25 teams want equal chance for Crosby

Status
Not open for further replies.

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
DARKSIDE said:
And I remember someone doing the math by using the records of the last 4 years and you know what, Tampa Bay actually has a better chance then Wasington at the top pick. Is that using rational and common sense?
Did you weight the years or just divide by four?
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
Jag68Vlady27 said:
But the thing is, nothing is DEFINITE in a lottery situation. They could announce tomorrow that all 30 teams will get equal shot at the No. 1 pick, in return for a solid revenue-sharing plan...and when the balls are shown the Columbus Blue Jackets may still walk away with the No. 1 pick...just as the weighted lottery system would have wanted it.

So that's why I am in favor of such a system, especially if it helps with the revenue-sharing plan. Just because a Detroit has a better CHANCE at winning the lottery, it doesn't mean they'll win the lottery.
I think it is absolutely horrendous that people would even consider holding the draft hostage for revenue sharing – that’s extortion.

Hold the draft based on seasonal results - - plain and simple. So what if there wasn't a 04/05 season . . . . . use a percentage of the 03/04 points in combination with points earned to the halfway point of the next season. That way we can really see if the claims that Toronto, Detroit, Philadelphia et al would be decimated as a result of attrition, age, and being forced to play under a capped system. If Toronto and the like fall like a stone while Columbus and Atlanta rise, then it would be appropriate that Toronto receives a greater chance at winning the Crosby sweepstakes.
 

Ziggy Stardust

Master Debater
Jul 25, 2002
63,046
34,005
Parts Unknown
I would just like to add that it would look very bad for the NHL and their marketability if the highly touted "future star" of the game, the NHL's version of Lebron James, is playing in front of a bunch of empty seats. Then you have to factor in the impact Crosby will have on the lesser caliber clubs, and the focus & spotlight constantly being on Crosby to carry such a team on his back. I don’t think we’d see that problem in a place like Columbus or even Atlanta since they have a good core to work with and could gain a lot of success by having Crosby on their roster to go along with a Nash or Kovalchuk or Zherdev or Heatley.

I recall the Penguins selling out their first home game of the season against the LA Kings, with Marc-Andre Fleury making his NHL debut. That game would be the highest attended game for the Penguins during the season. The Penguins had the worst average home attendance record in the league. The ten worst home attendance numbers were held by the Penguins (11,877), Hurricanes (12,171), Predators (13,177), Blackhawks (13,253), Islanders (13,431), Capitals (14,720), Devils (14,912), Ducks (14,987), Bruins (15,070) and Thrashers (15,121). Take note that some of those figures may be slightly exaggerated, as seats may be sold, but were empty. So the announced attendance may not actually always match the actual number of heads in attendance.

Some of those clubs could definitely benefit from having Crosby not only on the ice but from a marketing standpoint, as long as the mainstream media buys into the hype and Crosby is as good in the NHL as he has been in juniors. His talents have to be showcased on a national network. Jerseys with his name and number 87 have to be sold at a rapid pace in not only the city he is playing for, but outside of that region. The league needs Crosby to be in a market where that type of exposure is available. Take note of when the NHL was gaining steam behind the hottest sport of the 90’s, the NBA.

It was during the time when the Kings were gaining a lot of success with Wayne Gretzky being the center of attention leading them to the Stanley Cup Finals. Pittsburgh was coming off of two consecutive Stanley Cup reigns. The Rangers were in contention for a Stanley Cup. Eric Lindros was making a big impact at a young age for an average (at best) Flyers club. The Red Wings had established themselves as one of the most dominant clubs during the regular season and created stars in Fedorov and Lidstrom. The Ducks were starting to become a respectable club with Paul Kariya and the acquisition of Teemu Selanne.

Nowadays the NHL is missing that big name, superstar player that brings butts into seats and gets the media talking about them. Nobody other than hockey fans know who Markus Naslund, Peter Forsberg, Marian Hossa, Ilya Kovalchuk are, and the NHL can’t afford that to happen with Sidney Crosby. They have to get his name and his talents out there for people outside of the hockey circles start talking about him, just like Lebron James did with basketball, Michael Vick with football and Tiger Woods with golf.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
Mayor of MacAppolis said:
They are now all non playoff teams, if you haven't noticed by your black television screens. All are non playoff teams. All teams have been drastically hurt on and off the ice to try and save the unworthy. All teams deserve an equal shot at a top pick.


