HOH: Crosby to Columbus?

[Jag68Sid87]

An equal shot? No. But a SHOT for every team in the league, yes. Even if it's just one ping-pong ball out of 450, even the Lightning should be part of this weighted lottery IMHO.

 

[Buffaloed]

If the objective is to award the number one pick based on merit, how about awarding it to the organization that comes up with a solution to end the lockout? Part of the problem may be that those representing management aren't able to view things from a players perspective. Guys like Bettman, Daly, Hotchkiss, Jacobs, Wirtz etc. have no idea what it's like to be a hockey player. Gretzky and Lemieux were never typical of the rank and file when they played the game. They've had silver spoons in their mouths since they were wee lads. Neither has shown great business acumen.

I'm sure there are people in every organization that understand the issues on a far deeper level than those that have been making the proposals thus far. And I'm just as sure that they've been left out of the process. Guys like Darcy Regier, who was a founder of the PHPA are just sitting back twiddling their thumbs waiting for the great minds to find a solution. The NHL's proposals have been limited in creativity. It's all variations of the same theme. If the NHLPA doesn't like the tune in B-flat, they resubmit it in E-minor. There must be some innovative ways to move forward without sacrificing principles.

Why not open the process to the employees of all 30 teams? Let them submit their proposals through their owners to the BOG and those that are acceptable can be passed onto the NHLPA. There's no shortage of intelligent scouts, trainers, coaches, personnel directors, and GM's who understand the issues and may bring a unique perspective that's acceptable to all parties. The organization that provides the solution should be entitled to the number one pick.

 

[acr*]

Now Columbus just needs to draft a guy named Stills to complete the top line....and maybe a goalie named Young...

 

[Monty]

To state the obvious, if not for the fact that Crosby is up for grabs, there would not be so many threads and so many replies as to how the draft order and lottery should be conducted. If it was shaping up to be one of the lesser drafts with no clear generational player - like the year (was it 1996) when Chris Phillips was the No. 1 pick and I don't recall any star player in the Top-10, there wouldn't be this tug-of-war about how the draft should be conducted.

In regard to the many comments that a number of the elite teams from 2003-04 would not have been very good this past year because a new CBA would have required them to shed salary, in retrospect it's to bad there hadn't been a thread in January or February (when there was still a chance for a season) asking members to give their predictions on where the teams would finish 1 through 30. My guess is that the Red Wings, Avs, etc., would have been consistently placed at or near the top of the predicted standings, and none of last year's playoff teams would have been predicted to finish in the bottom five. And the bottom five from 2003-04 would have been right back in the bottom five, or close to it.

And if in fact the top teams from 2003-04 are going to have to trade or not resign top players and not be able to sign top UFAs for 2005-06 so that they do drop substantially in the standings, and some of the bottom ranked teams from 2003-04 will be able to bolster their lineup sufficiently to rise in the standings to respectable levels, then the plummeting teams will get rewarded for this in the 2006 draft with a higher first round pick, and the rising teams will be punished by not getting a top pick in the first round. For example, if a top team is really going to have to dismantle its team so much in 2005-06 to finish last, they will get their just rewards, namely the best chance to end up with the No. 1 pick.

For these two reasons, I have to disagree with the argument that some 2003-04 elite or playoff teams should have an equal chance at the No. 1 pick because no one knows how they would have done and might have been much worse.

I think there should be a weighted lottery among the non-playoff teams from 2003-04 for the No. 1 pick, and perhaps a weighted lottery among those teams for the top-five picks in the draft, and then after that the remaining draft order for the first round should be based on the remaining teams' records for the 2003-04 season. The weighting could either use the current weighting (e.g., the worst team has something like a 25 percent chance) or a weighting based strictly on the inverse of the team's points in the 2003-04 season (e.g., I think Pittsburgh had 58 points, so they would get 100 minus 58 = 42 ping pong balls). And the second and subsequent rounds should be based purely on the teams' records for the 2003-04 season.

But that's just one in a countless number of opinions.

