2005 Draft Rumor

Status
Not open for further replies.

oilers_guy_eddie

Playoffs? PLAYOFFS!?
Feb 27, 2002
11,094
0
This is Oil Country!
Visit site
Barnaby said:
This whole deal is about other teams fans eyes getting big over the idea of having a shot at Crosby. It's a nice thought, but its not realistic.

First off, no system that gets introduced is going to give my favorite team a chance at Crosby, so I'm not particularly worried about it.

I'm pretty annoyed at the colossal stupidity of this "three tiered" lottery idea, which punishes the weakest teams in each bracket, while giving a huge, ridiculous, and undeserved advantage to the teams lucky enough to be at the bottom half of each bracket.

(example: the Black Hawks will have a 1 in 10 chance of improving their draft position, but an 8 in 10 chance of coming out worse. The Thrashers, on the other hand, can't lose anything, and a 9 in 10 chance of benefitting. I eagerly await the boosters of this idea to come out and explain how this makes sense. Come on, boosters, I dare ya.)


Barnaby said:
How do you think drafts work in EVERY sport?

Well, from what I'm reading, at least the NBA has the sense to lottery the top 3 picks... which is a huge improvement over the NHL's sad little one draw lottery.

Barnaby said:
The worst teams get something to look forward too as the best teams are successful. What do you propose? Every team gets an equal shot every year? Now theres an idea... The same teams will probably be on top for 15 plus years while your Pens, Hawks, etc... will struggle for 20 years to hit .500. Can you explain how this is good for the game? Please? If your a Hawks fan and your team loses 65 games what would you get at the end of the year? You could potentially pick 25th as the Stanley Cup winners pick 20 slots ahead of you.

Where did I propose every team getting an equal shot? Go back and find where I said that.

While you're going back, why don't you re-read what I DID propose, which is that the 6 top six picks should all be lotteried among the 6 worst teams.
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
Leaf the Lucky said:
Wouldn't it make more sense just to have a weighted lottery system like they normally would but include all 30 teams?

I agree with this. There is simply no way to tell who is lottery-worthy unless games are played on the ice. Therefore, all 30 teams have to be included in some manner. I'd have it weighted, with the Lightning (Cup champions) weighted 30th, the Red Wings 29th (best record overall), all the way up to Pittsburgh at 1 (worst record in 2003-04).
 

oilers_guy_eddie

Playoffs? PLAYOFFS!?
Feb 27, 2002
11,094
0
This is Oil Country!
Visit site
rt said:
I don't believe anything like that has ever really happened, and I don't think it will. Mangement, coaches, and players like to win games.

Players would not throw games. Players have pride, hate to lose, and have their own individual targets to play for, whether it's a performance incentive, earning a spot on next year's team, or getting Tang after the game.

The organization, on the other hand, I'm not as convinced. It's widely believed, for instance, that the Penguins tried to finish last so they could draft Mario Lemieux. Other examples have been mentioned in this thread where we can seriously ask whether an organization was trying to lose games. You can't make the players try to lose games, but you can certainly hurt your chances of winning by trading away key players and dressing a weaker lineup.



Whether it happens or not, people widely believe it has happened and does happen. It can't be proven either way. So it brings into question the integrity of competition. So what's the answer? Remove the incentive to lose, as much as possible.
 

bleedgreen

Registered User
Dec 8, 2003
23,740
38,207
colorado
Visit site
rt said:
I don't believe anything like that has ever really happened, and I don't think it will. Mangement, coaches, and players like to win games.
the reason we have a lottery in the first place is because the sens were caught putting inferior (well, more inferior than usual at the time) teams on the ice to insure picking daigle (life's ironies are so sweet sometimes). point is, it has happened - you cant say it wouldnt happen again. eddies right, its not the players throwing, its management helping them lose.
 

Vic Rattlehead*

Guest
Carl O'Steen said:
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.
Considering they let many of their players go due to the lockout looming, if there were no CBA issues, management would have kept some of those players. The owner was prepared for the lockout and didn't want to be stuck with many contracts.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Coffey77 said:
I definitely don't want the same draft order from 2004. IMO, Washington was already awarded for tanking that year.