God I am sick of these small market fans: No appreciation for the sacrifice the big market teams have made to try and save the sorry not worth saving franchises, they want big market teams to give them money (Revenue Sharing), and then don't want to give anything back in return. Screw them all. lockout goes until they are forced to fold!

Hey Mayor, take your revenue sharing along with your view of the small market teams and cram them will ya! ;)

Seriously, I don't think revenue sharing is something many teams have been crying for. I think that none of the owners are looking to the big market teams for a handout. It just doesn't make sense when you consider the background of all the owners and how they have all built up their businesses. I think they all aspire to be big markets than they are right now, and hope to be able to have the similar coin the big markets have, but all that they are hoping for at this point is to get the spending under control and cap the league for potential competitive balance. I think the revenue sharing BS is coming from the PA because it gives them a revenue stream they can very easily leverage as an escalation mechanism. I think the last thing the small markets want is an mechanism that allows the top salaries to continue to spiral out of control and that's what revenue sharing has the potential to do. I seriously doubt the small markets were championing revenue sharing. In fact I think they may be just as against it as the large market teams.
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
heshootshescores said:
HABSoluteDMB11 said:
I said because they had the number 1 pick last year, not because they suck in general and have had top 5 picks consistantly over the last few years. I also said this was MY OPIONION! I don't criticize you for whoever your favorite team is, or for presumably being at least in your teens and having a cartoon character as your avatar, I wouldn't do it, I am not in grade school anymore, but again everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
I think she is stating the fact that many teams, especially in the SE, had multiple years of top 5 picks. So excluding washington (for have the first top 5 pick in 5 years and only the 2nd time since 1981) does not follow any historical trend.

While I do value anyone's opinion, please make sure you have your facts straight to validate that opinion.
Thank you - that was part of what I was trying to say - - - - and just to pick a nit . . . . (and because at times I really can be very OCD :) )~ ~ ~ Washington's place in the draft - first round only (stats from HockeyDB)
2004 - 1, 27, 29
2003 - 18
2002 - 12, 13, 17
2001 - no first round pick
2000 - 26
1999 - 7
1998 - no first round pick
1997 - 9
1996 - 4
1995 - 17, 23
1994 - 10, 15
1993 - 11, 17
1992 - 14
1991 - 14, 21, 25
1990 – 9

So in the last 15 drafts the Caps have had a grand total of TWO top five picks and those being eight years apart.

Oh and the Caps had a top five pick in 1982 - it was Scott Stevens at number five.

And I don't care what anyone says, I really like my Ed Elric avatar. . . . ;)
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
And because I'm a number geek as well - - - (I think these are the rest of the teams I named way up thread somewhere)

Columbus picks (first round only)
2004 - 8
2003 - 4
2002 - 1
2001 - 8
2000 - 4

Atanta picks (first round only)
2004 - 10
2003 - 8
2002 - 2
2001 - 1
2000 - 2
1999 - 1

Florida picks (first round only)
2004 - 7
2003 - 3
2002 - 3
2001 - 4
2000 - no first round pick
1999 - 12
1998 - 30
1997 - 20
1996 - 20
1995 - 10

Pittsburgh picks (first round only)
2004 - 2
2003 - 1
2002 - 5
2001 - 21
2000 - 18
1999 - 18
1998 - 23
1997 - 17
1996 - 23
1995 - 24
 

DARKSIDE

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
1,053
0
HockeyCritter said:
Did you weight the years or just divide by four?