 

[futurcorerock]

I don't think it works. Over the last years teams like Columbus and the Thrashers, who you have getting the top two picks, have been getting better and doing better in the season because those young players they drafted are developing and I doubt either of them would be that low in the standings if there was a season. While old teams that are losing a lot of their veteran players like the Leafs and Avs, who might not do as well as they have historically, would be stuck with later round picks based on their past preformance which I don't think they can live up to anymore.

Columbus has only had a pick up to #3, which they traded to #1 for a price. What are you talking about? It shoudnt be the small market's fault that Colorado and Toronto decided to line their roster with old foagies. They should draft better -- Detroit does an incredible job making the draft for them as viable as possible. Look at the past few drafts and how many of those guys have suited up in a Wings jersey -- Even HF has Colorado's prospects at a weak #30

I think people get too far ahead of themselves when assuming the order of the draft. According to them, the draft number will determine the quality of product that comes out of it. By no means does the first player you pick in the draft overall guarantee a slam-dunk pick. The assumption goes alongside with the notion that the teams who placed in the top of the NHL deserve a fair shot. Fair -- I agree. Unweighted = not fair. There's a reason why the NHL has a draft where the worst teams get the first pick -- It's in order to allow teams who cannot ice a team that can compete at the top to help themselves build from within with the draft in order for there to be a fair competition. The idea is so that the Atlantas, Pittsburghs, and Washingtons of the league don't stay at the bottom. This goes hand-in-hand with them wanting to make sure fans can see a winning product in all 30 markets. Though it can't happen, it's nice to have wishful thinking for the future. But ofcourse, the detractors want to take that away because this is some kind of special year.

For all the detractors, I hope they get Crosby, and in the same respect, I hope he bombs.

 

[PecaFan]

The problem that arises is that the normally draft-eligible juniors (at least the top-end of the draft) could declare themselves to be free agents.

Raising the age of the draft would run into problems with antitrust laws.

They can declare themselves to be whatever they want, it doesn't change the fact that they have to live by whatever the rules are that get written into the next CBA. And I think we can be reasonably sure that they'll get a paragraph or two in to handle the oddballs.

Why would raising the draft age be an antitrust problem? Those players have leagues all over the world in which they can play. Didn't the Clarett NFL case show that a league can pretty much make any age minimum they want, as long as the PA agrees?

 

[Wetcoaster]

They can declare themselves to be whatever they want, it doesn't change the fact that they have to live by whatever the rules are that get written into the next CBA. And I think we can be reasonably sure that they'll get a paragraph or two in to handle the oddballs.

Why would raising the draft age be an antitrust problem? Those players have leagues all over the world in which they can play. Didn't the Clarett NFL case show that a league can pretty much make any age minimum they want, as long as the PA agrees?

That is not always true as the Spencer Haywood case demonstrated.

 

[Mess]

They can declare themselves to be whatever they want, it doesn't change the fact that they have to live by whatever the rules are that get written into the next CBA. And I think we can be reasonably sure that they'll get a paragraph or two in to handle the oddballs.

Why would raising the draft age be an antitrust problem? Those players have leagues all over the world in which they can play. Didn't the Clarett NFL case show that a league can pretty much make any age minimum they want, as long as the PA agrees?

The NHL used to have a higher draft age in Fact up to 19 years old .. That is the reason Gretzky and Messier and other young kids went to the WHA .. These included . Rick Vaive, Rob Ramage, Craig Hartsburg, Mike Gartner, Ken Linesman and Michel Goulet..

When the WHA and NHL merged in 1978-78 ...

The NHL in order to accommodate this rare situation had to change and rename and alter the rules of its previous 1978 AMATEUR draft (& prior) to the 1979 ENTRY draft.. To signify as they said "The ENTRY INTO THE NHL" ... avoiding the term amateur so that the kids would be forced INTO that Draft and be selected by the NHL teams in a normal fashion, in reverse order to prior year points standing with the 4 WHA teams picking last in each round.

 

[David Puddy]

How bout putting an equal amount of ping pong balls for everyone however filling the Rangers one with lead? First ball to drop gets Crosby.

Do it for the good of the game. :lol

Yeah, because the New York Rangers have done so much good for the game.