Did a couple of teams tank the season and sell off their players (as well as play their fourth team goaltender down the stretch)? Yup, the Caps and Rags definately did just that. But most of the teams who ended up last during last season got there legitimately and sucked all year. Besides, if the Rags and Caps planned ahead and acted strategically to position themselves for the possibility of drafting high twice, why hammer them for it? With the strike looming it was simply the smart thing to do if you had little chance to win it all, not only positioning for the draft but shedding salaries for a coming Cap. They wisely rolled the dice and won, why is that bad?
 

Coffey77

Registered User
Mar 12, 2002
3,340
0
Visit site
Jaded-Fan said:
Did a couple of teams tank the season and sell off their players (as well as play their fourth team goaltender down the stretch)? Yup, the Caps and Rags definately did just that. But most of the teams who ended up last during last season got there legitimately and sucked all year. Besides, if the Rags and Caps planned ahead and acted strategically to position themselves for the possibility of drafting high twice, why hammer them for it? With the strike looming it was simply the smart thing to do if you had little chance to win it all, not only positioning for the draft but shedding salaries for a coming Cap. They wisely rolled the dice and won, why is that bad?

The Capitals were already rewarded for sucking last year, they got Ovechkin. If the same draft order were there again they would get Crosby too. The Capitals did terribly one year and got Ovechkin. They shouldn't get rewarded twice for being bad one year.

Mind you, if there was a season this year they probably wouldn't do very well but it doesn't look like we'll find out.
 

Kaiped Krusader

Registered User
Jul 1, 2004
248
0
Rylan up the Opposition
Jaded-Fan said:
Besides, if the Rags and Caps planned ahead and acted strategically to position themselves for the possibility of drafting high twice, why hammer them for it? With the strike looming it was simply the smart thing to do if you had little chance to win it all, not only positioning for the draft but shedding salaries for a coming Cap. They wisely rolled the dice and won, why is that bad?
So you think organizations that try to tank in order to get themselves high draft picks should be rewarded?! What if it were proven that the Caps management really did make decisions down the stretch with the intention of losing games so they could get a shot at Ovechkin? I don't think they did that but if it were proven they did, would you still be in favor of letting them pick first again?

Personally, I think if the season is called off later this month, there won't be a draft simply because negotiations will halt until next September or October. There's nothing to be gained by either side by negotiating in March, April, May, etc. The sitting around and waiting is a game of brinksmanship and once this season is toast neither side will approach the other until the eleventh hour for next season.

In the odd event there was a draft this summer, I'd like to see all teams have at least a shot at getting Crosby. Bad teams would have a higher percentage chance, but teams like Tampa, Detroit, and the rest should have like a 1% shot at getting their names called. I'd base percentages of winning the lottery on teams' '04 records, but the entire draft order would be based on a lottery, not just the top pick. I think the NBA has a system like this.

I like the NHL's usual system, but in a year where there's no season it seems unfair to give high picks to the same teams two years in a row. A bad team can become good, or at least mediocre, in any given year and a good team one season can crash and burn the next. I'm sure some kind of system can be set up where teams that were bad in '04 have a better percentage chance at picking top-five or top-ten than teams that were good but that this shouldn't be guaranteed. In other words, Pittsburgh should have maybe a 10% chance at #1 and an 85% chance at staying in the top ten; Washington should get an 8% chance at #1 and an 80% chance at staying in the top 10; and so on. On the other end, Tampa should have a 1% chance at getting the first pick, a 5% chance at landing in the top ten and an 85% chance of staying in the bottom ten. Or something like that.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Kaiped Krusader said:
On the other end, Tampa should have a 1% chance at getting the first pick, a 5% chance at landing in the top ten and an 85% chance of staying in the bottom ten. Or something like that.


And so the Stanley Cup winner gets a chance at Crosby? While the worst team in the league has a 20% chance of falling out of the top ten? How far? All the way to 30, even if only a 1% chance? How is this fair no matter how small the chance either way?

If TB, or your beloved Detroit (who this scenerio is all about, admit it, you love having all the best players year in and year out and can not stand any system that does not give you Crosby) were to win Crosby there would be a huge outcry.

