draft lottery proposal by Gary B

Status
Not open for further replies.

ResidentAlien*

Guest
Jester said:
as much as it pains me... and it does... the league is best served with Crosby in NYC. EVERY league is best served with marquee teams/players in their biggest markets, because they then get the best possible ratings for playoff/championship games where networks attempt to cash in.

building the teams in the south and other weak markets is clearly important, but in terms of quick fixes for the league following the lockout and going forward, Crosby in MSG is a nice thought.

I agree with that, and yes Mr Icon stars are stars, but the NHL cant be compared to the NHL, unless the NHL had thrity teams all in Canada, then you could make that comparison.
Having crosby end up in a weak market isnt going to do anyone any good, having him, especially at this crucial time of trying to be more then a beer league, in a market like NY is exactly what would be best..IMO
 

Chaos

And the winner is...
Sep 2, 2003
7,968
18
TX
go kim johnsson said:
so does Los Angeles. Where Sidney Crosby has already attended prospect camp.
I would personally love to see him in Atlanta or Nashville if he doesnt end up in Dallas. Would really help hockey in those areas(although I dont think Nashville needs that much help as it is).
 

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
Tawnos said:
Actually, to be fair, the numbers should be 4-3-2-1. If you're gonna base these things on past history, why should a team that didn't miss the playoffs in those years get the same number of balls as a team that missed the playoffs last year?

Why are people so greedy?????

you make it sound like everyone has the same team...

For example.. Toronto will lose atleast 10 players including Roberts, Joe N, Almo, Belfour.. and if you take them off any team your introuble...

Now the Leafs have lost for much money because of this lock out, why shouldn't they have atleast 1 chance at crosby?????????????? :teach:

And why make it a 1/4 chance instead of a 1/3....

It should honestly be 1 for everyteam.. or 1/2... because not everyteam is the same, and the teams that have missed teh playoff the past few years had a chance for there young start to gain experience...
 

WC Handy*

Guest
joepeps said:
Why are people so greedy?????

you make it sound like everyone has the same team...

For example.. Toronto will lose atleast 10 players including Roberts, Joe N, Almo, Belfour.. and if you take them off any team your introuble...

Now the Leafs have lost for much money because of this lock out, why shouldn't they have atleast 1 chance at crosby?????????????? :teach:

The draft has never been about what is going to happen to a team in the following year. Why should it start now?

The Leafs don't deserve ANY chance at Crosby.
 

DARKSIDE

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
1,053
0
The Iconoclast said:
Yes, the NFL sure has struggled by having their best players in huge markets like Green Bay, Indianapolis, etc. And having their best teams in markets like New England, Tampa, etc. certainly has hurt the league as well.

Stars are stars and will continue to be stars no matter where they are. If the game is marketted correctly it won't matter where the team is from, the fans will still watch the big show because it is the big show.

I don't think you can compare the NHL to the NFL...The NFL is the most popular spectator team sport in the U.S. And a couple reasons is that they only play 16 games per season and 2nd, it's the most popular team sport to gamble on.
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
Jester said:
as much as it pains me... and it does... the league is best served with Crosby in NYC. EVERY league is best served with marquee teams/players in their biggest markets, because they then get the best possible ratings for playoff/championship games where networks attempt to cash in.

building the teams in the south and other weak markets is clearly important, but in terms of quick fixes for the league following the lockout and going forward, Crosby in MSG is a nice thought.

Personally, I think the impact of someone like Crosby going to a 'big' market is highly overrated around here. The Rangers have had the superstar conveyor belt (Marcel Dionne, Guy Lafleur, Mark Messier, Wayne Gretzky, Eric Lindros, Jaromir Jagr etc. etc.) going from a while now...yet look where this league is for a TV contract. Has it made any discernable difference?

If Crosby is everything he's touted as being, it shouldn't matter where he ends up. It didn't matter when Gretzky was an Oiler or when Lemieux was a Penguin.

