I guess in your world, even if not one game was played in 2004/2005, we should reward the inept organizations, like the one you probably root for! And if I'm the GM of one of the teams you mentioned, I fight tooth and nail to have a 30 team lottery. p.s. You forgot to mention New Jersey with the others.
2005 Draft Discussion
- Thread starter Jaded-Fan
- Start date
- Status
DARKSIDE said:
How can you honestly believe this?
I would comment but Jaded-Fan summed it up completely. One thing I would add is try to take step back and look at this thing from an overall standpoint and be objective.
Top Shelf said:How can you honestly believe this?
I would comment but Jaded-Fan summed it up completely. One thing I would add is try to take step back and look at this thing from an overall standpoint and be objective.
Sorry, but I truly believe that there should be a straight 30 team lottery and reverse the draft order the next round, etc. As for rewarding winning teams, "The Hockey News Editor - Jason Kay" wrote an article about changing the whole draft system under a new CBA. Maybe you should take a step back as Blue-Jacket fan. I'll say it again, there was no season, so, no team should be rewarded, especially, teams that have been dreadful over the last several year's! Hey, what's the problem anyway, I'm a Devils fan and if Philly gets the first pick, so be it, just as long has every team had a fair chance. I can live with, so should you fans of the Caps, Hurricanes and Blue-Jackets!
DARKSIDE said:
Go ahead and continue to live in your dreamworld if you want but I'll break the news to you early - there is no chance your "fair" system will be implemented..
Top Shelf said:
Well, just has along as the Blue-Jackets don't get to pick in the top five, I'll be happy!
DARKSIDE said:
...You see....there you go again with your silly posts...picking in the bottom five is not a good thing! I would be happy as hell if the Blue Jackets (no dash in their chief) were not picking in the bottom five. You know why - because that would mean my team has been w-i-n-n-i-n-g recently - and that my misguided friend, is the ultimate goal here.
...but as it stands now, we are in a pretty decent position for this draft (whenever it may be) and I won't apologize for that b/c our first four years of existence have been pretty dismal on the ice... The draft is in place to reward teams that have struggled on the ice and unfortunately we fit that profile no matter how you want to spin it.
One thing I do know is that I would trade whatever pick we end up with this year in a nano-second for half the success that the Devils, Avs, Leafs (even without a cup), etc have seen over the past decade.
One question to those of you who feel the draft should be based on previous success.
How do you justify your position in saying the draft should be based on previous success, then many times the same people go on to say teams like Washington, Pittsburgh, etc... need players like Sidney Crosby even when it's evident that those teams have better futures than a Toronto or Colorado with the hard cap in effect?
This coming in a time where you're also limiting the Toronto's and Colorado's to a certain amount in terms of what they can spend to have that success they've had in the past, the same success that would drop them in the draft in which you prefer, a weighted draft with better odds to the less successful organizations.
You limit opportunity to have success the way they have had it in previous years, with a larger payroll... and you go on to say that the teams not in the same situation (Washington, Pittsburgh, Anaheim, etc) should also get first dibs in the draft as well as their desired hard cap.
Am I wrong, or is this another "have your cake and eat it too" situation?
How do you justify your position in saying the draft should be based on previous success, then many times the same people go on to say teams like Washington, Pittsburgh, etc... need players like Sidney Crosby even when it's evident that those teams have better futures than a Toronto or Colorado with the hard cap in effect?
This coming in a time where you're also limiting the Toronto's and Colorado's to a certain amount in terms of what they can spend to have that success they've had in the past, the same success that would drop them in the draft in which you prefer, a weighted draft with better odds to the less successful organizations.
You limit opportunity to have success the way they have had it in previous years, with a larger payroll... and you go on to say that the teams not in the same situation (Washington, Pittsburgh, Anaheim, etc) should also get first dibs in the draft as well as their desired hard cap.
Am I wrong, or is this another "have your cake and eat it too" situation?
Fozz
Registered User
Carl O'Steen said:
I think teams like Colorado and Detroit have already had their cake and hate too much of it! (well, Toronto and NY too but they have nothing to show for it)
So you're saying they should define the draft order based on how much money teams have to cut in salaries to meet the cap? The same teams that created this mess to start with?
As far as I know, the draft order has always been determined by previous success. Why would that change this time? Because there wasn't a season this year? I don't think the standings would have been much different then last year anyways.