No system can be made 100% 'fair' given that there is likely to b e no season. But you can certainly choose 'flawed' over 'idiotic.' There are gradations of bad, and those who have benefitted for years in the last system sound awfully piggish to whine over this.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Coffey77 said:
The Capitals were already rewarded for sucking last year, they got Ovechkin. If the same draft order were there again they would get Crosby too. The Capitals did terribly one year and got Ovechkin. They shouldn't get rewarded twice for being bad one year.

Mind you, if there was a season this year they probably wouldn't do very well but it doesn't look like we'll find out.


Under the old system the Caps had only something like an 8% chance at AO. They lucked out big time. Sure, they might luck out again, but it seems to be pretty unlikely.

The Pens, however, who ended up last, have sucked and been in the bottom three, and in fact last overall last year for almost (if not) the entire year. Chicago sucked pretty consistently as well. There are your bottom two. And neither has any realistic chance of being much better had there been hockey this year.

So ,ok the Caps jimmied the system a bit, and now if the old system is used they have an 8% chance to strike gold twice. The Rags did the same and have something like a 6% chance of striking it once. Hell, what did the Rags do with the pick last time? People are already shaking their head and saying that they picked the wrong player in Montoya. I will live with those odds.
 
Last edited:

stanley

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,587
0
19bruins19 said:
Considering they let many of their players go due to the lockout looming, if there were no CBA issues, management would have kept some of those players. The owner was prepared for the lockout and didn't want to be stuck with many contracts.
Over the past ten years, Jacobs, Sinden, and O'Connell have been in agreement on how to run a franchise: keep it in the black. The primary way they've done this is by avoiding long-term contracts. They've paid players like Bill Guerin high annual salaries, but avoided anything that would cause them financial inflexibility. I used to be a big critic of how they did business; now I've come to believe that they and the Devils (and maybe to a lesser degree, the Oilers, although in their case it has been more out of necessity) were ahead of the curve.

You obviously follow the team. This wasn't the first year that they walked away from veterans with expiring contracts. Maybe I should stop by and have a few Manhattans with Harry at the 21st Amendment. I'd like to apologize personally and hear his Seven-Percenter story while I was at it.
 

Kaiped Krusader

Registered User
Jul 1, 2004
248
0
Rylan up the Opposition
Jaded-Fan said:
And so the Stanley Cup winner gets a chance at Crosby? While the worst team in the league has a 20% chance of falling out of the top ten? How far? All the way to 30, even if only a 1% chance? How is this fair no matter how small the chance either way?
It's fair for the reason I gave in my post - because from one season to the next a handful of bad teams will become mediocre, mediocre teams will turn bad or good, and good teams will turn mediocre or even bad. Since there's no season, there's no way to be sure that Pittsburgh would be The Living Embodiment of Suck in '05 like they were in '04. There would be a small chance they fall out of the top ten, but more than likely they would still get a good pick. The system I proposed takes that into account and it also makes it less likely that a team will get Ovechkin and Crosby than in a system where the previous draft order is just reused with a new lottery. To me, that seems more unfair than the system I proposed. Teams shouldn't be rewarded twice at the draft for having one bad season. If it makes you happy, I'd be fine with a draft where a team could fall no more than 15 spots or something like that. I haven't exactly sat down and planned this all out, you know.

And keep in mind that in any given year, the best chance a team has of picking first overall is about 48% anyways. Even if a team went 4-72-6 in a hypothetical 2004-'05 season, the best chance they'd have of getting Sidney Crosby would still be under 50-50. The percentage for the second-worst team goes way down. I think it's something like 13%.

If TB, or your beloved Detroit (who this scenerio is all about, admit it, you love having all the best players year in and year out and can not stand any system that does not give you Crosby) were to win Crosby there would be a huge outcry.
Oh, this is funny! How am I a Detroit fan? Please enlighten me. Do a simple search on my username - it shouldn't be terribly difficult to figure out who I root for. My username itself gives a clue too if you keep up with late-round draft picks.

No system can be made 100% 'fair' given that there is likely to b e no season. But you can certainly choose 'flawed' over 'idiotic.' There are gradations of bad, and those who have benefitted for years in the last system sound awfully piggish to whine over this.
Detroit? Ha ha!
 

Barnaby

Registered User
Jul 2, 2003
8,650
3,414
Port Jefferson, NY
Coffey77 said:
IMO, Washington was already awarded for tanking that year.

