2005 Draft Rumor

Status
Not open for further replies.

thrash27

Registered User
Sep 14, 2004
44
0
People stop complainig if your team made the playoffs. If there was a season you probly eouldent get it either. I think to make it more fair is that they have a lottery for all the non playoff teams to get the number one pick. Then all the playoff teams have a lottery. I think it is fair to all teams since the playoff teams from last year would probly not get a first round pick if there was a real season. The only teams that benifit more than other teams are Florida and Atlanta and maybe two others since they would have bin in the playoffs or very close if there was a season.
 

Jacob

as seen on TV
Feb 27, 2002
49,342
24,741
#66 said:
I just hate this. It's just the Pens luck to miss out on AO and Crosby. :madfire: :mad: :banghead: :cry:
Face it, if there was going to be an NHL season, the Penguins probably wouldn't have finished low enough to have a shot at the lottery.

I like this draft strategy. It ensures the Penguins at least their choice of Brule/Johnson. The only thing I don't like is the prospects of Atlanta getting Crosby. That wouldn't be the best choice from a marketing standpoint.
 

Bruins4Ever

Registered User
Sep 12, 2004
5,247
0
Caledonia, Ontario
For the last time, he's not going to a nobody team. If the NHL wants to improve ratings, he's going to a big time hockey town, one of the Original Six would be best. They don't want to stick him in a place like Carolina, they need a Gretzky style player to market, and it won't work in a place which doesn't care about hockey. If anything, he's going to one of the better teams so they can market him. Even if he does go to a team like Carolina, or Anaheim, a big team (Colorado, Detroit, Toronto) is going to offer him a 7-10 million dollar a year deal that he won't be able to refuse.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
theBob said:
Hawk fans get screwed once again...

Hawks should be 2nd on that list and the Caps way back down where they were before they won the lottery. A lottery on a lottery is whacked.
 

roast

Registered User
Mar 3, 2004
858
0
Pittsburgh
In fairness to the rest of the league as far as the pens are concerned, assuming everyone was healthy, the pens would not have finished bottom 10, and may have even been a fringe playoff team in the East. Adding Recchi with a healthy mario, malone, kraft playing like he was, priejta, etc, they would have played acceptable hockey. If I had my choice to see where he goes, it would of course be the penguins or habs.
 

stanley

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,587
0
Westcoasthabsfan said:
I have heard that they may all become free agents as well...
I can't see a scenario in which the owners cry poverty and then willingly enter into a situation like this in which player values will increase over their actual worth. Furthermore, when we finally figure out the type of self-imposed salary restrictions the bargaining agreement will include (such as a cap), I'd guess that the veteran members of the Union would be against having a free agent market in which they had to compete for limited money against 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old players.

I realize that you're just the messenger for this idea, WCHF.
 

stanley

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,587
0
Bruins4Ever said:
For the last time, he's not going to a nobody team. If the NHL wants to improve ratings, he's going to a big time hockey town, one of the Original Six would be best.
The NHL could also hand out Golden Globes instead of the Stanley Cup if it really wanted to improve its ratings. Maybe they could just hire Vince McMahon and be done with any attempts at competitive balance. I'm not sure what you're getting at, B4, but if I should take your comments literally, consider me a little in the dark regarding your logic. Am I reading you correctly? I mean this in a friendly way.

I think Jocus's idea by far takes the cake here. I'm not sure if it would work, but it's an attempt at employing an objective and not subjective method of drafting in this circumstance. I think it's an improvement over the method discussed by MacLean. Fairness, ratings, feelings, and other such pseudo-justifications are subjective by nature. What's fair to one is unfair to another. Why not seek to eliminate these subjective factors as much as possible? Is Phoenix really the fifth worst team in the NHL? Should Carolina benefit because they traded veterans for young players and an overall poorer record in the short-term? Should the Rangers benefit from making poor financal and personnel moves over the past half-dozen years? Is won-lost record the best method to evaluate the most "fair" drafting positions?

I think an important distinction should be made between subjectivity and objectivity. I'm not talking about a system where we completely remove subjectivity. With nothing more than objectivity (e.g., statistics), Patrick O'Sullivan would have been a middle first-round pick at the latest and Jeff Carter late in the first round. Subjectivity has its place, but it has so crowded out objectivity that the only people who appreciate it are those who have figured out that it is the albatross around the necks of too many scouts, analysts, and organizations.