Carl O'Steen said:
Well put. And that's the other point, even the Devils, which have lost money and are far from a big market team would have jumped at $49 million dollar cap and 24% roll back. Seems like certain teams and I won't use the term "small market teams" because you can include Boston and Chicago, but a group of teams that aren't very successful want to make all terms on how the league is run. Again, when comes to the upcoming draft, I hope guy's like Clark and P.L. have a lot of in-put!
Fozz said:
Can't diagree with you more. Did you think that the Flames would make it to the finals or evenTampa winning the cup, of course not, you figured the Sens or Avs and maybe the Flyers would go all the way. Or go back a few year's when the Canes went to the finals or the Wild made it to the semis. Who's to say that Atlanta wouldn't have made the playoffs or Chicago. And aren't the Panthers loaded with blue chip prospects. I rest my case.
nomorekids
The original, baby
DARKSIDE said:
That's because those teams were, aside from "lucky" years, under the heel of the massive, italian leather loafer of the big market teams. Those teams were typically bad, and were rewarded with good picks. They had an unusual good season, and draft position suffered for it. Meanwhile, the Avs, Flyers, Leafs...make the playoffs every year, and have the money to ensure that this will continue. You don't need first overall picks to ice a competitive team...you can go out and spend to do that.
Just calm down, and follow the routine. One day, Crosby will be a 31 year old UFA, and you'll be able to sign him just like always. You can "rest your case," but it's rather weak, at this point.
nomorekids said:
I'm a Devils fan and our Italian shoe maker, builds successful teams, not buys them!
Fozz
Registered User
DARKSIDE said:
The draft order is determined by the regular season, not by how lucky a team gets in the playoffs (except for the cup winner).
DARKSIDE said:
If the Devils can't put fans in the seats by winning Stanley Cups, then Crosby won't help.
The argument that poor, weak, small-market teams are somehow in better position to succeed is utterly bogus. The new landscape may favor teams with great scouting, but the big markets will always have clout and it'll take at least a few years to see the "new NHL" evolve.
If Washington, or even Pittsburgh is duped out of their rightful shot at the #1 then fans should be more than irritated IMO. There's no way to quantify that they've improved. The tiered-drafting is right on to me, even if that gives the Rangers a shot at Sidney.
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
Two points:
1. The 2005 draft would have been based on results from the 2004-5 season, if it had taken place. If some of the traditional powerhouses may have to lose a player or two, I doubt it as by next year only soemthing like 288 players will be under contract, something like 144 the year after, but let us say for argument sake the powerhouses will become meek. They will be rewarded for that NEXT draft, as is appropriate. If there had been a 2004-5 season they still would have had gazillion dollar payrolls and very very powerful teams. So can we remove the red herring of what the new CBA may do to this team or that from the table? It never should have been there in the first place as we are reconstructing what may have happened 2004-5.
2. Does anyone in their right mind actually believe that whatever system is chosen will allow any of the teams that finished in the top ten of the 2004 season to pick in the top ten of this upcoming draft? The system will look to the past, either one year or more than one, likely the 2004 season though, and will be weighted in some way. Bank on it, though if some of you want to fantasize, be my guest. Deep down you know it is just that though, merely a fantasy.
1. The 2005 draft would have been based on results from the 2004-5 season, if it had taken place. If some of the traditional powerhouses may have to lose a player or two, I doubt it as by next year only soemthing like 288 players will be under contract, something like 144 the year after, but let us say for argument sake the powerhouses will become meek. They will be rewarded for that NEXT draft, as is appropriate. If there had been a 2004-5 season they still would have had gazillion dollar payrolls and very very powerful teams. So can we remove the red herring of what the new CBA may do to this team or that from the table? It never should have been there in the first place as we are reconstructing what may have happened 2004-5.
2. Does anyone in their right mind actually believe that whatever system is chosen will allow any of the teams that finished in the top ten of the 2004 season to pick in the top ten of this upcoming draft? The system will look to the past, either one year or more than one, likely the 2004 season though, and will be weighted in some way. Bank on it, though if some of you want to fantasize, be my guest. Deep down you know it is just that though, merely a fantasy.
EroCaps said:
I see your from Virginia, makes sense now, if you’re from the western part that makes you a Pittsburgh fan, from Eastern part a Washington fan. Did you ever consider Carolina getting the first pick, since their organization is in much worse shape then any other, regardless of Staal and Ladd. Of course not, your just as selfish as I am! If there two teams I don't want to see get the first pick, it's Washington and Pittsburgh! And there are a lot of people on this board who feel the same.