LoL, you thought they tanked last year? Just wait til their 8 win season this year... ;)

You aint seen nothin yet...boom boom... you aint seen nothin yet...
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Kaiped Krusader said:
Oh, this is funny! How am I a Detroit fan? Please enlighten me. Do a simple search on my username - it shouldn't be terribly difficult to figure out who I root for. My username itself gives a clue too if you keep up with late-round draft picks.


Detroit? Ha ha!


:dunno:

So, I guessed wrong which team who rightly should be picking near the bottom of the draft because of their finish that you root for. Does not change a word of my point. Just change the team names.
 

Barnaby

Registered User
Jul 2, 2003
8,650
3,414
Port Jefferson, NY
oilers_guy_eddie said:
While you're going back, why don't you re-read what I DID propose, which is that the 6 top six picks should all be lotteried among the 6 worst teams.


I have 0 problem doing a lottery among the 6 worst teams. In fact I think that is a fine idea. They could probably even air it like they do the NBA lottery.

I'm not proposing the 3 tier lottery system at all, at first it seemed like a decent idea, but the longer I think about it the worse it sounds.

The thing I find annoying is fans of quality teams such as Toronto, Colorado, Detroit etc.. trying to say they should have an equal shot at the #1 pick (not saying your saying that)... that is just insane. If a team like that picks #1 then I am done with the NHL.
 

Barnaby

Registered User
Jul 2, 2003
8,650
3,414
Port Jefferson, NY
Jaded-Fan said:
Did a couple of teams tank the season and sell off their players (as well as play their fourth team goaltender down the stretch)? Yup, the Caps and Rags definately did just that. But most of the teams who ended up last during last season got there legitimately and sucked all year. Besides, if the Rags and Caps planned ahead and acted strategically to position themselves for the possibility of drafting high twice, why hammer them for it? With the strike looming it was simply the smart thing to do if you had little chance to win it all, not only positioning for the draft but shedding salaries for a coming Cap. They wisely rolled the dice and won, why is that bad?

In the Rangers case in wasn't 'tanking.' The idea was to cut all their high-paid players who were leaving at seasons end anyway for pick/prospects. The playoff hopes were GONE. This way they could actually speed up the rebuilding process. They continued giving Jagr tons of ice-time and actually won some games.

To me if anyone tanked it was the Yotes. They had a much better team then most teams around them in the standing yet they couldn't win one game down the stretch? They dropped like a stone and actually got into the lottery (ahead of the Rangers). They fell much farther with much more talent.
 

Kaiped Krusader

Registered User
Jul 1, 2004
248
0
Rylan up the Opposition
Jaded-Fan said:
:dunno:

So, I guessed wrong which team who rightly should be picking near the bottom of the draft because of their finish that you root for. Does not change a word of my point. Just change the team names.
Ha ha ha! It most certainly does "change a word of your point."

When I asked you to do a search on my username to figure out where I post the most and thus deduce who I root for, I gave you too much credit. Ha ha ha!

NEWSFLASH: The team I root for did not pick near the end of the draft. In fact, they lowest pick they've ever had in the first round was tenth overall. Keep trying!

Now that we've established that my system was proposed to be as fair as possible to all teams by giving weight to their prior records but also taking into account the fact that any team can fall from grace in the short span of one season (Ladies and Gentlemen, your 2002 Eastern Conference Champion Carolina Hurricanes!) or skyrocket to the top of the heap and not because I root for one of the perrenial powerhouses, I humbly request that posters reevaluate my proposal in an objective light and not let their emotions cloud their assessment of what I've written.
 

Coffey77

Registered User
Mar 12, 2002
3,340
0
Visit site
Barnaby said:
I have 0 problem doing a lottery among the 6 worst teams. In fact I think that is a fine idea. They could probably even air it like they do the NBA lottery.

I'm not proposing the 3 tier lottery system at all, at first it seemed like a decent idea, but the longer I think about it the worse it sounds.

The thing I find annoying is fans of quality teams such as Toronto, Colorado, Detroit etc.. trying to say they should have an equal shot at the #1 pick (not saying your saying that)... that is just insane. If a team like that picks #1 then I am done with the NHL.

