2005 NHL Draft Lottery-Know the Rules

[thebluemachine*]

If getting better was just about getting the loser prize Edmonton is a terrible example.

 

[Northern Dancer]

As many as it takes for you to not be the worst team in the league. How the hell are you going to get better otherwise?

So you believe a team can only improve by finishing last a quadzillion times in a row.

 

[RoyalGremlin]

If a team had someone else's pick and that pick had 3 balls, could a trade be made for a percentage of 3 balls?

Could we trade something for another team's ball, supposing they had an extra and we would convert it into a leafs ball and have 4, for a pick or player?

 

[smoke meat pete*]

If a team had someone else's pick and that pick had 3 balls, could a trade be made for a percentage of 3 balls?

Could we trade something for another team's ball, supposing they had an extra and we would convert it into a leafs ball and have 4, for a pick or player?

Crafty, but not really realistic.

 

[LeafsNation75]

From this thread: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1244645

"TEAMS WITH THREE BALLS (7)
Calgary, Carolina, Columbus, Dallas, Minnesota, Toronto, Winnipeg

TEAMS WITH TWO BALLS (6)
Anaheim, Colorado, Florida, New York (I), St. Louis, Tampa Bay

TEAMS WITH ONE BALL (17)
Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Montreal, Nashville, New Jersey, New York (R), Ottawa, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Vancouver, Washington"


Look at it this way, last time 4 teams had the highest chance at 1st overall. Two of those teams fell out of the top 10 altogether. Whichever lottery system they use, we NEED a top 5 pick if there's a full lockout.

One thing you forgot is that Columbus owns the Rangers and Kings 2013 1st round picks as a result of them trading Rick Nash and Jeff Carter. Now the chances of the Blue Jackets winning the 1st overall pick with either one of those picks is very slim because the NHL would still go by the Rangers and Kings records from the 2011-2012 season. So chances are those picks end up betweeen 25th - 30th overall, however the fact the Blue Jackets would have 5 balls and not 3 balls.

 

[DaveT83*]

In typical toronto style we'll have 3 balls and still end up selecting 9th/10th

 

[Faltorvo]

So you believe a team can only improve by finishing last a quadzillion times in a row.

Substantially improve?

Ya probably.

Seeing how they have no luck in the UFA market and trades tend to be more lateral then anything else in the league.

 

[Theshane]

As many as it takes for you to not be the worst team in the league. How the hell are you going to get better otherwise?

By not being completely inept at building a roster

 

[Leafidelity]

In typical toronto style we'll have 3 balls and still end up selecting 9th/10th

The beauty of this draft is that a pick at 9 or 10 will still get you a very good player.

 

[7even]

So you believe a team can only improve by finishing last a quadzillion times in a row.

Erm, no, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. If you're losing year in and year out, you likely have assets that are underperforming or are otherwise not valuable (good players = valuable, bad players = not valuable.) If your team is stacked with low value assets, you're not going to be able to return anything significant in trade unless the other GM is Mike Milbury or Jay Feaster, so that's one avenue rendered largely ineffective. Next avenue of improvement: free agency. Top free agents don't sign on to play for terrible teams. Toronto is fantastic proof of this. Last avenue? The draft. Excellent for your team, your years of mediocrity have a silver lining and you end up with the first overall pick. Unfortunately, you can't even get a top 5 pick for the 5 years. So you're Edmonton minus RNH and Yakupov. Basically your team is Taylor Hall and a bunch of scrubs. And the next time you're eligible for a top pick is when your prized 1st overall pick is closing in on his UFA years behind a terrible team who hasn't been able to improve much beyond "awful" because all avenues of improvement have largely been stacked against them. And even if you were able to score multiple top picks in a row, that doesn't guarantee that you're going to be better. Look at Atlanta. We were managed terribly despite multiple top picks and it cost me my damn team. Look at Florida, Phoenix, NYI, Edmonton, Toronto, Columbus. Multiple top picks don't mean you're automatically going to get better. So why do want to make it even harder to get good?

 

[Northern Dancer]

Erm, no, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. If you're losing year in and year out, you likely have assets that are underperforming or are otherwise not valuable (good players = valuable, bad players = not valuable.) If your team is stacked with low value assets, you're not going to be able to return anything significant in trade unless the other GM is Mike Milbury or Jay Feaster, so that's one avenue rendered largely ineffective. Next avenue of improvement: free agency. Top free agents don't sign on to play for terrible teams. Toronto is fantastic proof of this. Last avenue? The draft. Excellent for your team, your years of mediocrity have a silver lining and you end up with the first overall pick. Unfortunately, you can't even get a top 5 pick for the 5 years. So you're Edmonton minus RNH and Yakupov. Basically your team is Taylor Hall and a bunch of scrubs. And the next time you're eligible for a top pick is when your prized 1st overall pick is closing in on his UFA years behind a terrible team who hasn't been able to improve much beyond "awful" because all avenues of improvement have largely been stacked against them. And even if you were able to score multiple top picks in a row, that doesn't guarantee that you're going to be better. Look at Atlanta. We were managed terribly despite multiple top picks and it cost me my damn team. Look at Florida, Phoenix, NYI, Edmonton, Toronto, Columbus. Multiple top picks don't mean you're automatically going to get better. So why do want to make it even harder to get good?

