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?
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?
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.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.
So you believe a team can only improve by finishing last a quadzillion times in a row.
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?
In typical toronto style we'll have 3 balls and still end up selecting 9th/10th
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?
By not being completely inept at building a roster
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?
Did Atlanta have three consecutive first round picks?
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?
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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?
Injuries happen to every team, is Edmonton special? How bout' our Blue Jays?