 

[futurcorerock]

They can declare themselves to be whatever they want, it doesn't change the fact that they have to live by whatever the rules are that get written into the next CBA. And I think we can be reasonably sure that they'll get a paragraph or two in to handle the oddballs.

Why would raising the draft age be an antitrust problem? Those players have leagues all over the world in which they can play. Didn't the Clarett NFL case show that a league can pretty much make any age minimum they want, as long as the PA agrees?

Yup -- NBA's going to make that a top priority in it's next CBA.

 

[PecaFan]

Ok, here's the actual data for the last five seasons, how much up or down each team moved in the overall standings from year to year.

I must admit I was a bit surprised, there was a bit more movement from year to year than I expected. Teams like the Sharks -20 then +22 show the danger of only using a single season.

edit: have to use pre and courier to get it to line up.

[pre]

Team 99->00 00->01 01->02 02->03 03->04
Anaheim Mighty Ducks -5 -7 2 13 -11
Atlanta Thrashers #N/A 0 -2 7 2
Boston Bruins -16 6 16 -13 11
Buffalo Sabres -7 8 -12 -6 8
Calgary Flames -2 2 -2 0 10
Carolina Hurricanes -4 0 1 -14 7
Chicago Blackhawks 0 -1 13 -8 -12
Colorado Avalanche -5 8 -3 -2 -4
Columbus Bluejackets #N/A #N/A -6 1 1
Dallas Stars -5 1 -12 15 -9
Detroit Red Wings 4 0 1 -2 2
Edmonton Oilers 2 2 -3 1 -3
Florida Panthers 9 -19 -1 1 3
Los-Angeles Kings 11 -2 1 -6 -2
Minnesota Wild #N/A #N/A 2 13 -9
Montreal Canadiens 1 -6 6 -3 8
Nashville Predators -1 6 -6 1 8
New-Jersey Devils -2 1 -7 6 -5
New-York Islanders -1 -4 22 -8 1
New-York Rangers -5 2 0 2 -6
Ottawa Senators -7 6 -10 13 -5
Philadelphia Flyers 4 -4 0 2 -3
Phoenix Coyotes -2 -4 5 -9 -6
Pittsburgh Penguins -2 4 -17 -3 -1
San-Jose Sharks 0 4 6 -20 22
St.-Louis Blues 11 -5 0 -2 -6
Tampa-Bay Lightning 0 -2 2 15 10
Toronto Maple Leafs -2 -7 11 -6 4
Vancouver Canucks 6 5 2 6 0
Washington Capitals 18 -5 -9 6 -15

Change >15 8 5.5%
Change 10-14 17 11.7%
Change 5-9 40 27.6%
Change 1-5 69 47.6%
Change 0 11 7.6%

[/pre]

 

[Buffaloed]

Didn't the Clarett NFL case show that a league can pretty much make any age minimum they want, as long as the PA agrees?

Did the Supreme Court ever definitively rule on the merits of Clarett's claim. I seem to recall them passing the buck as they're so apt to do these days.

 

[reckoning]

While I believe that there's no perfect way to conduct a draft based upon phantom standings, your suggestion isn't palatable. What if the top five in the draft are Detroit, Colorado, New Jersey, Vancouver, and Tampa Bay?

I think a weighted lottery among all 30 teams is still the way to go. True, the above scenario could still manifest under that procedure, but it'd be much less likely.

.

With all 30 teams having an equal shot; the odds of those five teams (in any order) getting the top five picks are 142,506 - 1. You`re suggesting that is has to be weighted to make it even more unlikely?

This idea about using the cumulative point totals of the last four seasons is riddled with flaws:

- the two teams that played in the Stanley Cup final last year both get earlier picks than five of the teams that missed the playoffs last year.
- Florida picks before Pittsburgh even though Pittsburgh finished below them in the standings the last two seasons( last year by 17 points).
- the Islanders have made the playoffs each of the last three years, Buffalo has missed the playoffs each of the last three years; but the Islanders get to choose five picks earlier because Buffalo had a better year in 2000-01 when they had Hasek and the Islanders didn`t have Aucoin.

