Draft, Muckler says BOG favour 30 balls in a bin

[Vlad The Impaler]

IMO, one of the most unfair things someone can do is treat unequals equally...

'Bad' teams, IMO, should have a greater chance to get the higher (potentially better) picks than the 'Good' teams... The draft system is fair, IMO...

Since we don't know which teams were the 'bad' teams and which teams were the 'good' teams (last season - as there was no season), IMO, there should not be a draft... We can make inferences and logical arguments, but IMO, that just introduces biases and personal opinions... Should Vancouver have a higher pick than Colorodo? Yes, No, Maybe? Who was the better team last year? Neither (as there was no season), therefore both were equal? We don't (and can't) know the team order that's the fairest... As we don't know the standings (the standings don't exist)... The fairest thing to do, IMO, is to not have a draft this year... Let the actual standings determine and dictate what is fair... Not 29 balls and 1 p**** (EDM ) in a bin...

That would also be a solution but is highly impractical. The NHL feel they need to secure the rights to these young prospects.

If there were no business considerations, I suspect they would hands down opt for your solution, and so would I.

PS: Keep in mind that the regular draft process, the one used every year, is an abstraction anyway. Good and bad organizations aren't determined solely by standings, and they add a random element to it by introducing the lottery. So it's not like being without it for a year is going to be a huge blow, as the process is flawed anyway and doesn't completely achieves its purpose.

 

[I in the Eye]

That would also be a solution but is highly impractical. The NHL feel they need to secure the rights to these young prospects.

If there were no business considerations, I suspect they would hands down opt for your solution, and so would I.

PS: Keep in mind that the regular draft process, the one used every year, is an abstraction anyway. Good and bad organizations aren't determined solely by standings, and they add a random element to it by introducing the lottery. So it's not like being without it for a year is going to be a huge blow, as the process is flawed anyway and doesn't completely achieves its purpose.

I agree that I don't think the owners would wait a year... But I do think that it's the fairest solution... Another 'being fair' consideration is that with draft eligable players a year older, this would potentially get the 'bad' teams 'better' prospects - take a bit of the risk out of drafting through drafting older players...

I also agree that the lottery is an abstraction... The reason for it though (to prevent teams from 'tanking') was done in the spirit of 'fairness', IMO... Introduced to try and get an accurate picture of team standings based on 'how good' the teams are - not 'how bad' they want a given prospect...

It smells to me like the reason to give each team an equal chance for the top picks this year, is to try and get the 'good' markets (through enabling every market equal chance) 'good' prospects (in particular, Crosby)... Without opening the flood gates to every team, there is no way that the NHL could get away with trying to get Crosby on a 'team of choice'... To me, the lottery idea isn't being considered in the spirit of fairness - but in the spirit of marketing / $... Pure speculation on my part... but I don't think that the owners are using 'fairness' as the critical factor to drive their draft decisions - which is understandable, IMO, but not necessarily fair, which I think the draft should be above all else... If the NHL wants to do what is fair, then why wouldn't they do what is fairest by waiting a year? The NHL can still secure the rights of young players, only it would be 19 year olds instead of 18 year olds...

 

[Morbo]

But The Messenger, I'm sorry. I'm bashing you even if the point of your post is correct. The Leafs trully sucks.

Better than Montreal.

 

[Matty]

Sadly, I'm pretty sure right now there's 25 or so GMs (and owners too) that will push for an equal chance lottery, with all the fans of those teams coming up with lame excuses (my team could have been worse this year, the cap takes away our rightful advantage, a plane could crash on the AC Center, etc.) to agree with them. Only the likely bottom teams will feel outraged by this and even though I'm not a fan of a bottom team, I sure understand their pain.

The draft was at first a mean to create a cycle in hockey and help the teams in difficulty, so they can "re-do" themselves through the draft. If you take away this only purpose just because Crosby is making everybody lose their marbles, might as well call it a night on the entry draft system altogether and declare 18yo free agents up for grab to anyone.