Besides, if it's all about marketing for an American audience, I'd suspect the Rangers would be more hot for finding a way to obtain Phil Kessel instead... :)
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
ResidentAlien said:
I agree with that, and yes Mr Icon stars are stars, but the NHL cant be compared to the NHL, unless the NHL had thrity teams all in Canada, then you could make that comparison.
Having crosby end up in a weak market isnt going to do anyone any good, having him, especially at this crucial time of trying to be more then a beer league, in a market like NY is exactly what would be best..IMO

So having Crosby in New York is a good thing because of what? Because they are a media center? Great. So Crosby gets buried behind coverage of the Yankees, the Mets, the Giants, the Jets, the Knicks, etc. and ignored like the Rangers normally are (with the exception of their rise from the ashes ever 54 years). Instead Crosby could end up in a growing market like Columbus where the Blue Jackets are the only game in town and will get all the coverage he deserves and generate a buzz.

I guess it all depends on what you suspect is the best strategy for developing the game. To me, the game is best developed by having 30 local markets that are strong and have the ability to sustain themselves. By generating a buzz in those 30 markets, and then working on the development of regional interaction and rivalries to cross pollonate the markets, you begin to spread the enthusiasm for the product and get people hooked on the game itself. The NFL has great ratings because they broadcast the games that people want to see regionally and the hot teams nationally. The NHL should take a similar approach and make sure that the local markets ahev the opportunity to see every single game of their home team, as well as the best teams in the league on a weekly basis, no matter where they are from. Just watching the traditional BIG market team does nothing for the game, and will in fact remind the fans of all that was bad about the last system and give the jaded the proof that nothing has changed.

The NHL has a chance to move the league in a positive direction. Strong teams in every market should be the priority, not ramping up one or two markets with stars because they are media centers. That is essentially the system the league allowed to develop and it failed miserably. The league should be focusing on the greatness of each team and promoting the hell out of that. That's where success will come from.
 

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
WC Handy said:
The draft has never been about what is going to happen to a team in the following year. Why should it start now?

The Leafs don't deserve ANY chance at Crosby.


You don't know what your talking about... This is the first time they cancelled a season.. so obviouslly there is going to be a differnt concept...

Why should teams like Toronto Detroit Colorado Dallas Philly, who hold up the NHL and not make it go into the ***** be shafted because of the small market teams.. and on top of that not have a chance at the 1st overall pick????

Small market teams and their fans are selfish...

At least bigmarket teams fans say they need a cap to even things out....but small market fans always want to better themselves :shakehead
 

The Nemesis

Semper Tyrannus
Apr 11, 2005
87,939
31,168
Langley, BC
Jaded-Fan said:
As for the actually working out of this, according to the article Columbus, Buffalo, Atlanta, Florida, Pittsburgh and the New York Rangers get three balls. Edmonton, Calgary, Carolina, Chicago, Nashville, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Washington, Minnesota and Anaheim get two balls. Everyone else one. That leaves about a 27% chance of ones with one ball getting number one. 38.5% chance of two ball teams. 34.6 chance of a three ball team getting number one. If they put in that you could not drop more than 2 or 3 slots and the slots be based on point totals over three years though I could accept the system.
And right there is the fundamental flaw in this system. Yes, those 3-ball teams will still have an individually higher chance of getting the top pick than any single 2-ball team does, but the fact that there's more of a chance overall that a 2-ball team gets Crosby than there is for a 3-ball team is wrong. It's also wrong that the separation between the 1-ball group and the 3-ball group is less than 10%.
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
Jester said:
as much as it pains me... and it does... the league is best served with Crosby in NYC. EVERY league is best served with marquee teams/players in their biggest markets, because they then get the best possible ratings for playoff/championship games where networks attempt to cash in.

building the teams in the south and other weak markets is clearly important, but in terms of quick fixes for the league following the lockout and going forward, Crosby in MSG is a nice thought.
I don't think you understand the New York sports market today to write that. This could be one of the worst hockey markets in the country because it's
over-saturated with other star players and teams.

Unless he is in a Yankee or Met uniform there is no time or inclination to be bothered covering him here regardless of what he does on the ice. It's a year-round baseball market with basketball and football fighting for what's left.

