Regarding the draft debate

[Jaded-Fan]

at least we're not bitter.

and that's not what i said at all... the issue here is what is fair to do with a one-time only draft that is following the cancellation of the season. i advocate a 1/30 chance for every franchise simply because there is NO good way to come up with an evaluation that tells you what they would have finished this past season. none.

so do it in the fairest possible way, and just give everyone a shot. do a lottery for the whole draft order, and go from there.

I have often said that the choice will be between 'unfair' and 'more unfair' . . . As you can not recontruct with 100% accuracy what last year would have played out like, by its very definition whatever is chosen will be 'unfair' in some way. Now you claim that you KNOW what 'fair' is and surprise, surprise, it supports the big markets, of which you, as a fan, are part of. The big markets who have had their way for years want to have their way yet again . . . shocking . . .and this of course is 'fair.'

No, we can not reconstruct with 100% accuracy what would have played out, but we sure as hell can know that there is no way in hell Philly, Toronto, Detroit, Colorado, and about six or seven other teams would have had any chance at number one had we had a season. And yet giving you an equal shot to those we also know within a pretty close to 100% accuracy rate would have not made the playoffs had there been a season is 'fair.' The only 'fair' way according to you.

Give me a break. I will say it again . . . . Oink, Oink. Which actually is no surprise at all.

 

[NYIsles1*]

BUT, it is large market/big market. the flyers had a $70m payroll and lost the same amount of money as teams with $28m payrolls. BIG difference there.

The difference is the Flyers in a modern building going to the conference finals should have make money and they couldn't.

Spending more to lose more money is not large market/big market at all. The only thing big about is the corporate ownership willing to take more in losses.

If this league does have a cba with a hard cap and the Flyers cannot add free agents to sustain expectations, it's going to be very tough to get fans to pay those high prices without a realistic chance to compete for a cup. Philadephia will save money on payroll but they will lose revenue and interest in the team.

If Nashville went to the Conference Finals they might double their revenue and make a profit Philadelphia is no longer capable of making. This is how the large market Wild made 20m going to the Conference Finals in 2003 while Snider claims losses.

 

[HF2002]

Muckler was on the Team 1200 earlier today and he talked about the draft and the discussions that were held last week.

He said that the only fair way to handle the draft is to put every name in a hat and draw the draft order. His reasoning (and he said it was a "raised hand" approved consensus among GMs) is that the teams who finished poorly, and already have used their high picks, already reaped the reward for finishing low in the standings. They don't get another one. It's only a few teams pushing for the draft order to be based on the last 3 or 4 years.

He also said that Bettman told the GMs that he will do what's fair and that means everyone will get the same chance at the top pick.

To confirm the obvious, the goalie equipment will be changed (pads, blocker/glove, form fitting equipment) and the nets will reamin the same size.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Muckler was on the Team 1200 earlier today and he talked about the draft and the discussions that were held last week.

He said that the only fair way to handle the draft is to put every name in a hat and draw the draft order. His reasoning (and he said it was a "raised hand" approved consensus among GMs) is that the teams who finished poorly, and already have used their high picks, already reaped the reward for finishing low in the standings. They don't get another one. It's only a few teams pushing for the draft order to be based on the last 3 or 4 years.

He also said that Bettman told the GMs that he will do what's fair and that means everyone will get the same chance at the top pick.

To confirm the obvious, the goalie equipment will be changed (pads, blocker/glove, form fitting equipment) and the nets will reamin the same size.

This contradicts everything that has been quoted by official sources . . . the article that began this thread for instance or the one that I posted yesterday saying that there was significant digging in of heals at even having a 30 team weighted draft, with a significant number wanting it to be only the teams who finished near the bottom having a chance at number one.

All of these are linked to articles, and all contradict what you are reporting and which can not be linked because it was a supposed radio interview. It is so opposite of everything coming out, in fact does not even ring true. Who here actually believes that despite reams of articles talking about a contentious six hour argument over the draft issue, that no, those articles were all lying, the GM's almost all raised their hands and agreed with an 'oh yeah' that there should be an equal chance for all 30 as some teams 'got theirs' already and then Bettman said 'that's fair.' This is the same stupid argument we hear here over and over from big market fans. I have major doubts as to your source.

 

[txpd]

The difference is the Flyers in a modern building going to the conference finals should have make money and they couldn't.

Spending more to lose more money is not large market/big market at all. The only thing big about is the corporate ownership willing to take more in losses.