No matter the stupid excuse you come up with, there is not one single legit reason for this draft not to be at least weighted in the bottom teams' favor. But unity is likely already over among owners. Sharks will be sharks, and every owner will want Crosby on their team to kick start the new era, no matter what logic says about it, so be sure an equal chance lottery is a likely scenario April 20th.

You're fogetting something: there are no 'bottom' teams right now. There will be huge player turnover...a number will retire, the UFA list will be tremendous...And teams jump around in the standings all the time even without these former issues.

Now I'm a fan of Vancouver, and I would say that we're probably one of the least deserving of a high pick simply because we'll be in great shape (well, pending on Nazzy returning) after the lockout...or at least better shape than many others.

But there are other playoff teams who will likely be in far worse a position. If a season were played under a new CBA, there is every reason to believe that the standings could look alot different.

So why should a team that has been poor be handed another high pick when they were already 'rewarded' for their piss poor season two years ago?

 

[kdb209]

Works for me too.

Might have to compensate them though, for lost wages. A guy like Sydney Crosby, for example, might sue, saying he would have made $850,000 in 2005-06...

He could sue, but he would lose.

Maurice Clarret v NFL pretty much upheld age based draft restrictions, so Sidney really wouldn't have a case.

He might have a argument to allow him to play in the AHL - the agreement between the CHL and NHL about players with junior eligibility (having to play in the NHL or get returned to their junior team) might be invalidated. Although as an undrafted UFA w/ no NHL teams owning his rights, the NHL-CHL pact may have no bearing.

He could of course just go play over in Europe - any other cities having their 500th aniversary this year?

 

[PecaFan]

If you haven't read valid explanations as to why the chances should be equal, it's simply because you chose to ignore them.

Here are the facts. Once more, for the thick headed:

1-There was no season
2-Traditionally, pick order is determined on performance consideration
3-There is no way to determine what the standings would have been accurately. None whatsoever
4-Whatever happened in earlier seasons, the system covered it, 100%, *at that time*

1. True, but irrelevant.
2. Or put another way, pick order is determined by the most recent on-ice performance.
3. True, but irrelevant.
4. True, but a false premise. There is no draft law that states that each season can only be used once to determine a draft. That's just been the way it's been in the past.

Circumstances have changed, because there was no season. Normally, we get updated information as to which teams improved during the past year, which did not. This year we did not get that info. So we base the draft on the best info we have. Which is the 03/04 results.

The Tampa Bay Lightning are the current Cup champs, regardless of whether there was a season or not, and they should get last pick. It may not be 100% accurate, but it's the best we have. Going to a random system that's 0% accurate is a ludicrous "solution" to the problem of only being 90% accurate or whatever.

By that thinking, the weather bureau should just toss out random forecasts, because they can't be 100% accurate each day.

Everything else you read in those threads, and I mean everything, is basically pure speculation and desperate attempts by people to rationalize what they'd like to see happen.

Untrue again. There are many of us here that are arguing for a system that won't benefit our teams at all.

 

[AM]

I have the answer

cut the first pick into 30 chuncks and give a piece to each GM.

Sorry, I didnt read this thread.... I'm sure this has been suggested already

 

[Munchausen]

Talk to Munchausen. He's the one that thinks the rich teams should be punished with a poor draft pick. "They have no one to blame but themselves" and all that.

Nice twist there, but I don't think rich teams should be punished (yeah not giving them a chance at the top pick is true punishment ), this was to counter your rather weak argument that teams that are over a yet to be determined cap should have a shot at Crosby since they may become weaker in the future. To this I reply: They cannot use this as an argument for getting a shot at the top pick, since they only have themselves to blame for not thinking ahead. But you go ahead and think I'm at war with big market teams, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Johnnybegood13]

1. True, but irrelevant.
2. Or put another way, pick order is determined by the most recent on-ice performance.
3. True, but irrelevant.
4. True, but a false premise. There is no draft law that states that each season can only be used once to determine a draft. That's just been the way it's been in the past.