Sorry, but a lottery with all 30 teams having an equal shot, then reversed in the second round, is the only fair way.

 

[Gary]

the two teams that played in the Stanley Cup final last year both get earlier picks than five of the teams that missed the playoffs last year.

-That's not too far fetched because how many times in the past has a team won the cup or made it to the finals only to fall off the map and disappear for years from the playoffs? (washington, florida, buffalo, new jersey *won cup then missed playoffs next season* for example)

Sorry, but a lottery with all 30 teams having an equal shot, then reversed in the second round, is the only fair way.[/QUOTE]

Agree 100%

 

[hubofhockey]

the two teams that played in the Stanley Cup final last year both get earlier picks than five of the teams that missed the playoffs last year.

-That's not too far fetched because how many times in the past has a team won the cup or made it to the finals only to fall off the map and disappear for years from the playoffs? (washington, florida, buffalo, new jersey *won cup then missed playoffs next season* for example)

Sorry, but a lottery with all 30 teams having an equal shot, then reversed in the second round, is the only fair way.

Agree 100%[/QUOTE]


Disagree 100 percent.

Very simple. It has been a 30-team league -- The Original 30-- for four years. It's both reasonable and logical to look at the last four years, add up the records, and figure out the order.
It's only difficult when you begin the taffy pull.
I say leaving it all to whim--tantamount to bobbing for apples--is based only on chance and caprice. And the winner is....ah, Red Wings! To me, ridiculous.
The last four years should matter. Now, that said, I might--and I say might--be convinced to enter the caprice factor among the top five picks, for a dash of drama on draft day. But frankly, I think we've all head enuf drama the last few months--gimme something that adds up, for a change.

kpd/hoh

 

[me2]

Sorry, but a lottery with all 30 teams having an equal shot, then reversed in the second round, is the only fair way.

[EDIT NEW PLAN]

OPERATION FAIRNESS

Any team that wants a shot at Crosby must nonimate.

Teams will then place their entire NHL starting rosters up for grabs, with the exception of 1 franchise player and all waiver exempt players.

Teams will be required to fund their old team for 1 season, plus any remaining contracts for their duration.

Player rosters will be switched at random for another team's roster.

#1 draft pick will be choosen via a random draw.

------------------------------------------------------

Toronto could end up with Pittsburgh's team less young players.
Wings could end up with Capitals's team less young players.
Caps could get the Flyers team less young players
Flyers get TO's lineup - young players.

Then we have the random draw for the Crosby. So maybe the Caps get the Flyers line up, with the Caps young prospects and Crosby PLUS the Flyers pay for all of the Flyers players.

------------------------------------------------------

Can't get any fairer than that? If teams like TO, Wings or Flyers really think they are going to have worse teams than the Pengs or Caps then there is no risk at all in this, is there....

 

[misterjaggers]

The more I see these types of analysis the more lost I get. Why is any formula needed at all? Who can say where each team would've ended up at the end of the 'would be' hockey season? I think the only fair thing to do is to have a 30-way lottery whereby anyteam could end up in any position IMO. Look at it this way too-Toronto, Philly, Rangers, Detroit-Would this be fair to them if the underdogs all got a better shot at Crosby then them when in all likelyhood those 4 teams will be forced to make major player movement and risk losing 1-2-3? star players off their roster when this thing resumes??

I agree! The lottery shouldn't be weighted. I think it would be fun reward to all the suffering fans if the contest was a free-for-all with equal odds all around.

 

[reckoning]

Agree 100%

Disagree 100 percent.