If this league does have a cba with a hard cap and the Flyers cannot add free agents to sustain expectations, it's going to be very tough to get fans to pay those high prices without a realistic chance to compete for a cup. Philadephia will save money on payroll but they will lose revenue and interest in the team.

If Nashville went to the Conference Finals they might double their revenue and make a profit Philadelphia is no longer capable of making. This is how the large market Wild made 20m going to the Conference Finals in 2003 while Snider claims losses.

I will agree with you that it will be interesting to see what teams like the flyers will do when they can no longer beat their competition over the head with their wallets.
will they be able to keep up on a more even playing field.

 

[Morbo]

This contradicts everything that has been quoted by official sources . . . the article that began this thread for instance or the one that I posted yesterday saying that there was significant digging in of heals at even having a 30 team weighted draft, with a significant number wanting it to be only the teams who finished near the bottom having a chance at number one.

All of these are linked to articles, and all contradict what you are reporting and which can not be linked because it was a supposed radio interview. It is so opposite of everything coming out, in fact does not even ring true. Who here actually believes that despite reams of articles talking about a contentious six hour argument over the draft issue, that no, those articles were all lying, the GM's almost all raised their hands and agreed with an 'oh yeah' that there should be an equal chance for all 30 as some teams 'got theirs' already and then Bettman said 'that's fair.' This is the same stupid argument we hear here over and over from big market fans. I have major doubts as to your source.

So you're saying John Muckler is a liar? Just asking.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

I missed the memo where cup winners or successful teams needed to be punished.

Seriously, the big market teams are already throwing you guys a bone with the lockout, evenly weight the draft or bump it up to 19.

?

Its a written rule the stanley cup champion pick the last in the first round, regardless of where they finish!

 

[Jaded-Fan]

So you're saying John Muckler is a liar? Just asking.

How do we know that Muckler said any such thing? Because some yahoo supposedly heard it on the radio . . . which conveniently can not be linked? Someone is lying though. Either it is the linked sources that started this thread or Muckler or this guy. The reporting is too polar opposite to be otherwise. Who is your money on?

 

[HF2002]

This contradicts everything that has been quoted by official sources . . . the article that began this thread for instance or the one that I posted yesterday saying that there was significant digging in of heals at even having a 30 team weighted draft, with a significant number wanting it to be only the teams who finished near the bottom having a chance at number one.

All of these are linked to articles, and all contradict what you are reporting and which can not be linked because it was a supposed radio interview. It is so opposite of everything coming out, in fact does not even ring true (who believes that the GM's almost all raised their hands and agreed with an 'oh yeah' that there should be an equal chance for all 30 as some 'got theirs' already - same stupid argument we hear here from big market fans), though that I have to have my doubts as to your source.

Keep your shirt on Sally. I just repeated what Muckler said in what was a REAL interview on the Team 1200. I suppose it could have been Rich Little instead, but for now I'll trust my ears over my eyes reading your post that questions what I heard. You said it yourself about the TSN article: "..if the article is to be believed..".

I find it hard to believe that so many teams are in favour of a weighted system to begin with. This excludes so many teams from getting that top pick, and any GM of those teams who doesn't fight like hell for the 1 in 30 chance ought to be fired.

Muckler did say that it would be a "snake order" draft. I guess that falls in line with what has been repeated elsewhere.

Personally, I do think it should be a weighted scenario.

 

[Morbo]

Daly was just on the FAN.

He confirmed that the system is pretty much settled on, though the details will be made public later this month after the meetings.

He said that all the teams will have a chance at Crosby.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Again . . . either what you reported Muckler supposedly to have said is right or the myrid of articles such as the one that started this thread is right. Both can not be.

Personally if they are going to snake the draft there is your payback for not having the season to the clubs who have been successful of late and is even more reason to leave the lottery where it traditionally is .. . .with the non-playoff teams. The non-playoff teams end up with a guarenteed pretty high pick and then will not pick again until the bottom of round two. That has the makings of a nice fair compromise actually.

 

[Epsilon]

Again . . . either what you reported Muckler supposedly to have said is right or the myrid of articles such as the one that started this thread is right. Both can not be.

Personally if they are going to snake the draft there is your payback for not having the season to the clubs who have been successful of late and is even more reason to leave the lottery where it traditionally is .. . .with the non-playoff teams. The non-playoff teams end up with a guarenteed pretty high pick and then will not pick again until the bottom of round two. That has the makings of a nice fair compromise actually.

Last time I checked 0 teams made the playoffs in the 2004-2005 season...

 

[HockeyCritter]

Last time I checked 0 teams made the playoffs in the 2004-2005 season...