Circumstances have changed, because there was no season. Normally, we get updated information as to which teams improved during the past year, which did not. This year we did not get that info. So we base the draft on the best info we have. Which is the 03/04 results.

The Tampa Bay Lightning are the current Cup champs, regardless of whether there was a season or not, and they should get last pick. It may not be 100% accurate, but it's the best we have. Going to a random system that's 0% accurate is a ludicrous "solution" to the problem of only being 90% accurate or whatever.

If everything is irrelevant then you have to do what looks to be fair! The way i see it is when the teams get back to the ice most will look far different and have a different set of rules to abide by,Lots of teams will be shaving salaries and some will be adding FA's.

The fair way will be to do what the league is going to to anyway and that is start over.and starting over with a cap in place makes everyone equal until provin otherwize.

Every team should get an equal chance at the draft as well IMO.

 

[I in the Eye]

The Tampa Bay Lightning are the current Cup champs, regardless of whether there was a season or not, and they should get last pick. It may not be 100% accurate, but it's the best we have. Going to a random system that's 0% accurate is a ludicrous "solution" to the problem of only being 90% accurate or whatever.

What pick should Calgary have, given the recent historical data of 'cindarella' teams? Or do we assume, based on the last season played, that Calgary is not a cindarella team? If so, is that fair to the Calgary franchise - don't they also deserve a shot at Sidney Crosby, or another top prospect, if they are indeed a one hit wonder?

IMHO, there is no reason to rely on the last season played (or weighted lottery based on last 3/5 seasons played) since it is possible to hold the fairest draft possible next year (assuming hockey next year)... The last season played is not the best we have... The best we have is the next season played... Using any other season record or draft method, is IMO, a far distant next best alternative... IMO, if the BOG don't implement the next season played to determine draft order, my personal next best preference is to have the owners do a shootout contest in the middle of center ice (a net with a small hole cut out of cardboard) - just like how they get the fans to win Chucky Cheese gift certificates, money, etc... IMO, better a dog and pony show that involves some skill than picking balls randomly out of a bin...

 

[Trizent]

I like a slight modification of the 30 balls proposal. I like teams that missed that playoffs in 2003-04 to get 2 balls, all other teams get one ball. Or maybe a 3 balls and two balls. This gives the lesser teams slight advantage, but still keeps things relatively wide open.

 

[Munchausen]

Here are the facts. Once more, for the thick headed:

1-There was no season
2-Traditionally, pick order is determined on performance consideration
3-There is no way to determine what the standings would have been accurately. None whatsoever
4-Whatever happened in earlier seasons, the system covered it, 100%, *at that time*

I really don't see how you come up with a justification for an unweighted lottery based on those 4 points (or am I just thick headed).

I started with a very simple premise. The draft is a mean to create a cycle and improve the weaker teams. The fact there was no season doesn't change a thing to this and still doesn't give a valid justification as to why now this purpose is thrown out the window and everybody gets a crack at the #1 just because there was no season.

You could argue based on this it cannot be a weighted lottery (with which I don't agree, but regardless), or even that there shouldn't be a draft at all, which is my conviction, but certainly not that every team should have an equal chance for the #1 pick.

If you cant find a way to determine in a satisfactionary manner the team in greater need of the #1 pick, which is the #1 way (and the only way) to come up with an order, then don't hold the draft this year. Period.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

1. True, but irrelevant.

What the **** does that mean? Seriously. It's extremely relevant.

2. Or put another way, pick order is determined by the most recent on-ice performance.

Cute. But technically, it is determined by the previous season's performances.

3. True, but irrelevant.

Hopeless.

Again, extremely relevant, since you are trying to fool people into thinking you know a fair way to duplicate the usual process.

4. True, but a false premise. There is no draft law that states that each season can only be used once to determine a draft. That's just been the way it's been in the past.

I am seriously at a loss. You successfully, point by point, replied to my post with NOTHING.

Who said there was a law? What are you talking about exactly?