Back to the draft-specific discussion: Subjectivity has a place during the development of a drafting system - and one that need not be employed just in the event of a continued strike but under all conditions. I'm thinking of an analytical method where an organization's trend is numerically determined. One where many aspects of an organization are evaluated with the overall goal of assigning value. Developing this method of quantifying a team's standing over a longer period of time than just last season seems like a worthwhile exercise. More data equals better results. I might be expanding a little on your post, but in general, great twist on the idea, Jocus.

You can find this theme of mine in any post regarding HF's organizational rankings. The emperor is a really nice guy and I'm glad he's around, but nevertheless, he still has no clothes. We need better methods of evaluating teams and players.
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,141
3,678
There's no way they can get a good way to do this, but this is a decent way, with one stipulation...

As long as whoever wins the lotto of the bottom ten moves all the way to the top, and then everyone else bumps down one like they do in normal drafts. I absolutely detest the idea of ranking everybody by a lotto, so that the teams like Pittsburgh and Washington and Chicago could end up with the #9 or #10 pick.

It might be more fair if they broke it up into two groups, the playoff and non playoff teams. Maybe make it so that you move up 10 spots, so that if 14 won, they'd move up to 4 and still get a good pick.

I'm really hoping against hope that they play a half season. Not just because I really want hockey back, but the last thing they need is a mess with a draft.
 

Fighter

Registered User
Jan 1, 2004
11,687
902
Trieste, Italy
Bruins4Ever said:
For the last time, he's not going to a nobody team. If the NHL wants to improve ratings, he's going to a big time hockey town, one of the Original Six would be best. They don't want to stick him in a place like Carolina, they need a Gretzky style player to market, and it won't work in a place which doesn't care about hockey. If anything, he's going to one of the better teams so they can market him. Even if he does go to a team like Carolina, or Anaheim, a big team (Colorado, Detroit, Toronto) is going to offer him a 7-10 million dollar a year deal that he won't be able to refuse.

Maybe the Bruins, right? :lol:

Anaheim is well capable to offer Crosby not only a star contract but also a nice place to live, warm weather, cool chicks, Hollywood and... free entry to Disneyland! :joker:
Personally I like this idea, or I just hate the idea of waiting two years for a new draft :banghead:
 

KH1

Registered User
I think that this is a dumb idea, and would prefer each team having a weighted lottery amongst all teams in the league. As somebody above said, it's ridiculous that LA could easily move down to 20 but can't move up while Atlanta could easily move up to #1 but can't move down.

A weighted lottery amongst all of the teams in the league still gives the mediocre the best chance at top picks, but also makes it fair to mid-level teams.
 

neophool*

Guest
horrible idea

Horrible idea, it'll never happen.

No season= no way to judge how teams played. So you HAVE to take the last time they played. I don't care if the worst team in the league signed 12 all stars in the offseason, they didn't play, and no one knows how the standings would be.

Gotta keep the same draft order, and re-do the lottery. Drafts go by the last season's standings. Last season was LAST season.

Or just simulate the season with NHL 2k5 on Xbox or PS2!
 

King'sPawn

Enjoy the chaos
Jul 1, 2003
21,813
20,607
neophool said:
Horrible idea, it'll never happen.

No season= no way to judge how teams played. So you HAVE to take the last time they played. I don't care if the worst team in the league signed 12 all stars in the offseason, they didn't play, and no one knows how the standings would be.

Gotta keep the same draft order, and re-do the lottery. Drafts go by the last season's standings. Last season was LAST season.

Or just simulate the season with NHL 2k5 on Xbox or PS2!

I just don't think it should be redone. Other teams should have some chance of getting the first pick. I have a few different ideas:

Two tiers: non-playoff and playoff. Randmize both tiers...
Pro - Teams that we could reasonably expect not to make the playoffs would get a high pick.
Con - Teams that just barely made the playoffs (i.e. Nashville) get screwed, and have nowhere to go but down in the draft.

Randomize the draft, except each team can only move up or down 5 spots. In other words, Pittsburgh can get anywhere from 1-6, Chicago from 1-7, Washington from 1-8, Columbus from 1-9, Phoenix from 1-10, New York from 1-11, Florida from 2-12, Carolina from 3-13, etc.
Pro - Every team takes an equal risk of moving up or down, no bottom of the barrel team can drop down too far, and no top of the line team can rise up too far.
Con - You still have only a few teams with a chance to get the high picks.

Those are my two ideas.

As a Kings fan, I would just like a decent chance at a high pick. I'm not asking for the first overall, but I'm not too keen on dropping down 9 spots with a chance to rise 1 spot.
 

