep all their players anyway, so they could use the cheap young health
jfont
Registered User
old kummelweck
Registered User
- Nov 10, 2003
- 25,181
- 5,282
HF2002 said:
I agree the only fair way to decide the order is to play a season but we are talking about what would ahppen if the draft happened this year. And anyway if a season was missed then the following season they 05 draft order has worked out it clashes with the 06 draft. Combinin into one monster draft personally i don't like. Not only does it mean that some players will not get drafted when they should but you are givin the worse teams even more high end talent as they pick early. I never said the Caps would be a dead set to finnish at the base but it is quite likely. The teams who are likely to finnish at the base should have a better shot at crosby.
If they ARE going to hold a draft strictly for players eligible in 2005, whenever that may occur, the only FAIR way to determine the order would be to randomly draw the whole thing, round by round. Keep in mind that some teams have multiple picks in some rounds, like the NYR for example, have Torontos pick in the first round next season, if I'm not mistaken.
Seeding the teams according to last seasons finish is hardly fair to teams like the Calgary Flames - suck hard for seven years, have one great year and get screwed out of a chance for Crosby. Random draw for each round is the only fair way. Personally I think they should hold the draft year back at least one year and raise the age up to 19.......like the NBA is trying to do. By the age of 20 most junior hockey players have proven themselves one way or the other, so you won't get any more guys like Chris Phillips and Alexandre Daigle going #1. By the same token guys like Theo Fleury won't slip to the sixth round. This makes the trading of draft picks much more valuable a la the NFL, where all players are at least 21 years old (some as old as 24).
Seeding the teams according to last seasons finish is hardly fair to teams like the Calgary Flames - suck hard for seven years, have one great year and get screwed out of a chance for Crosby. Random draw for each round is the only fair way. Personally I think they should hold the draft year back at least one year and raise the age up to 19.......like the NBA is trying to do. By the age of 20 most junior hockey players have proven themselves one way or the other, so you won't get any more guys like Chris Phillips and Alexandre Daigle going #1. By the same token guys like Theo Fleury won't slip to the sixth round. This makes the trading of draft picks much more valuable a la the NFL, where all players are at least 21 years old (some as old as 24).
My point is that if there's a season held then they would just follow the established procedure. If there's no season then they cannot hold a draft until a season is played.J17ster said:
Even if there are more high end players available for the teams with higher picks than there usually is, it also means that players who may not have been available to teams with lower picks are more likely to slip down to these teams. It should equal out.
- Status