Did Atlanta have three consecutive first round picks? BTW the way if the brain-trust in Edmonton had their way they would have Vanek and Hall, Yakupov and Hopkins would all be Sabres.

 

[7even]

By not being completely inept at building a roster

If I give you a pile of horse crap and tell you to come back in five years with a pile of gold bars and precious gems without purchasing them or acquiring them through any other means other than what I gave you, and you can't do it, are you completely inept at business?

 

[ULF_55]

As many as it takes for you to not be the worst team in the league. How the hell are you going to get better otherwise?

I think I've heard you don't need good picks to get better at least a couple times here.

 

[7even]

Did Atlanta have three consecutive first round picks?

No, but that's not the point. The original argument was "if you get a 1st overall, you can't get a top 5 for 5 years." Which is absurd.

 

[ULF_55]

If a team had someone else's pick and that pick had 3 balls, could a trade be made for a percentage of 3 balls?

Could we trade something for another team's ball, supposing they had an extra and we would convert it into a leafs ball and have 4, for a pick or player?

If you traded for a team's pick, you'd get their balls.

 

[Northern Dancer]

No, but that's not the point. The original argument was "if you get a 1st overall, you can't get a top 5 for 5 years." Which is absurd.

Well with that I agree but I do not think you should be eligible for more than 2 top over-all picks in a 5 year cycle. Teams should be rewarded for attempts to improving their teams each and every year not go on a scorched earth policy and call that a model for other teams to emulate.

 

[ULF_55]

Did Atlanta have three consecutive first round picks? BTW the way if the brain-trust in Edmonton had their way they would have Vanek and Hall, Yakupov and Hopkins would all be Sabres.

Well, we can't really say that. If they had Vanek they wouldn't have had the same team that came in last. Mind you one could argue if the Leafs didn't have Kessel they'd have been better than 2nd. last.

 

[ULF_55]

Well with that I agree but I do not think you should be eligible for more than 2 top over-all picks in a 5 year cycle. Teams should be rewarded for attempts to improving their teams each and every year not go on a scorched earth policy and call that a model for other teams to emulate.

If we were to implement that, where do you place said team?

If they came in last, where do you give them their pick? Do you just take them out of the lottery?

Hmm? How about 14th. and every other non-playoffs team moves up one spot, before the balls drop?

 

[Faltorvo]

Well with that I agree but I do not think you should be eligible for more than 2 top over-all picks in a 5 year cycle. Teams should be rewarded for attempts to improving their teams each and every year not go on a scorched earth policy and call that a model for other teams to emulate.

AHHH! horse pucks ND. Who has willingly scorched earthed their team?

EDM did improve last season , they jumped up 12 points.

And that after losing, Hall for 21 games, RNH for 20 games,Hemsky 12 games,Whitney 31 games.

They don't have that rash of injuries to such key players, they would not have even been in #1 lotto territory.

What they finish? 6 points behind us?

And they had to win the lotto to get #1.

 

[Northern Dancer]

If we were to implement that, where do you place said team?

If they came in last, where do you give them their pick? Do you just take them out of the lottery?

Hmm? How about 14th. and every other non-playoffs team moves up one spot, before the balls drop?

Haven't given it much thought but that sounds about right.

 

[Northern Dancer]

AHHH! horse pucks ND. Who has willingly scorched earthed their team?

EDM did improve last season , they jumped up 12 points.

And that after losing, Hall for 21 games, RNH for 20 games,Hemsky 12 games,Whitney 31 games.

They don't have that rash of injuries to such key players, they would not have even been in #1 lotto territory.

What they finish? 6 points behind us?

And they had to win the lotto to get #1.

Injuries happen to every team, is Edmonton special? How bout' our Blue Jays?

 

[Cor]

I have seen talk of people thinking others want a lockout just to have a 6% chance at Mackinnon.

Now, I want hockey, I ****ing hate that we missed pre-season games. However, the people that want a lockout aren't doing it for JUST the 6%.

By next season, Connolly and Lombardi are both gone, Komisarek COULD be dealt to a team like the Islanders or Columbus (cap hit more then actual pay) MacArthur is gone as well.. Morgan Rielly will likely make the jump. Kadri will for sure be ready, same with Colborne. Gardiner will gain more exp in the AHL.

Then you add the potential of trades after the new CBA is put into place, and the 6% at MacKinnon is gravy.

 

[Faltorvo]

If I give you a pile of horse crap and tell you to come back in five years with a pile of gold bars and precious gems without purchasing them or acquiring them through any other means other than what I gave you, and you can't do it, are you completely inept at business?

Thats why i'm on the fence when it comes to BB.

Mind you , that said, i can still hate him for some of the things he has done.

And like him for some things he has done.

 

[Cor]

Also this argument of not being able to have multiple 1st overall picks is absurd.

We are just going to remove the whole "rebuilding" part of the game now?

 

[Faltorvo]

Injuries happen to every team, is Edmonton special? How bout' our Blue Jays?

Just like EDM last year, i give the Jays a pass this year.

I have never held the belief that a good team should be able to weather all injuries.

Some are just too key and sometimes the amount of them cut too deep.

And some like the Jays and EDM of last season, too many to key players.