2005 NHL Draft Lottery-Know the Rules

[ULF_55]

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.

When Lindros and Allison went out of the Leafs line-up and they missed the playoffs by what 1-2 points?

I'd say a healthy Allison gets the Leafs those 2 points, but that's just speculation.

Oilers thought they'd do better last year, even talked about the playoffs, but those injuries were to key players. Kind of funny when players that age are key and counted on.

 

[Faltorvo]

When Lindros and Allison went out of the Leafs line-up and they missed the playoffs by what 1-2 points?

I'd say a healthy Allison gets the Leafs those 2 points, but that's just speculation.

Oilers thought they'd do better last year, even talked about the playoffs, but those injuries were to key players. Kind of funny when players that age are key and counted on.

Not post lock out, it's not.

When you add it all up, the rule changes on the ice, the cap hits, the training and diet methods pre NHL, prepping them for a quicker transition.

And seeing how that was the best option EDM had to turn things around (ie .draft high).

Mind you i think they rushed their kids in. I'm not liking how those injuries are stacking up on the kids.

Atleast they did not insult their fans over there.

Unlike here where management readily and freely stated that leafs nation did not have the will or internal fortitude to weather a prolonged time in the basement.

More like ownership could not stomach missing out on those PO revs and bottom line as they tried to sell it all off.

 

[1995]

So this season there would be a 5% chance for the Leafs to get the top pick since there would be more lottery balls. Lets just play some games already.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

I don't think there's anyone here hoping that there's a lock-out; just an optimistic outlook that IF there was a lock-out, one positive byproduct of it would be that we'd have another high pick.

Not true.

With a system similar to 2005, they might even wind up with the 30th pick.

In 2005, one of the 4 teams with the highest chance of picking 1st ended up picking 16th.

 

[Duke Silver]

If the window was widened to 4 or 5 years it would give us the greatest chance, but I can't see the NHL being able to change the rules like that without facing considerably scrutiny.

 

[The Blue Devil]

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?

Burke didn't have much of a problem making trades when he first came in and the Leafs were in much worse shape then the Oilers.

 

[The Blue Devil]

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.

Pretty sure they said that if you get 1st overall multiple season's in a row then you shouldn't be allowed to keep getting it.

 

[The Blue Devil]

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?

If you're finishing last more than 2-3 years in arow then that's not rebuilding, that's garbage management!

 

[7even]

Burke didn't have much of a problem making trades when he first came in and the Leafs were in much worse shape then the Oilers.

And did those trades result in us getting a lot better?

Pretty sure they said that if you get 1st overall multiple season's in a row then you shouldn't be allowed to keep getting it.

Pretty sure not:

They should be exempt from a lottery pick for 5 years. No more awarding the most pathetic team repeatedly; especially when you have a special case like Edmonton, where they manage to find a new low worse than pathetic.

If you're finishing last more than 2-3 years in arow then that's not rebuilding, that's garbage management!

You give me a GM who can rebuild a team in 2 years and I'll eat my foot.

 

[613Leafer]

Not true.

With a system similar to 2005, they might even wind up with the 30th pick.

In 2005, one of the 4 teams with the highest chance of picking 1st ended up picking 16th.

Haha yep. I think we'd actually have a better chance at a higher pick by playing the season vs going the lottery method... sadly enough

 

[ULF_55]

Haha yep. I think we'd actually have a better chance at a higher pick by playing the season vs going the lottery method... sadly enough

That would be a very sad commentary on the rebuild.

If this team plays this season and is a bottom 5 team how can they say they are on the right path? Everyone a year older, another year into the rebuild and no progress on the ice?

Nope, this team cannot be a bottom 5 team again, it will be contending for a playoffs spot and not making it would be considered a huge failure for management.

 

[Leaf Rocket]

That would be a very sad commentary on the rebuild.

If this team plays this season and is a bottom 5 team how can they say they are on the right path? Everyone a year older, another year into the rebuild and no progress on the ice?

Nope, this team cannot be a bottom 5 team again, it will be contending for a playoffs spot and not making it would be considered a huge failure for management.

Pretty much. I damn well expect the playoffs if there is a season this year. If there isn't then hopefully we are lucky as hell to get a player such a Monahan, Barkov, Jones and so on. Or if really lucky, win the lottery.

 

[ULF_55]

Pretty much. I damn well expect the playoffs if there is a season this year. If there isn't then hopefully we are lucky as hell to get a player such a Monahan, Barkov, Jones and so on. Or if really lucky, win the lottery.

If they are picking in the top 5, I'm not sure how MLSE can stand by and let Burke do the picking? Their very public mea culpa this year would be meaningless if they don't hold anyone accountable.

 

[Leaf Rocket]

If they are picking in the top 5, I'm not sure how MLSE can stand by and let Burke do the picking? Their very public mea culpa this year would be meaningless if they don't hold anyone accountable.

I still think if there is no season Burke will be given a year or two contract.

As for the top 5 situation, it's getting pretty interesting as some good players are on the rise. The player I personally will want aside from the obvious mentioning is Drouin, he has skills that people are forgetting due to the consensus number in Mackinnon.

 

[613Leafer]

That would be a very sad commentary on the rebuild.

If this team plays this season and is a bottom 5 team how can they say they are on the right path? Everyone a year older, another year into the rebuild and no progress on the ice?

Nope, this team cannot be a bottom 5 team again, it will be contending for a playoffs spot and not making it would be considered a huge failure for management.