Barnaby

Registered User
Jul 2, 2003
8,650
3,414
Port Jefferson, NY
Vlad The Impaler said:
But there is no season, and no playoffs. If there is no season, every team needs to have an equal shot.

I can't agree with that because 22 teams that wouldn't have a shot at the lottery now have an equal chance as your Rangers, Hawks, etc... That's just not good for this 'competative balance.'
 

Barnaby

Registered User
Jul 2, 2003
8,650
3,414
Port Jefferson, NY
Sparepart said:
Why should a team like Washington with a deeper pool then Montreal have a better chance at Crosby? Or many other bottom-10 teams with deep prospect pools? This argument makes little sense.

Because draft slots are not decided by the quality of your prospect pool. It's decided by the quality of your team. Hence your Lightning and Sens become contenders after years of suffering embarassing losses. If it had anything to do with the quality of a prospect pool then teams like Dallas and Detroit would be in the lottery instead fof at 25-30. That has nothing to do with the concept of a draft in any sport that I know of.

I'm not saying that this system is the best choice, but that you just can't give all 30 teams an equal shot.

If there in no season this year then after next season I would hold two drafts a month apart from each other. Just do the lottery picks once for each draft.
 

RockLobster

King in the North
Jul 5, 2003
27,092
7,234
Kansas
neophool said:
Horrible idea, it'll never happen.

No season= no way to judge how teams played. So you HAVE to take the last time they played. I don't care if the worst team in the league signed 12 all stars in the offseason, they didn't play, and no one knows how the standings would be.

Gotta keep the same draft order, and re-do the lottery. Drafts go by the last season's standings. Last season was LAST season.

Or just simulate the season with NHL 2k5 on Xbox or PS2!

You are the one with the horrible idea.

Who is to say that teams like Tampa Bay or Detroit or any other powerhouse would start out very well only to have some of their star players take some sick injuries and then therefore suck the rest of the season...and then get first in the draft *if there was an 04-05 season*

The only fair thing would be to have a all-in lottery. Injuries can happen to the best players and great playoff teams...just look at the LA Kings. Deadmarsh and Allison have some pretty serious injuries, and have now missed the playoffs because of it.
 

Panopticon

Registered User
Apr 20, 2004
4,940
0
Helsinki
They should have two hats, other filled with players names and the other with teams. First you pull a team and then you let them "pick their own player" from the other hat. Now that would be entertaining to watch.
 

KallioWeHardlyKnewYe

Hey! We won!
May 30, 2003
15,509
3,331
stanley said:
Back to the draft-specific discussion: Subjectivity has a place during the development of a drafting system - and one that need not be employed just in the event of a continued strike but under all conditions. I'm thinking of an analytical method where an organization's trend is numerically determined. One where many aspects of an organization are evaluated with the overall goal of assigning value. Developing this method of quantifying a team's standing over a longer period of time than just last season seems like a worthwhile exercise. More data equals better results. I might be expanding a little on your post, but in general, great twist on the idea, Jocus.

I'm in full support of something like this. The baseline rankings of teams should be determined by more than last year's standings alone. Some deeper, more accurate analysis taking into account recent history and possibly other factors seems like the no-brainer way to start.

The next question is -- where does it go from there?
I've already written in support of this idea, but the Atlanta-LA example is an extremely valid point, which makes me reconsider my opinion.

I do feel strongly about this -- consistently bad teams should have the best chance for the top picks (Crosby's great, but this draft isn't just about him. There are a few other good players high in it.), while consistently good teams should not. I can't see anything that will make me change my mind about that. But, where do you draw the line? what do you do with the middle?
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Bottom Line:

You suffer through a crappy season (or in my Pen's case several) you get rewarded with some talent and hope for the future in a high draft pick. The fact that some teams may end up with two years of high draft picks does not change the fact that we suffered for it and earned it.

The ones who have argued that their (mostly) perenial playoff teams want a chance, an unearned chance, at a high draft pick now is pure selfishness. If those of us who have suffered through some god awful hockey for the past few years get a very slight advantage by this (and it is slight, my Pens would be competing for this last pick if there had been a season) well, friggin' boo hoo.
 

Go Flames Go*

Guest
This is a unfair system just because a team sucked one year dosent mean they will suck the next, hell we missed the playoffs for 7 seasons and we almost ended up with the 30th overall pick.

All teams should be put into a equall lottery system, and then reverse it for each round.
 

leafaholix*

Guest
A team that this would mess up is Boston.

The finished pretty high last season and due to poor management (owner?), they will likely fall a long way... and deserve a higher draft pick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->