As I stated, someone else did the math. It was posted in the prospect thread under the title "2005 Draft". Only guessing, it was probably divided by four.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
norrisnick said:
Here's your bare cupboard ranking. Reverse and weight the lottery.
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/orgrankings.php


This? I just had a chance to look. Sorry, but what a dumb argument. First of all prospects are just that, nice lofty ratings are nice too, but mean crap. I remember when a few years ago the Pirates had the number one farm system in MLB. That panned out for us right? The draft has never been about what is in the pipeline but about what the quality is that you can (or in this case could have in 2004-5) put on the ice. The Pens (and yes, the other situated teams) would have sucked big time in 2004-5 and you know it. They will suck next year. The year after too. If some of these prospects pan out, best case scenerio we may not be an embarrasment in 2-4 years and maybe, if very lucky could be even better and compete eventually for a cup. But none of those what ifs are what the draft is about. And before I hear again how we have no clue what would have happened last season, quit blowing smoke up my a$$ . . . I am not that dumb, I do indeed know pretty damn well the general outcome of at the very least 9 out of 10 of the top and bottom teams. I also could give you a thousand to one odds that none in the bottom 10 would even play for the cup, none in the top 10 would be in the running for number 1, and my money would have been very safe. And if you say otherwise every one here deep down knows how much smoke you are blowing up all of our @sses.
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
Jaded-Fan said:
This? I just had a chance to look. Sorry, but what a dumb argument. First of all prospects are just that, nice lofty ratings are nice too, but mean crap.

Well then why get so upset over Crosby? :dunno: ;)
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
PepNCheese said:
Well then why get so upset over Crosby? :dunno: ;)

It is not just about Crosby. Why should loaded teams (and do not even try to tell me that at least 8-10 teams are not and will not remain loaded) get the first choice of top five picks? The chance of them panning out is much better than picks below that level, but top five picks fail every single draft. That does not mean that an equal shot is fair or good for the sport.
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
Jaded-Fan said:
The Pens (and yes, the other situated teams) would have sucked big time in 2004-5 and you know it. They will suck next year. The year after too. If some of these prospects pan out, best case scenerio we may not be an embarrasment in 2-4 years and maybe, if very lucky could be even better and compete eventually for a cup. But none of those what ifs are what the draft is about. And before I hear again how we have no clue what would have happened last season, quit blowing smoke up my a$$ . . . I am not that dumb, I do indeed know pretty damn well the general outcome of at the very least 9 out of 10 of the top and bottom teams. I also could give you a thousand to one odds that none in the bottom 10 would even play for the cup, none in the top 10 would be in the running for number 1, and my money would have been very safe. And if you say otherwise every one here deep down knows how much smoke you are blowing up all of our @sses.

Really?

Who here thinks Atlanta would have been in the running for a top 5/lottery pick? Florida? Anaheim? The Rangers? Would you have bet significant money on any of those teams finishing in the bottom of the league, ESPECIALLY with all the free agents and signings that would have gone on? If you do, you're either very carefree with your money, or 'tis you who is blowing the proverbial fumes in the general direction of our collective posteriors.

In fact, of the teams most likely to be in the top 5 of any weighted lottery, only the Penguins are really guaranteed to suck.

Which team are you a fan of again?
 

DARKSIDE

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
1,053
0
Jaded-Fan said:
That is a product of Washington falling quite a bit in an averaging (reflecting the selloff that they engaged in last season). They fall to something like 17th, Tampa Bay something like 16th. To be honest picks from 16 - 30 in most drafts are not that far apart, I can live with that result much more than Detroit or a similar team ending up in the top five where it makes a huge difference.

Any more red herrings to toss out? You all have a ton of them.


Now you have no problem with Washington and the Cup Champs Tampa drafting in the middle rounds, why? Because, you whole argument is based on getting your team "Pittsburgh" the number 1 pick. Nothing personal, but if there's a team that doesn't deserve the top pick in the next draft, it's Pittsburgh. The whole lottery system was created due to Pittsburgh by making a mockery of the league by the obvious tanking of 1984/85 2nd half of the season for Mario Lemieux, which forced the NHL to change the draft. Now, you would like to pull off a another fast one. :shakehead
 
Last edited:

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
DARKSIDE said:
Now you have no problem with Washington and the Cup Champs Tampa drafting in the middle rounds, why? Because, you whole argument is based on getting your team "Pittsburgh" the number 1 pick. Nothing personal, but if there's a team that doesn't deserve the top pick in the next draft, it's Pittsburgh. The whole lottery system was created due to Pittsburgh by making a mockering of the league by the obvious tanking of 1984/85 2nd half of the season for Mario Lemieux, which forced the NHL to change the draft. Now, you would like to pull off a another fast one. :shakehead