Pick another place. Gretzky went to the semi-finals (vs Philadelphia) as a Ranger and it did nothing for the NHL in terms of ratings or coverage.
 

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
73,081
38,136
Put him in Atlanta. Helps the game and they'll be a fun team to watch when they come to town.
 

MasterD

Giggidy Giggidy Goo
Jul 1, 2004
5,590
4,950
WC Handy said:
DISCLAIMER: 'My Team' made it the playoffs the last 3 years.

I hate the idea. The elite teams in the league should have no shot at Crosby. At best, it should be reserved for the 10 teams that averaged the fewest points over the last 5 years.

Disagree. Som eof the high end teams are on the downfall (NJ, Dallas IMO) while some of the teams that have had the lowest amount of points in the last 5 years, well, they had 5 years with really good drafts... if they sucked those 5 drafts, their own fault!

Pitts for example, have sucked for a few years now, but they have a lot of young guys coming up.. surovy, koltsov, malkin, fleury, malone... giving then crosby also would make them a powerhouse for the next 15 years while other teams getting old will just suck
 

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
ACC1224 said:
Put him in Atlanta. Helps the game and they'll be a fun team to watch when they come to town.

ahah it would be fun....... Kovy Heatly Crosby... cup within 5 years then cup every year for 10 lol?????
 

ResidentAlien*

Guest
The Iconoclast said:
So having Crosby in New York is a good thing because of what? Because they are a media center? Great. So Crosby gets buried behind coverage of the Yankees, the Mets, the Giants, the Jets, the Knicks, etc. and ignored like the Rangers normally are (with the exception of their rise from the ashes ever 54 years). Instead Crosby could end up in a growing market like Columbus where the Blue Jackets are the only game in town and will get all the coverage he deserves and generate a buzz.

Getting all the local coverage only so that does what for the game? Sure helps Columbus but it's about 30 markets remember? Having him in a big market like NY in my mind would actually benfit the game ..and IF he was succesfull enough to take them deep woudl be awesome. Look at the highest point of "Buzz" the NHL has had in the last 10-20 years, 1994, the year the Rangers won the cup..

I guess it all depends on what you suspect is the best strategy for developing the game. To me, the game is best developed by having 30 local markets that are strong and have the ability to sustain themselves. By generating a buzz in those 30 markets, and then working on the development of regional interaction and rivalries to cross pollonate the markets, you begin to spread the enthusiasm for the product and get people hooked on the game itself. The NFL has great ratings because they broadcast the games that people want to see regionally and the hot teams nationally. The NHL should take a similar approach and make sure that the local markets ahev the opportunity to see every single game of their home team, as well as the best teams in the league on a weekly basis, no matter where they are from. Just watching the traditional BIG market team does nothing for the game, and will in fact remind the fans of all that was bad about the last system and give the jaded the proof that nothing has changed.
I agree, i just dont see how putting Crosby in Columbus or whereever helps that. Alll the above needs to be done and by god you put it very well, but having the phenom in a lrger market would accentuate that, not work against it, IMO
The NHL has a chance to move the league in a positive direction. Strong teams in every market should be the priority, not ramping up one or two markets with stars because they are media centers. That is essentially the system the league allowed to develop and it failed miserably. The league should be focusing on the greatness of each team and promoting the hell out of that. That's where success will come from.
Again I agree, and simply thinking that the league would be better off having him in a big market at this point is hardly making it a priority.
Waiting to see where he ends up and then watching the bickering here should be fairly entertaining tho!
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,817
10,389
Charlotte, NC
The Iconoclast said:
So having Crosby in New York is a good thing because of what? Because they are a media center? Great. So Crosby gets buried behind coverage of the Yankees, the Mets, the Giants, the Jets, the Knicks, etc. and ignored like the Rangers normally are (with the exception of their rise from the ashes ever 54 years). Instead Crosby could end up in a growing market like Columbus where the Blue Jackets are the only game in town and will get all the coverage he deserves and generate a buzz.