There's no law that states anything. That's why we're having this argument. There's no law that states it can't be a random order either?

Who are you trying to fool here?

Circumstances have changed, because there was no season.

Oh. I thought that was irrelevant

This year we did not get that info. So we base the draft on the best info we have.

You do not have the best info. You have no info. I've been following hockey for over two decades. I know of no way, nor do I know anyone personally on publically, who can accurately predict the standings. Nobody can.

Which is the 03/04 results.

Been there, done that. Picks for that season were allocated and drafting was done in June 2004.

The Tampa Bay Lightning are the current Cup champs, regardless of whether there was a season or not, and they should get last pick. It may not be 100% accurate, but it's the best we have. Going to a random system that's 0% accurate is a ludicrous "solution" to the problem of only being 90% accurate or whatever.

TB already picked last. That was in 2004. They've paid their dues, as the 03-04 Cup winners. I realize that your system is not 100% accurate. I realize my system is not either. But if you cannot tell me *accurately* who deserves a high seed, I don't see why you would make a judgment call on the matter.

I'd rather admit that I cannot predict the standings and let a completely random order happen then lie profusely about it.

By that thinking, the weather bureau should just toss out random forecasts, because they can't be 100% accurate each day.

By your thinking, whenever the weather bureau has technical problems, they should just toss out yesterday's forecast.

Untrue again. There are many of us here that are arguing for a system that won't benefit our teams at all.

Once again: Everything else you read in those threads, and I mean everything, is basically pure speculation and desperate attempts by people to rationalize what they'd like to see happen.

And it remains 100% true, until people can cease to speculate and give me a logical explanation for their favorite methods. Some people are throwing last year's standings, others are talkinga about two or three years average, some say we should exclude teams that have already won the lottery.

It's all entirely subjective.

You can either determine the standings or you can't. If you can't, it's kind of tough to go tell a team that they should pick last.

Your opinion is that you can't determine the standings so you're going to pull a method out of your ass to rank the teams. Others also have their favorite methods as well.

I can respect that.

My opinion is that I cannot accomplish that without a heavy dose of subjectivity and projections and so will not rank the teams because I don't like to pretend I can.

What I have more of a problem with is that again, you try to rationalize this, dismiss logic and facts so that you can feel like your method is fair. It isn't.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

I really don't see how you come up with a justification for an unweighted lottery based on those 4 points (or am I just thick headed).

It's not that I came up with a justification for an unweighted lottery. I simply came to the very easy conclusion that no other method was completely fair to the 30 teams at this point in time.

I started with a very simple premise. The draft is a mean to create a cycle and improve the weaker teams.

It's an abstract process. They use the standings as an abstraction for "the weaker teams". This year, they cannot do so, as there are no standings.

As said previously, the previous abstraction already allowed teams, in past seasons, to be compensated appropriately.

So we're back to square one: How do we determine who are the weak teams right now, with no seasons played?

You could argue based on this it cannot be a weighted lottery (with which I don't agree, but regardless), or even that there shouldn't be a draft at all, which is my conviction, but certainly not that every team should have an equal chance for the #1 pick.

If you cant find a way to determine in a satisfactionary manner the team in greater need of the #1 pick, which is the #1 way (and the only way) to come up with an order, then don't hold the draft this year. Period.

I agree with this, but as I said, I don't think the NHL wants that. To them, the outcome might be worse, much worse than any flawed method to determine the draft order.

Not having a draft opens up a can of worm that the NHL, in its limited wisdom, has not put any thought into. If this league was run smartly, they would have had backup plans YEARS ago in case a situation such as this arise. Now, they have to find a way to determine draft order after the fact. That sort of stuff is plain dumb and a ****ing infant would already have this written in the rulebook.

The NHL is bush-league all the way.

But anyway, I digress. I sorta agree with you, but I don't think it can be done. Opens too many other areas with this bunch of prospects.