From what I understood that's not how the 3 tier lottery system works. I like that the best so far. In that system Detroit wouldn't have a shot a #1. They would have a shot at #21. I just wish there was a season anyway so the 2005 draft wouldn't be in doubt.
 

em1ss

Registered User
Dec 27, 2004
283
0
PA, USA
oilers_guy_eddie said:
Weaker teams should have a better chance to acquire better talent, but the NHL gives too much reward for being awful. The one surefire way to build a powerhouse team in the NHL is 4-5 years of serial incompetence.
Or toss the season like washington...
 

em1ss

Registered User
Dec 27, 2004
283
0
PA, USA
Someone joked elsewhere that Bettman was going to fix this draft lottery so that the NY Rangers would get Crosby. This system makes sense if that is his real agenda.

I think it stinks. If they are going to be that stupid then do a bingo ball lottery drawing with every team having a chance at number one. Last place gets more percentage of balls etc. Calculate number of balls position based on average of the last 5 or even 10 years final standings. This would give the perienial weaker teams that routinely finish last the best chance. It would remove the season tanker (salary dumper) factor from the picture.

I am a Pens fan but would rather see Crosby on a Canadian team, at least for the start of his career. We need a strong Canadian team to help restore interest in this league.
 

Kaiped Krusader

Registered User
Jul 1, 2004
248
0
Rylan up the Opposition
em1ss said:
We need a strong Canadian team to help restore interest in this league.
Huh? Interest will always be high in Canada, regardless of how good their teams are. If the goal is to generate interest overall, you'd want Crosby to go to a big-media-market U.S. team (i.e. the Rangers.)
 

em1ss

Registered User
Dec 27, 2004
283
0
PA, USA
stanley said:
Over the past ten years, Jacobs, Sinden, and O'Connell have been in agreement on how to run a franchise: keep it in the black. The primary way they've done this is by avoiding long-term contracts. They've paid players like Bill Guerin high annual salaries, but avoided anything that would cause them financial inflexibility. I used to be a big critic of how they did business; now I've come to believe that they and the Devils (and maybe to a lesser degree, the Oilers, although in their case it has been more out of necessity) were ahead of the curve.

You obviously follow the team. This wasn't the first year that they walked away from veterans with expiring contracts. Maybe I should stop by and have a few Manhattans with Harry at the 21st Amendment. I'd like to apologize personally and hear his Seven-Percenter story while I was at it.
Craig Patrick has tried to do that too over the last 5 years. He also has a rule about renegotiating contracts before they are over. Ie let's talk after the seasons over. He also traded guys that he didn't think he could resign at the end of their contracts trying desperately to get something for them. He seems to like to limit contracts to about 1-2 years. Tough to get a one way contract unless your proven NHL material too. If he knew couldn't control the final cost (Jagr, Kovalov, Straka etc.) he got rid of them too for prospects. Pens fans hate it but he has to do it. Even Mario's contracts are year to year..
 

em1ss

Registered User
Dec 27, 2004
283
0
PA, USA
Kaiped Krusader said:
Huh? Interest will always be high in Canada, regardless of how good their teams are. If the goal is to generate interest overall, you'd want Crosby to go to a big-media-market U.S. team (i.e. the Rangers.)
Wrong, thats the misunderstanding and why interest here in the states has dropped. Have to have some strength in Canada to promote broader interest here in the states. US Canda final etc... The marginal fan here doesn't care if the Phoenix Coyotes are playing the Carolina Hurricanes in a final. Stinks but its true.
 

Kaiped Krusader

Registered User
Jul 1, 2004
248
0
Rylan up the Opposition
No one outside of Phoenix or Raleigh would care about a Phoenix-Carolina final. Compare a Rangers/Blackhawks final to an Ottawa-Montreal-or-Toronto/Blackhawks final. Which would get more interest overall? The latter would get more in Canada, but not as much more as the former would in the U.S., which is the much bigger market in terms of available eyeballs.

If you're looking at a marketing perspective, the size of the markets is what counts, not which countries the markets are located in. How much excitement did the Tampa/Calgary final generate in the U.S. with its U.S.-vs.-Canada tensions? So much excitement that ESPN did not renew its TV deal with the NHL.
 

em1ss

Registered User
Dec 27, 2004
283
0
PA, USA
I am agreeing with you that the small market US team vs Canada is a loser for ratings. But prior to over expanding I still say there was more interest in the states for a Canada original 6 type team final.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->