Fine - no draft until after a season has played . . . . everyone will just have to wait.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Daly was just on the FAN.

He confirmed that the system is pretty much settled on, though the details will be made public later this month after the meetings.

He said that all the teams will have a chance at Crosby.

That is not inconsistent with what was reported. If so likely the rest that was leaked in those articles also would be likely true . . . ie a weighted system based on 3 or 4 years. I am wondering if it will be totally random where a team will be able to fall or rise anywhere or if the lottery is basically just for number one. I could live with the second more than the first.

 

[hockeytown9321]

The Wings lost 20m last year

No, they didn't.

How many years has Illitch said his team has to win a cup just to break even?

Zero.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Last time I checked 0 teams made the playoffs in the 2004-2005 season...

Yada yada yada . . . we have heard that song over and over before. Move aside how it is (as has been often said) a fig leaf for the reality of how much better the teams you support remain even with the new CBA over the teams who have sucked the past few years. Apparently it has been decided and will (if I can believe the majority of sources) be weighted and not in the way you would argue for.

 

[Epsilon]

I hope this ends up being a 1-30 random draw if for no other reason than it will probably drive some of the posters here over the deep end. I also have a feeling that the day the first overall pick gets drawn will result in a record number of bannings on this board, and posts of the "I'm never watching the NHL again" variety.

 

[HF2002]

Again . . . either what you reported Muckler supposedly to have said is right or the myrid of articles such as the one that started this thread is right. Both can not be.

Personally if they are going to snake the draft there is your payback for not having the season to the clubs who hav been successful of late and is even more reason to leave the lottery where it traditionally is .. . .with the non-playoff teams. A nice compromise actually.

There's no article at the beginning of this thread at all. Are you referring to another thread?

All I did was repeat what Muckler said. Considering the credibility of a number of sources throughout this whole lockout, I am more inclined to listen to Muckler on this issue than some columnist. Besides, many reports in this lockout have reinvented themselves a few times even when they came from respected sources - THN, Bob McKenzie, etc. For example, Bob McK updated his story about "more playoffs teams" on Sportsdesk less than an hour ago (at 6:45 pm or so).

Why would any team, other than the 2 or 3 bottom teams, agree to such a heavily weighted lottery? Why would you vote yourself out of the shot at Crosby?

In my view, the Daly and Muckler version of the solution is way more consistent with a 1 in 30 chance than it is with a weighted lottery based on the last 3 years. I suppose you're accurate if it ends up being either system.

 

[Mess]

There's no article at the beginning of this thread at all. Are you referring to another thread?

All I did was repeat what Muckler said. Considering the credibility of a number of sources throughout this whole lockout, I am more inclined to listen to Muckler on this issue than some columnist. Besides, many reports in this lockout have reinvented themselves a few times even when they came from respected sources - THN, Bob McKenzie, etc. For example, Bob McK updated his story about "more playoffs teams" on Sportsdesk less than an hour ago (at 6:45 pm or so).

Why would any team, other than the 2 or 3 bottom teams, agree to such a heavily weighted lottery? Why would you vote yourself out of the shot at Crosby?

In my view, the Daly and Muckler version of the solution is way more consistent with a 1 in 30 chance than it is with a weighted lottery based on the last 3 years. I suppose you're accurate if it ends up being either system.

Well if anything is true .. Daly and Muckler where in the room and attended the meetings .. Bobby Mac and every other printed article is hearsay at this point as they where not in attendance .. lets not forget the Sportsnet article a deal is done and the season is saved after all ..

 

[Coffey77]

I hope this ends up being a 1-30 random draw if for no other reason than it will probably drive some of the posters here over the deep end. I also have a feeling that the day the first overall pick gets drawn will result in a record number of bannings on this board, and posts of the "I'm never watching the NHL again" variety.

Didn't Bettman already say that it will be weighted towards the weaker teams over the last couple of years? Although every team does have a shot at getting Crosby.

IMO, the difference between the stronger and weaker teams is lower because of the lockout and new CBA (whenever the heck that is). Detroit will lose some of their older players and won't be able to spend as much.

 

[Charge_Seven]

The Wings lost 20m last year going to the second round of the playoffs, that is not doing fine. How many years has Illitch said his team has to win a cup just to break even? They stood for themselves so often they cannot make a profit no matter what they do now.

Toronto made a profit of only 10-14m, considering their revenue sources that is not doing fine either.

A market based on corporate ownerships spending more just to lose more is not a large market.