 

[dolfanar]

You know what's funny... declare Crosby a free agent, and the rest probably wouldn't give a damn about the lottery or draft order. Amazing that the NHL happens to F$%& up the draft in probably the most significant year of it's existance...

As Vlad says... Bush League.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

From the other draft thread, posted by Topshelf:

"NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman reportedly made it clear to the general managers last week that a "weighted lottery" would be used to determine the selection order whenever the 2005 draft, which was canceled along with the season, is held. The issue is particularly significant this year because Crosby, seen as the best prospect since Mario Lemieux, will be available.


Normally only the bottom five teams get a shot at the first pick in the draft. This year, all teams are expected to be eligible, with performance over the past several seasons factored into a not-yet-determined formula to give teams such as Columbus and Atlanta a better shot than Detroit or New Jersey, for example.


"I'm OK with that as long as it's weighted properly," Wilson said. "Whatever the weighting factors are -- and there's many you can bring into the equation -- I'd like to think it ends up being fair to the San Jose Sharks, but I'll know better when they announce it." "

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_y...ltriestoputfreetimetogo&prov=knight&type=lgns

Geez Vlad, Geez Messanger, and the rest of you, yet another GM confirms the weighted draft, heavilly weighted toward the lower teams of the last 3 years or so. But keep up that fantasy that there will be an equal 30 ball draft for all. Muckler said it didn't he? Where is that damn link to him doing so though?

I can not wait until this is formally announced and the fans of teams like Toronto, NJ, Detroit, Philly cry out .. . unfair . . .they was robbed, I tell ya, robbed . . . yeah right. Now that no less than three sources have seperately confirmed Bettman's decree of a weighted draft, and the agreement to that, we have here 215 posts and growing all based on a joke and lots of hope, wish and a prayer of some big team fans.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Geez Vlad, Geez Messanger, and the rest of you, yet another GM confirms the weighted draft, heavilly weighted toward the lower teams of the last 3 years or so. But keep up that fantasy that there will be an equal 30 ball draft for all.

Except I have never entertained fantasies of that type. I just told you what was IMO the fair way to determine the draft order. I have repeatedly told you it is out of my control and that I was enough of a grown up not to pretend I knew what the NHL would decide on the matter.

Muckler said it didn't he? Where is that damn link to him doing so though?

I don't know. Because I have zero interest in scrounging for any links that might support or refute my position. I leave those desperate attempts for people like you.

I'm only interested in trying to discuss what I feel would be best for the league.
And I get a kick out of your way of distorting things, provide zero logical reasoning as to why the draft should go according to past draft orders, continually dismiss logical reasons as to why a completely random order is the best option, whine that nobody provided such opinions, whine for evidence that the draft order does change, then dismiss it when evidence is provided to you that the order can change drastically, and so on.

It's really entertaining.

I can not wait until this is formally announced and the fans of teams like Toronto, NJ, Detroit, Philly cry out .. . unfair . . .they was robbed, I tell ya, robbed . . . yeah right. Now that no less than three sources have seperately confirmed Bettman's decree of a weighted draft, and the agreement to that, we have here 215 posts and growing all based on a joke and lots of hope, wish and a prayer of some big team fans.

I wouldn't be surprised one bit if it was weighted. A poor idea but really fits with the way the NHL handles most things: poorly.

No fan of a big team here, try again.

 

[HF2002]

Geez Vlad, Geez Messanger, and the rest of you, yet another GM confirms the weighted draft, heavilly weighted toward the lower teams of the last 3 years or so. But keep up that fantasy that there will be an equal 30 ball draft for all. Muckler said it didn't he? Where is that damn link to him doing so though?

How many times do I have to tell you that the station that gave the interview doesn't archive its interviews?

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Vlad, now you accuse me of what you have complained others have done with your position. I have explained a thousand times a thousand times why a weighted draft is the only fair way, in detail. The fact that you choose to ignore those arguments now does not change the fact that I have made them . . . made those arguments so many times that others here could probably recite my position and arguments.