When the Rangers aren't stuck in the mud for 7 years, hockey is as big in NYC as any of the other sports are. People really don't remember how the market was in the 70s, 80s and early 90s. And when the Rangers come back into success, the market will be that way again. Crosby could be one major step on that path. And when the Rangers are good, and they have a star like Crosby on the team, the league benefits. The Rangers have a fan base that spans the country. Rangers games on ESPN and NBC will experience huge bumps in ratings when the team is good. Having a successful NYR team is on of the best marketing developments the league could hope for, and Crosby makes that happen just that much faster.

As for the one who made the statement that Gretzky and Messier taking them to the conference finals in 97 didn't do anything for the ratings... huh? Back that up, because I sincerely doubt what you just said... actually, I don't doubt it. Interest in hockey was still high at that point, it really couldn't have increased. One of the biggest reasons hockey's popularity has slowed over the last 5 years is because the Rangers, the Blackhawks and the Kings have all sucked. When those teams were extremely competitive, the league was growing. It's not the only factor, but it's a big one.

"Unless he is in a Yankee or Met uniform there is no time or inclination to be bothered covering him here regardless of what he does on the ice. It's a year-round baseball market with basketball and football fighting for what's left."

Do you even listen to New York talk radio? The Jets and Giants get precisely as much coverage as the Mets and Yankees, until it's obvious they're not going to be good this season. The same thing happens to the Mets, the same thing happened to the Yankees in the late-80s and early-90s. Do you even read NY papers? Same deal. And when the Rangers were good? Again, same deal. When the Knicks were good? Again, same deal. People's memories are too short.
 

Sp5618

Registered User
Nov 26, 2004
7,191
0
Tawnos said:
You're making the mistake of somehow assuming that finances have anything to do with where you draft. This is stupidity, the only thing that determines, and should determine, draft order is on-ice performance.

Saying things like "the Rangers shouldn't get a high pick because they have had a high payroll" is no different than saying "I need to dig a hole, where's my gun?"

I hope you aren't one of those people who has to call any opinion that differs from yours "stupid".

The entry draft based on letting the weakest teams draft first originates with the NFL. The owners of that era accepted an egalitarian approach because they recognized the stronger teams had to give up something for the betterment of the league itself.

The only reason that we have to consider a different type of draft this year is due to the lockout. The premise of the lockout has been that the weaker teams have not been able to keep up with the richer teams, and that in fact it is so bad, even the rich are losing money. I believe I have heard Bettman often say that the field needs to be level...for all teams. Doesn't this imply that those who have outspent the rest have somehow achieved greater success than those who have not been able to keep up?

If you say "no", then what is the point of this lockout?
 

Ismellofhockey

Registered User
Mar 31, 2002
2,843
0
Visit site
WC Handy said:
The draft has never been about what is going to happen to a team in the following year. Why should it start now?

The Leafs don't deserve ANY chance at Crosby.

The draft has also never been about rewarding a team for its mediocrity over the past 3 years, why start now? oh wait maybe because we didn't play a season last year. As much as I hate saying it the Leafs deserve a shot just like everyone else as long as it's a weighted lottery, don't forget the cap penalizes teams like the Leafs the most.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Top Shelf said:
The Rangers and Columbus Blue Jackets would be the only teams in the league to have four balls in the lottery, giving them each a 6.7 per cent chance of winning."

Link
Now there's Parity for you ..The Highest and Lowest payroll the last 4 years have the best odds in the draft ..

Can't get any more parity then that ..
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,817
10,389
Charlotte, NC
To snafu:

What the hell? Where have you been? The lockout has nothing to do with levelling the playing field, it has to do with insuring the teams profits. When Bettman says that the field has to be levelled, he wasn't talking about competitive balance, he was talking about financial balance. I.E. smaller market teams being able to compete in the free agent market and being able to keep their own players. I haven't heard the competitive balance argument in months. And it's false. Why you ask? Because the NHL has had 12 different teams reach the conference finals in 3 years. The NHL has had every team except for 6 make the playoffs at least once over the last 3 years. 2 of those 6 are expansion teams too.
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
Why not just give each team one ball...

so teams that missed all 3 years get 4

teams that missed 2 get 3


teams that missed 1 get 2


teams that made it all get 1

less odds of a team that is good/bigger market, getting him...
 

usiel

Where wolf’s ears are, wolf’s teeth are near.
Sponsor
Jul 29, 2002
14,693
3,399
Klendathu
www.myspace.com
Ovechkin|Crosby|Fehr...

that would be a nasty lineup for years to come, heheh.

