Irish Blues said:
Why should I even bother addressing your comments? You've made up your mind, you've decided how it's supposed to go and nothing I or anyone else says is going to change your mind, so I can't see wasting my time trying to get you to understand the implications of what you're suggesting.
I'm always willing to change my mind when confronted with a compelling argument, IB.
I am asking questions here, and they aren't getting answered.
1) If the NHL deems that the bottom 5 teams should go in a lottery, why is that?
What is the underlying reason for it.
Assuming there is one, why not use that rationale for the entire league.
I mean, why mix it up ONLY for the bottom five. How do you draw the line at five? Why not 6? Is that sixth team so much better? Why not 10? Why not 12? Why not 30?
I tried to pose a similar scenario involving going to the playoffs. You completely dismissed it without even trying to understand that it was just as asinine as your suggestion of punishing teams who are bad even once for whatever reason.
You've complete ignored what I actually wrote and are responding to what you want to think that I wrote.
There is NO punishment involved in what I wrote.
What you suggested is complete nonsense, and you know it. What I've suggested is already being done to a certain extent with the bottom five teams.
Evidently, the league doesn't think it is imperative that the bottom team gets ABSOLUTE rights to the top pick.
You're point was a facetious point made in an intellectually dishonest way to counter mine.
And it fails. We both know it.
could pose a scenario where I think if a team was 10 points better than their opponent in the playoffs, they should have to win 5 of 7 games and not 4 of 7 - based on the idea that a team that was superior in the regular season shouldn't have difficulty winning that 5th game if they're really that good, and that we shouldn't punish a team that barely finished above .500 by expecting them to win the same number of games as a team that was .700 during the season. But again, you'd miss the point.
That is not just beside the point. It is miles and miles from the point, IB.
What does that have do with what I am proposing? Answer the question!
Hockey is the actual game. The best team wins. That's fundamental to the sport.
The draft is not fundamental to the on ice sport. It is merely the way we disperse entry players into the draft.
Playoffs and Stanley Cups are a FUNDAMENTAL reward for success.
Do you honestly think that a first round pick is a reward for failure?
You think that the worst team is ENTITLED to the top pick?
You're idea fundamentally changes the spirit of hockey.
My idea only tinkers with the NHL entry policy.
You know the Blues should have been a playoff team, and there's no reason that's acceptable for them not to have done more to try and make the playoffs ignoring the reality of what happened with the team beginning with Laurie's announcement that the team was for sale prior to the end of the lockout. You know the Pens have intentionally stunk for 4 years (no, wait - it's been a decade according to you) in a pre-planned attempt to get Fleury, Malkin, Crosby, and (insert a top-3 player from this year's draft here), and the Caps intentionally tanked to get Ovechkin in '04 (while ignoring the fact that the Caps actually finished 3rd to last and had to win the lottery to get to #1; if they were truly tanking, they'd have finished dead last). You also know the Blues are just a couple players away from the playoffs and should take whatever means possible to field a playoff-bound team, ignoring the reality of simple things like the desire for ownership to make a profit and the fact that there's still little depth in the farm system should the team have to deal with injuries like they had this year.
Why not, IB?
Why should the Blues have come into this season with the expectation of competing for a playoff spot? Why should they not be able to put together a competitive team for next season?
Do you think that a team has to suck for 5 years before pulling themselves up? I don't. I mean, it can happen. But I think that reflects rather poorly on management, don't you?
Don't you think that with Tkacuck and Brewer and Jackman and some others that are some pretty good players in the fold for next season? And that a few good signings could push the team up in the standings to the point where they could become competitive next season?
And if that's the case, does it really even matter if the team gets Phil Kessel or Eric Johnson?
Regarding the Pens, until this season, the team has made no effort for years to ice a competitive team.
And I'm not saying teams are tanking ONLY to get the first round pick. But I am sure that some teams are considering when they chop their rosters down to AHL scrubs at the deadline.
So like I said, it's not worth it for me (and probably anyone else) to try and have a discussion with you, because you're not about to let any fact get in the way of your misguided opinions.
Congrats. You win.
Weak. This shouldn't be about winning or losing. This should be about trying to answer each other's argument.
Maybe we come to agreement. Maybe we don't.
But I can not believe that you think my proposal is so bloody revolutionary.
I am not saying that a Stanley Cup winner or President's trophy winner ought to have an equal shot at the first pick in the draft.
Not at all.
And that's what you guys continue to say I am saying.
I think it's fair to say that the salary cap has changed the way talent will be distributed in the league.
Top teams near the cap are going to find it next to impossible to keep their squads together.
Ottawa has basically developed Chara and Redden and will lose one of them on the market (maybe to the Blues, who knows?) because of a new NHL talent distribution policy.
Bottom teams are not going to have to spend as much money to get UFAs under the cap and will find it easier to rebuild than they once did.
On the other side of the equation, we have the NHL entry draft policy.
Why not tweak that just a little bit, recognizing that top teams are less likely to continue having top teams the next year, and give all teams some (even if it's 1/1000) to get a chance at a high pick.
The bottom teams will still have a far greater chance at the high pick.
But it won't be guaranteed.
Two by products being 1) Less incentive to finish out of the running, and trade away good players at the deadline.
2) A more exciting and marketable draft lottery.
As I said, there's nothing else to discuss because you're not about to let common sense and logic interfere with your own opinion.