 

[Morbo]

From the other draft thread, posted by Topshelf:

"NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman reportedly made it clear to the general managers last week that a "weighted lottery" would be used to determine the selection order whenever the 2005 draft, which was canceled along with the season, is held. The issue is particularly significant this year because Crosby, seen as the best prospect since Mario Lemieux, will be available.


Normally only the bottom five teams get a shot at the first pick in the draft. This year, all teams are expected to be eligible, with performance over the past several seasons factored into a not-yet-determined formula to give teams such as Columbus and Atlanta a better shot than Detroit or New Jersey, for example.


"I'm OK with that as long as it's weighted properly," Wilson said. "Whatever the weighting factors are -- and there's many you can bring into the equation -- I'd like to think it ends up being fair to the San Jose Sharks, but I'll know better when they announce it." "

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_y...ltriestoputfreetimetogo&prov=knight&type=lgns

Geez Vlad, Geez Messanger, and the rest of you, yet another GM confirms the weighted draft, heavilly weighted toward the lower teams of the last 3 years or so. But keep up that fantasy that there will be an equal 30 ball draft for all. Muckler said it didn't he? Where is that damn link to him doing so though?

I can not wait until this is formally announced and the fans of teams like Toronto, NJ, Detroit, Philly cry out .. . unfair . . .they was robbed, I tell ya, robbed . . . yeah right. Now that no less than three sources have seperately confirmed Bettman's decree of a weighted draft, and the agreement to that, we have here 215 posts and growing all based on a joke and lots of hope, wish and a prayer of some big team fans.

Before you get too excited, you'll have to wait and see exactly how much more of an advantage your Pens will have. God you stamped your feet like a little baby when you found out the big teams would have a shot, and that you wouldn't just automatically be handed Crosby like you "deserve", and now you're tripping over yourself to say neener neener...well, it's bit early for that.

Seriously, you are making me sick with your whining though.

I really, really hope the Penguins don't get him now. At least your chance will be much less than before no matter what.

EDIT: Also, it doesn't say "heavily" weighted in there anywhere.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Before you get too excited, you'll have to wait and see exactly how much more of an advantage your Pens will have. God you stamped your feet like a little baby when you found out the big teams would have a shot, and that you wouldn't just automatically be handed Crosby like you "deserve", and now you're tripping over yourself to say neener neener...well, it's bit early for that.

Seriously, you are making me sick with your whining though.

I really, really hope the Penguins don't get him now. At least your chance will be much less than before no matter what.

EDIT: Also, it doesn't say "heavily" weighted in there anywhere.

I argued no more strongly than anyone else did. Perhaps a bit more irked because so many have been avoiding the reality of what is actually being said in the various leaks from last weeks meetings, but arguing no more strongly than many have the opposite position. And the Pens would not have the best chance Columbus would. As for heavilly weighted, I read between the lines where Bettman is quoted as saying that no matter how much more strong the chance of Columbus over Detroit, Detroit will stil have some chance. That example is pretty much a clue as well what system that they have agreed upon, 3 years where Columbus would be at the top, and I am pretty sure that NJ would be at the bottom, and by saying that 'no matter how much better CBJ's chances over Detroit', to me that is strongly implying that it will be pretty heavilly weighted toward the top.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Vlad, now you accuse me of what you have complained others have done with your position. I have explained a thousand times a thousand times why a weighted draft is the only fair way, in detail. The fact that you choose to ignore those arguments now does not change the fact that I have made them . . . made those arguments so many times that others here could probably recite my position and arguments.

Like others before you, you've explained a flawed, subjective system which is your version of what would be fair.

This isn't an attack on you. I think you mean well. Believe it or not, *I* also have my own idea of which teams should be ranked where. A totally subjective, and thus flawed system, just like yours.

A weighted lottery would be the only fair way, you are right. But only if we can fairly weight it. We can't. You can't. I can't. Nobody can't. It would be futile to deny it, so you might as well accept it.