Its obvious that with the cancellation of the last season it is impossible to be totally fair to any team whcn it comes to draft order. The caps would have been one of the worst teams for sure. Basing it on the last couple of years is the only way as trying to base a system for drafting on what COULD have been would be impossible [my crystal ball is on the fritz atm].

Though I could also see a system where maybe the top 3, or 5, or 10 slots could be up for all 30 teams but then the remaining 20 teams be based on the last regular season, IMO.
 

DARKSIDE

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
1,053
0
The Iconoclast said:
So having Crosby in New York is a good thing because of what? Because they are a media center? Great. So Crosby gets buried behind coverage of the Yankees, the Mets, the Giants, the Jets, the Knicks, etc. and ignored like the Rangers normally are (with the exception of their rise from the ashes ever 54 years). Instead Crosby could end up in a growing market like Columbus where the Blue Jackets are the only game in town and will get all the coverage he deserves and generate a buzz.

I guess it all depends on what you suspect is the best strategy for developing the game. To me, the game is best developed by having 30 local markets that are strong and have the ability to sustain themselves. By generating a buzz in those 30 markets, and then working on the development of regional interaction and rivalries to cross pollonate the markets, you begin to spread the enthusiasm for the product and get people hooked on the game itself. The NFL has great ratings because they broadcast the games that people want to see regionally and the hot teams nationally. The NHL should take a similar approach and make sure that the local markets ahev the opportunity to see every single game of their home team, as well as the best teams in the league on a weekly basis, no matter where they are from. Just watching the traditional BIG market team does nothing for the game, and will in fact remind the fans of all that was bad about the last system and give the jaded the proof that nothing has changed.

The NHL has a chance to move the league in a positive direction. Strong teams in every market should be the priority, not ramping up one or two markets with stars because they are media centers. That is essentially the system the league allowed to develop and it failed miserably. The league should be focusing on the greatness of each team and promoting the hell out of that. That's where success will come from.

So, what you're saying is that Crosby being in the Columbus, OH, market would be better for the NHL, then in the NYC market. I also believe Ohio is football Country and also has a couple of baseball teams as well. Now Please, I'm a Devils fan and I have no interest in the Rangers getting Crosby, but Columbus over NYC is rediculous.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Ismellofhockey said:
The draft has also never been about rewarding a team for its mediocrity over the past 3 years, why start now?

Ismellofhockey said:
maybe because we didn't play a season last year

Exactly.
 

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
Honestly there is no fair way of doing this draft.. so tthere is no point in having it...

The draft should be combined next year. so we have 2 years..

1st picks 1st and lastlast picks last and first
 

dunwoody_joe

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
1,581
0
atlanta
Visit site
Drury_Sakic said:
Why not just give each team one ball...

so teams that missed all 3 years get 4

teams that missed 2 get 3


teams that missed 1 get 2


teams that made it all get 1

less odds of a team that is good/bigger market, getting him...

After wading through all the posts, I now understand why this is such a tough topic. The real issue is defining what the draft is expected to do. If it is to allow the worst teams better chances at selecting better players, so to improve over time, then your system makes perfect sense.

Since the worst teams from the last played year have already been awarded the best draft positions last year, this next draft should be based on something more. Past three years makes sense (although arbitrary--why not 4, or 5 or...?).

We can argue the methodology but your system seems the fairest to me. So, if I do the math properly:

Missed the playoffs 3 years: 5.56% chance of the 1st pick (4/72)
Missed the playoffs 2 years: 4.17% chance of the 1st pick (3/72)
Missed the playoffs 1 year: 2.78% chance of the first pick (2/72)
Missed the playoffs 0 years: 1.39% chance of the first pick. (1/72)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->