Excuse me, but wasn't the draft lottery instituted in 1995, a full decade after Mario. I guess the league does do things slowly.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
DARKSIDE said:
Now you have no problem with Washington and the Cup Champs Tampa drafting in the middle rounds, why? Because, you whole argument is based on getting your team "Pittsburgh" the number 1 pick. Nothing personal, but if there's a team that doesn't deserve the top pick in the next draft, it's Pittsburgh. The whole lottery system was created due to Pittsburgh by making a mockering of the league by the obvious tanking of 1984/85 2nd half of the season for Mario Lemieux, which forced the NHL to change the draft. Now, you would like to pull off a another fast one. :shakehead

Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Under the scenerios discussed Pittsburgh would have a relatively miniscule chance, likely 12% or 13% at best for number one. Even under the usual draft scenerio the number two team only has something like a 20% chance, and in this scenerio that falls to accomodate all the non-playoff teams having some chance. No, I can honestly say this is not about the Pens and number 1 as that scenerio is unlikely at best. This is about a choice between bad and worse, unfair and out of your freakin' mind unfair. Loaded teams should not be favored or even equal to unloaded teams in this upcoming lottery. It would in no way fairly refelct what likely would have happened in 2003-4 which is what we are trying to do, right?

And I explained why I could accept Washington and TB drafting middle of the pack, The difference between 15 and 30 is far less than the difference between 1-5 and say number 10. Therefore though a perfect scenerio would not have TB middle of the pack it would not throw things off fairness wise too far.
 

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,834
13,334
Jaded-Fan said:
This? I just had a chance to look. Sorry, but what a dumb argument. First of all prospects are just that, nice lofty ratings are nice too, but mean crap. I remember when a few years ago the Pirates had the number one farm system in MLB. That panned out for us right? The draft has never been about what is in the pipeline but about what the quality is that you can (or in this case could have in 2004-5) put on the ice. The Pens (and yes, the other situated teams) would have sucked big time in 2004-5 and you know it. They will suck next year. The year after too. If some of these prospects pan out, best case scenerio we may not be an embarrasment in 2-4 years and maybe, if very lucky could be even better and compete eventually for a cup. But none of those what ifs are what the draft is about. And before I hear again how we have no clue what would have happened last season, quit blowing smoke up my a$$ . . . I am not that dumb, I do indeed know pretty damn well the general outcome of at the very least 9 out of 10 of the top and bottom teams. I also could give you a thousand to one odds that none in the bottom 10 would even play for the cup, none in the top 10 would be in the running for number 1, and my money would have been very safe. And if you say otherwise every one here deep down knows how much smoke you are blowing up all of our @sses.

Could I have those teams please? If you could toss in the conference finalists that would be swell as well. Seriously. Walk the walk. We can re-address your selections next spring.
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
JohnnyReb said:
I was responding to the assertation that big market teams don't deserve a high pick because they have always had a silver spoon in their mouth, and shouldn't be compensated because of it. The original poster then used an analogy that wouldn't apply to a lot of teams, and generalized with it. So I generalized right back, pointing out that two could play the hysterics game.

In my opinion, its not a big-market/small market issue. Some big market teams will have a better chance at Crosby than some small market teams. The Rangers for example, who more so than any other team are responsible for the mess we are in. How would people feel if they were to win the draft, get Crosby, then sign a whole bunch of free agents off of other teams (maybe even the RFA's), max out the Cap, and win the Cup next season? Would that be "fair?" There are some posters here who feel that their small market club "deserves" a better shot at Crosby, for having had to put up with the big market teams all these years. Hence the silver spoon remarks. That's not "fair" that's "revenge."

They've fought for an equal playing field. Now that they have it, they want some fields to be more equal than others.

I wasn't really responding on the analogies. I thought both analogies didn't do much of anything to help the points the two of you were trying to make. This is a rather unique situation in a unique business; there are going to be few if any parallels out there to help bolster either position. So you ended up generalizing, which is almost never a good thing. No real meat to chew on.