I know of no mathematical formula, no genius, no hockey person who can predict what the standings would look like (as well as the cup winner). In all my years watching this game, reading about it, I can only think of a few instances where I can remember someone getting the 16 playoffs team right befeore a puck was dropped, and it was far from being in order. This against the hundreds of times I have seen predictions go wrong.

Add the fact that those predictions are usually done when teams have full roster and players under contract, as opposed to the chaotic state they are in. It just can't be done.

It is not really the idea of a weighted lottery I am against. I am just waiting for the fullproof method to weight it. It's not going to happen so I am going to remain a firm supporter of a totally random order.

When you can find a way to make it fair without relying on past standings for which teams have already been compensated, I'll look at it. Until then, I sit comfortably telling you your method is much more unfair than going totally random.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Like others before you, you've explained a flawed, subjective system which is your version of what would be fair.

This isn't an attack on you. I think you mean well. Believe it or not, *I* also have my own idea of which teams should be ranked where. A totally subjective, and thus flawed system, just like yours.

A weighted lottery would be the only fair way, you are right. But only if we can fairly weight it. We can't. You can't. I can't. Nobody can't. It would be futile to deny it, so you might as well accept it.

I know of no mathematical formula, no genius, no hockey person who can predict what the standings would look like (as well as the cup winner). In all my years watching this game, reading about it, I can only think of a few instances where I can remember someone getting the 16 playoffs team right befeore a puck was dropped, and it was far from being in order. This against the hundreds of times I have seen predictions go wrong.

Add the fact that those predictions are usually done when teams have full roster and players under contract, as opposed to the chaotic state they are in. It just can't be done.

It is not really the idea of a weighted lottery I am against. I am just waiting for the fullproof method to weight it. It's not going to happen so I am going to remain a firm supporter of a totally random order.

When you can find a way to make it fair without relying on past standings for which teams have already been compensated, I'll look at it. Until then, I sit comfortably telling you your method is much more unfair than going totally random.

I am partially in agreement with you Vlad, and have said so many times. There is no perfect way to accurately reconstruct how last year would have turned out. However, just because that is a fact, that does not mean that we can not choose between bad and worse. As that recent commercial regarding social security goes (I hate the premise behind that commercial but it is illustrative) you do not tear down the house just because the toilet needs to be replaced. You do not always get a black and white choice, sometimes it is between bad and worse.

And this is not about Crosby or the Pens to me. Sure, I would love if Crosby ended up on the Pens but I do not deal in daydreams, the chances no matter how they choose to weigh the lottery will leave the Pens with a minor chance at best, perhaps 15% in the best case scenerio. I am pretty resigned to not having Crosby. This is about what I percieve as a fairness issue. And if TB, Calgary, Detroit, NJ, Philly, Toronto, etc, etc end up with Crosby I would be outraged. If Chicago, Phoenix, the Caps, Rags, etc. end up with Crosby I would feel that would be fair. In the system that I would choose only the bottom 14 teams from the average of the past 3 seasons' points (that averaging taking some of the randomness, up or down, out of using just 2003-4) would be in the running for number one. But I could live with a very small chance for the teams that are at the top of the standings those years as a compromise. If Detroit has a 1% chance and wins, I will not be happy about it but will live with it. It would be a travesty if they used equal chance for all though and TB for instance, a young loaded team, ended up with him.

 

[Johnnybegood13]

Once again: Everything else you read in those threads, and I mean everything, is basically pure speculation and desperate attempts by people to rationalize what they'd like to see happen.

And it remains 100% true, until people can cease to speculate and give me a logical explanation for their favorite methods.

I said mine,so don't shoot me..oh, wait! you agree with me

 

[me2]

Works for me too.

Might have to compensate them though, for lost wages. A guy like Sydney Crosby, for example, might sue, saying he would have made $850,000 in 2005-06...

No need. Just let them sign a 1 year unrestricted money deal with any team they wants them. After that year they go into the 2006 draft and are treated as rookies for contract purposes.

Solves everyone's problems. Best prospects go the worst teams in 2006 while no prospect misses a potential contract year.