Well unfortunately the main issues from last year are still big issues this year:

- # 1 C
- # 1 G
- Team defense / PK
- Leadership

All are still very questionable. We got JVR, but also downgraded on the blueline. We got McClement, who should hopefully help defensively, but he's also not going to help the secondary scoring at all.

Not to mention Kessel/Lupul both had career years last year. Do most players repeat after career years? Progress even further? Or regress? Regression wouldn't be out of the ordinary, so IF it did happen, it can't really be considered a huge surprise.

Anyways, this team looks like it has just as many question marks as last year. Which means it could potentially fight for a playoff spot, if everything went our way (kinda like Ottawa last year), or they could also be right near the bottom if half or more of the question marks go poorly.

 

[Faltorvo]

If they are picking in the top 5, I'm not sure how MLSE can stand by and let Burke do the picking? Their very public mea culpa this year would be meaningless if they don't hold anyone accountable.

I'm on the fence.

I never expected this to be a quick turn around, unless we scored big in the UFA market.

Mind you, i do hold BB accountable for the words he spoke, the tone he tried to set and the actions he took early on when he got here.

His biggest mistake was to give the impression that this could be fixed fast and the moves he made early on that looked like he was attempting to. In that regard he failed miserably.

Same goes for the truculence,blah,blah,blah speech's, he has not lived up to those. In fact, we probably have the complete opposite.

 

[Peace Frog]

Even that description's a little misleading. You don't lose a ball "for every" playoff appearance or first overall. Essentially there's two criteria:

1) Missed the playoffs in each of the previous 3 seasons.
2) Didn't have the 1st overall selection over the last 4 drafts.

If you met both criteria, you got 3 balls.
If you made the playoffs only once OR had the 1st overall only once, you got 2 balls.
If you had two or more of any combination of those two (playoff appearances or 1st overalls), then you only got 1 ball.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26401

Thanks for starting the thread though; it'll definitely be useful with all this lock-out talk flying around.

So based on this lottery structure, here is the breakdown of teams getting three balls, two balls, and one ball

Teams getting three balls: Thrashers, Hurricanes, Leafs, Flames, Wild, Blue Jackets and Stars

Teams getting two balls: Isles, Lightning, Ducks, Panthers, Blues

Team receiving just one ball: All other teams.

 

[Michael Gary Scott]

Burke would be stupid enough to pick Jones 1st overall if we win the lottery

 

[The Blue Devil]

And did those trades result in us getting a lot better?



Pretty sure not:





You give me a GM who can rebuild a team in 2 years and I'll eat my foot.

No, we didn't improve like we would've hoped, but your original argument was about how any GM could make trades with a pile of crap, so I responded in kind to what Burke was able to do with his pile of crap.

You should read a little further, he said repeatedly, as in more than 1.

You don't have to substantially improve in 2-3 years, but you should at least show some progress. If you can't move past last place in over 3 years then there is something seriously wrong with you.

 

[7even]

No, we didn't improve like we would've hoped, but your original argument was about how any GM could make trades with a pile of crap, so I responded in kind to what Burke was able to do with his pile of crap.

You should read a little further, he said repeatedly, as in more than 1.

You don't have to substantially improve in 2-3 years, but you should at least show some progress. If you can't move past last place in over 3 years then there is something seriously wrong with you.

Totally agree. I'm all for capping how many 1st overall picks a team can have over so many years. I mean, three in a row? That's just obnoxious. But punishing teams that suck by castrating their ability to add talent isn't going to make them not suck.

 

[clawfirst]

So based on this lottery structure, here is the breakdown of teams getting three balls, two balls, and one ball

Teams getting three balls: Thrashers, Hurricanes, Leafs, Flames, Wild, and Stars

Teams getting two balls: All other teams


No team receiving just one ball

lol

read it again...

 

[theIceWookie]

I'm posting this thread, because of soooo many people completely misunderstanding the draft lottery coming out of the lock-out in 2005. People somehow equate Pitt being lousy in 2003-2004 with why they won the lottery in 2005. It is a very small portion of the reason why they won the lottery. Mostly they won the lottery because they got very very lucky.




Pens, Ranger, Blue Jackets and Sabres had a 3 in 48 (6%) chance of being the winning ball.
The teams with 2 balls had a 2 in 48 chance which is about 4%.

So if they did have a lockout for the full season and they did use the same formula, the Leafs would have a 6% chance of drafting 1st overall, with the odds gradually improving each time they don't win that selection.

It needs to be mentioned that this happened the last lockout and is by no means a guaranteed situation for the coming draft lottery if the season were to be cancelled.

 

[The Blue Devil]

Totally agree. I'm all for capping how many 1st overall picks a team can have over so many years. I mean, three in a row? That's just obnoxious. But punishing teams that suck by castrating their ability to add talent isn't going to make them not suck.

As true as that is, it's the job of the GM to improve their team, whether it be by drafting, trading or signing UFA's. It's also not really castrating their ability to add talent, they can still draft, they'll still be in the top 14 which still gives them an opportunity to draft someone good, they just won't be a gauranteed NHL'er/top 6 talent. It gives the GM incentive to actually try and make his team better.

 

[Pocket Hercules]

Burke would be stupid enough to pick Jones 1st overall if we win the lottery

Since when is it bad to select a D-man who's closest comparable is Chris Pronger?

But I do agree in that we should be selecting a bonafied No #1 C if by some stroke of luck we end up getting the No #1 pick.

 

[RoyalGremlin]

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.

Wow. Dodged a bullet there didnt we?