Back to a more central point. The idea of fairness regarding some of the drafting rules is subjective even at the best of times. But right now, any real fairness can't exist. The only thing I would consider close to fair is to cancel any lottery this year, up the age to 19 years old (and stick with that for future drafts, possibly changing it to 20 down the road), and hold a draft next summer based on the results of the 05-06 season, provided there is one.

Anything short of that is basically picking the lesser of a few very bad evils. My "lesser" in that group would be some sort of weighted system, and truthfully that's an idea I really don't like. And more importantly, I don't believe it to be as fair as a draft should be, for each and every team.

Frankly, I don't give a crap what fans from any city think they (and others) may or may not deserve. It's their opinion, no more. If they want to rave about that, it's their choice. Just don't put any stock in it. You're not gonna find any truly objective spins on this issue, so those comments need to be taken with a shaker or two of salt.

You may take my comments here with that heavy dose of salt, I wouldn't blame you for it. But all I'm trying to point out here is that, if they do decide to do a draft this summer (which I wouldn't agree with), then it should at least be as far away as possible from unfair. Forget about getting anywhere near fair; like I said before, that just isn't going to happen right now. And that applies to each and every team; not just my favorite, but every one.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
norrisnick said:
Could I have those teams please? If you could toss in the conference finalists that would be swell as well. Seriously. Walk the walk. We can re-address your selections next spring.

Sure. Why not basically just include the top 8 that had near over 100 points last season and year in year out near or at the top or just loaded (TB, Calgary an example of just getting there recently but loaded teams). Same critereon, reversed for the bottom.

Top:

Toronto, TB, Detroit, Philly, Colorado, Vancouver, Dallas, Ottawa

Bottom:

Pittsburgh, Caps, Rags, Phoenix, Chicago, Columbus, Florida, Carolina, Anaheim

I would live with those and stick by none of those bottom nine in the stanley cup finals next year, none of the above 8 in that lottery (bottom 6 in other words) for number 1.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
DARKSIDE said:
Now you have no problem with Washington and the Cup Champs Tampa drafting in the middle rounds, why?

Washington and Tampa only pick in the middle if you do a really stupid linear averaging.

As soon as you do some variable weighting on different seasons, Tampa falls down to around the #25 spot as expected, and Washington is around the #5 spot.
 

Johnnybegood13

Registered User
Jul 11, 2003
8,711
968
9 pages of rubbish :eek:

Big arguments over the right to draft a prospect,there was no season,there was no best or worst team period. throw 30 balls in a lottery machine and be done with it.

It's the only way to keep everyone almost happy. ;)
 

jacketracket*

Guest
This has probably been discussed already, but what are the legal ramifications if the league ups the entry age?

Barring that, I'm in the even-chance-for-all camp.
 

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,834
13,334
Jaded-Fan said:
Sure. Why not basically just include the top 8 that had near over 100 points last season and year in year out near or at the top or just loaded (TB, Calgary an example of just getting there recently but loaded teams). Same critereon, reversed for the bottom.

Top:

Toronto, TB, Detroit, Philly, Colorado, Vancouver, Dallas, Ottawa

Bottom:

Pittsburgh, Caps, Rags, Phoenix, Chicago, Columbus, Florida, Carolina, Anaheim

I would live with those and stick by none of those bottom nine in the stanley cup finals next year, none of the above 8 in that lottery (bottom 6 in other words) for number 1.
Splendid, a couple of your bottom 9 will be in the playoffs, and not because they are upping the number to 20. They are in perfect shape for the new CBA world. Nothing but young talent and plenty of cap room with a pick of the UFA litter.

With the jump to 20, odds are in your favor that the top 8 make the playoffs, but I'm less confident about a couple of them being in the recent traditional top 16.
 

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,834
13,334
jacketracket said:
This has probably been discussed already, but what are the legal ramifications if the league ups the entry age?

Barring that, I'm in the even-chance-for-all camp.
None that I'm aware of. None of the potential draftees have any legal claim to enter the NHL and make money come the fall. The NHL might lose a couple of them to Europe, but odds are they'd come back once they are eligible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->