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
The NHL has used the regular season standings of the last season played to determine the draft order of teams for awhile now, right? Why would they change that now? Certainly not becuase HYPOTHETICALLY some teams MAY have done better or MAY have done worse than last season, had a season actually been played this year. That is rediculous. Who is to say that every single team in the league wouldn't have finished in the exact same spot, or that the order may not have been flipped entirely from 1-30? The only fair way to determine the draft order this summer is to use the standings of the last season played, and obviously, redo the lottery.
At the moment, it looks like the NHL will be using replacement players. That means no CBA and no June Draft. So, here's the question, is it fair to use the records from a replacement league for a combined draft in June 2006? Because, that's what it looks like is going to happen.
rt said:
I disagree w/the 5 season based lottery as well. Just another arbitrary method to ameliorate teams w/out a shot at a high pick. 5 seasons ago teams like Washington and Pittsburgh were playoff contenders and now they're struggling to finish out of the bottom 3. It's more than likely that last season's standings are more fair a gauge than any hypothetical ranking. To take them totally out of the equation seems totally unreasonable IMO. That's why I'm for the tiered-lottery. But we'll see.
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
Another thing I can't understand is people who seem to think that a team DESERVES or doesn't DESERVE a certain draft spot. Washington won the lottery last offseason fair and square. If they win it again this offseason, then great for them. I can't understand all of the whining and griping about it. If your favorite team had as good of luck as them during a terrible time, I don't think you would say it was unfair.
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
Flames continue assault on win column as simulated NHL season nears end
By NEIL DAVIDSON
(CP) - Martin Gelinas and Jarome Iginla lifted the Calgary Flames to four wins in as many games over the week in The Canadian Press' simulated NHL season.
The Flames (49-18-8, 106 points) now have as many wins as the Nashville Predators (19-44-11, 49 points) have points.
Calgary is eight points clear of its nearest challengers: Detroit (44-20-10, 98 points) and St. Louis (43-19-12, 98 points). Ottawa (42-24-10, 94 points) is fourth, ahead of Vancouver (37-22-16, 90 points) and Colorado (40-25-9, 89 points).
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2004/11/02/697679-cp.html
But where is Pittsburgh? Washington? Nashville? Phoenix? Chicago? Didn't some of you say that all teams should have a chance at the first pick because 'who knows what could happen?' Seems that the simulations did not factor in Chicago winning the cup did they? Admittedly simulated seasons are not entirely reliable, but it does prove the point . . . any way you cut it, had there been a season last year we all know pretty well where 99% of the teams would have fallen within five or so slots, don't we?
By NEIL DAVIDSON
(CP) - Martin Gelinas and Jarome Iginla lifted the Calgary Flames to four wins in as many games over the week in The Canadian Press' simulated NHL season.
The Flames (49-18-8, 106 points) now have as many wins as the Nashville Predators (19-44-11, 49 points) have points.
Calgary is eight points clear of its nearest challengers: Detroit (44-20-10, 98 points) and St. Louis (43-19-12, 98 points). Ottawa (42-24-10, 94 points) is fourth, ahead of Vancouver (37-22-16, 90 points) and Colorado (40-25-9, 89 points).
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2004/11/02/697679-cp.html
But where is Pittsburgh? Washington? Nashville? Phoenix? Chicago? Didn't some of you say that all teams should have a chance at the first pick because 'who knows what could happen?' Seems that the simulations did not factor in Chicago winning the cup did they? Admittedly simulated seasons are not entirely reliable, but it does prove the point . . . any way you cut it, had there been a season last year we all know pretty well where 99% of the teams would have fallen within five or so slots, don't we?
Jaded-Fan said:
Simulations huh. Well thank goodness that reports indicate that the NHL has cancelled the June draft. And if the NHL is smart, they'll raise draft eligibility to 19 and have an actually season decide who picks first, second, etc. The way it should be!
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
DARKSIDE said:
Link? Everything that I have seen has implied or outright said the opposite.
Edit Just saw the article and you did not quote all of it. It merely said that the league was contemplating calling off the formal draft in Ottawa. Read further, it does not say what you say it does:
An alternative to the formal draft is being considered. It's believed the league would conduct an electronic selection process either over the internet, a mass teleconference call, or a combination of both
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp;jsessionid=PKAMDNJLJOGE?content=20050323_182442_5636
Last edited:
- Status