So what is doing fine exactly? The Leafs ownership earned more than any player on the team, even by your number (which I believe is incorrect, last I heard, and no I cannot give a link the Leafs earned closer to $20,000,000). In terms of the Wings, I find it laughable for it to be suggested they lost $20,000,000, absolutely laughable.

How much money do you people want teams to make? The bar right now apparently has a $14,000,000 profit at "too little". Anyone want to do the math on what the players would make team by team salary wise if everyone did so poorly as to make $14,000,000 a year? I think the players might be paying the owners to play under those conditions.

 

[Jester]

I have often said that the choice will be between 'unfair' and 'more unfair' . . . As you can not recontruct with 100% accuracy what last year would have played out like, by its very definition whatever is chosen will be 'unfair' in some way. Now you claim that you KNOW what 'fair' is and surprise, surprise, it supports the big markets, of which you, as a fan, are part of. The big markets who have had their way for years want to have their way yet again . . . shocking . . .and this of course is 'fair.'

No, we can not reconstruct with 100% accuracy what would have played out, but we sure as hell can know that there is no way in hell Philly, Toronto, Detroit, Colorado, and about six or seven other teams would have had any chance at number one had we had a season. And yet giving you an equal shot to those we also know within a pretty close to 100% accuracy rate would have not made the playoffs had there been a season is 'fair.' The only 'fair' way according to you.

Give me a break. I will say it again . . . . Oink, Oink. Which actually is no surprise at all.

learn to comprehend english.

"fairest possible" does not mean "fair."

does it favor big markets? does an equal chance for EVERY team in the league favor big markets? or, does equal chance mean that there is no favoritism to the process, and thus favors no one in particular?

i mean i don't know. the last time i checked, X = X, but maybe things have changed when it comes to probabilty theory... but probably not.

disregarding the inclusion of the big bad clubs how exactly can you fairly seperate the bottom half of the league in a weighted system? that seems unfair to all of them... how can you fairly seperate even the bottom 10 teams of the league? how is it fair to anyone to give a team that just drafted Ovechkin (thus presumably improved themselves greatly) another excellent draft pick, over someone who picked 5th-10th last year?

the issue isn't that the big clubs deserve an equal chance (though i think they do given the way the current situation has played out along with the fact that 50% of the league has had contractual death during the lockout... thus the league isn't what it was prior to the lockout in any way), it's that there is NO good way to deal with those factors as you propogate up the "ladder" of teams.

as i said in another post, if you can come up with a good method, i'm all ears. i just don't think a good method exists to seperate the teams into a weighted lottery pool. therefore the "fairest" possible way to do this is throw your hands up in the air and just give everyone an "equal" lottery drawing for the draft order from top to bottom.

does it suck for the weaker teams that definitively would have been in the lesser portion of the standing this past year? yeah, but maybe they shouldn't have adopted such a hardline stance during the lockout if where they drafted was something they really were concerned with.

ps - "Oink Oink" marginalizes anything smart you will ever argue...

 

[Jester]

Well, ok...if pond hockey is a requirement to be a hockey market then there is TO, Montreal, Ottawa, Edmonton and Calgary, plus Boston, Buffalo, Detroit and MN that are actually hockey markets. Funny to find out that Vancouver is not a hockey market, but now i know.

actually the intent of that was a culture of hockey... of which there was little to none here prior to the Flyers arrival.

 

[codswallop]

Smaller markets didn't really have those revenue streams to begin with... thus they didn't lose much.

Some markets aren't considered established in terms of hockey, it's more difficult to build a relationship with sponsors and advertisers. It takes time and the ability to show your product will be viable and worthy of an investment. How do you think the lockout is going to affect that confidence? Even with a better business model as the cap may be, anyone investing in a team not fully established and not fully ingrained into their local communities will be very leery about such an investment. They would likely wait for a few years until the benefits of a cap can be at least somewhat realized, before investing more heavily.

Larger market/established teams have to contend with that up to a point. But they have already proven their worth and viability, the investment is not nearly as risky.

Like I said, every team is loser because of this lockout. Cap or no cap, all 30 teams will suffer. But some just don't have the backups that others do, and their ground is a bit shakier.

 

[LastoftheBrunnenG]

There truly is one, and only one, fair way to do things.

Skip the 2005 draft completely. Raise the age to 19. Use the results of next season (yes, there will be one) to determine draft order just as it normally would have.

Teams are going to change so radically in some cases for next season that by doing anything differently would be an injustice to those that WILL need that first pick.

The one change to the draft I do like is picking 1 and 60 instead of 1 and 31.

I like your idea.