Very simple. It has been a 30-team league -- The Original 30-- for four years. It's both reasonable and logical to look at the last four years, add up the records, and figure out the order.
It's only difficult when you begin the taffy pull.
I say leaving it all to whim--tantamount to bobbing for apples--is based only on chance and caprice. And the winner is....ah, Red Wings! To me, ridiculous.
The last four years should matter. Now, that said, I might--and I say might--be convinced to enter the caprice factor among the top five picks, for a dash of drama on draft day. But frankly, I think we've all head enuf drama the last few months--gimme something that adds up, for a change.

kpd/hoh[/QUOTE]

So it would be a horrible thing if Detroit got the first pick, but it`s alright for teams Florida, Columbus and Atlanta,who have already acquired several future stars in the previous few drafts, to have Crosby as well?
The problem with using the last four years is that a lot of how a team did four years ago isn`t relevant today. Buffalo and Pittsburgh both had good teams four years ago, and this system penalizes them for it even though most of their top players from those teams( i.e. Hasek,Jagr) are long gone. Conversely, teams that have been making the playoffs the last few years (i.e. Tampa, Islanders) are rewarded because they were lousy four years ago.

I never liked the idea of rewarding failure anyways. Every season, the top pick should go to the team that had the most points of all the teams that missed the playoffs; that way the teams would have incentive to play hard all year long and would put an end to fire sales or March rent-a-player fiascos.

 

[me2]

Here is a fool proof idea.

1. hold the 2005 draft with every team getting an equal chance.
2. hold the 2005-06 season.
3. average the 2006 and 2004 final standings. Redraft the entire 2005 draft crop a 2nd time.

Can't get fairer than that.

 

[Rocket#9]

Can't get fairer than that

True...well except for the players, owners and fans

 

[likea]

I would like to see every team get a chnace at the first pick, but it has to be weighted.

No reason to go back 2,3 or even 4 years...does't make any sense.

give the team that finished last just last season 30 balls in the draft lottery
give the team that finished second to last 29 balls and continue until Tampa gets just one chance in the Crosby lottery

if you don't want to use balls just figure out the odds and use the number system they use now.

give Pittsburgh 30 chances to win
give the Hawks 29 chances
give the Caps 28

ect. ect.

 

[Captain Conservative]

Washington definitely doesnt deserve another crack at it. Any team in the league couldve firesaled their team and tanked as bad as they did. Even to this day, i still dont think they shouldve gotten Ovechkin because of how shady that was.

Then again, with me saying that, i'd have to also say that Pittsburgh didnt deserve Lemieux... but what the hell

Holy hell. We were playing worse hockey before we traded away all our overpaid primadonnas. How many times do you need to be told that?

 

[futurcorerock]

Holy hell. We were playing worse hockey before we traded away all our overpaid primadonnas. How many times do you need to be told that?

How many times... by my count your post was the first of its kind to question the circumstances behind their salary dump. Since it was so late, I take it the statement you make is just an uneducated deviant.

Though, for your information, I was speaking in terms of the teams progress from '02-'03

Rangers' salary dump was a long time coming... Washington's was more of a shock speaking that they were a playoff team the year before.

 

[Captain Conservative]

How many times... by my count your post was the first of its kind to question the circumstances behind their salary dump. Since it was so late, I take it the statement you make is just an uneducated deviant.

Though, for your information, I was speaking in terms of the teams progress from '02-'03

Rangers' salary dump was a long time coming... Washington's was more of a shock speaking that they were a playoff team the year before.

Heres one from this thread.

They were in last place in January.....with Jagr/Lang/Gonchar/Bondra

the idea that they traded these players and then fell apart is just wrong

Maybe you should read the thread next time.

 

[Mothra]

How many times... by my count your post was the first of its kind to question the circumstances behind their salary dump. Since it was so late, I take it the statement you make is just an uneducated deviant.

Though, for your information, I was speaking in terms of the teams progress from '02-'03

Rangers' salary dump was a long time coming... Washington's was more of a shock speaking that they were a playoff team the year before.

well you need to improve your counting skills......I have addressed this many times, and once in this thread

fact is Washington was in or near last place all season.....as late as January they were tied with Pit for least points in the NHL...this was before the firesale......They finished 3rd worst and thats about where they were all season. Where they were the season before has nothing to do with it.....and neither does the fact NYR kept spending and losing and spending and losing. If anything Washington did it the right way...they realized their overpriced, underachieving team was going nowhere....so they blew it up halfway through a season where they were terrible all along

This whole idea of them tanking to get AO is just false....