HOH from Detroit: a twist on draft

Status
Not open for further replies.

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
73,088
38,141
hubofhockey said:
LF'ers:

Following today's session, Bruins GM Mike O'Connell said he figured the draft order should address the franchises in GREATEST NEED..........
For now, it remains, GAME OFF!!!!!
'
' kpd/hoh/ktf

Can someone please tell me what all these initials stand for? LF'ers? kpd/hoh/ktf?
 

labatt50

Registered User
Feb 26, 2005
52
0
[QUOTE=The Iconoclast]If we're "picking" teams where Crosby should go, because "a large market has to have the stars" (which is so much bull its not even funny), I would say the following teams should be at the top of the list.

1. St Louis Blues
2. Dallas Stars
3. Colorado Avalance

These are big market teams with big budgets that will have to be trimmed. They are all short on quality prospects and could use an addition of a young star to take place of their top dog as he ages and retires (the likes of Weight, Modano and Sakic).[/QUOTE]


The Blues a big market team? Based on what? What about the real big market teams....Toronto, Detroit, Philly? Not much more of a top dog with a possibilty to retire than Steve Yzerman.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
labatt50 said:
The Blues a big market team? Based on what? What about the real big market teams....Toronto, Detroit, Philly? Not much more of a top dog with a possibilty to retire than Steve Yzerman.

What makes St. Louis a big market team? I dunno. Fan base, corporate support, salary structure, broadcast market, etc. Detroit already has some good young talent in their lineup with Datsayuk, Zetterberg, Fischer, Kronwall, Hudler and Grigorenko. Philadelphia is also pretty well set with youngsters with star potential in Gagne, Pitkanen, Carter, Richards and Umberger. Toronto doesn't need any help. Ask their fans and they will tell you that they are set with Colaiacovo, Steen, Wellwood, Earl and White.

In all seriousness I was considering the balance in the league and the need for a future star in the western conference, especially in the large market teams. But that's all BS anyways. Frankly I think the top draft pick should go to the team that has been the weakest over the past five years and no one else. That's the tradition of the game and the selfish motivations of those who are in the big markets are embarassing IMO. They should be ashamed of themselves as this is just another indicator they couldn't care less about the competitive balance of the league and the ability for all teams to play from the same footing.
 

labatt50

Registered User
Feb 26, 2005
52
0
[QUOTE=The Iconoclast]What makes St. Louis a big market team? I dunno. Fan base, corporate support, salary structure, broadcast market, etc.[/QUOTE]

Fan base is very debateable.....but not really important for this

In all seriousness I was considering the balance in the league and the need for a future star in the western conference, especially in the large market teams. But that's all BS anyways. Frankly I think the top draft pick should go to the team that has been the weakest over the past five years and no one else. That's the tradition of the game and the selfish motivations of those who are in the big markets are embarassing IMO. They should be ashamed of themselves as this is just another indicator they couldn't care less about the competitive balance of the league and the ability for all teams to play from the same footing.

Nothing this past season has had anything to do with tradition...why should they start now. If the big market "shelfish" owners do not care about the competitive balance of the league, they would not have stayed so unified over the last eight months. I am sure it was very hard for the big market teams to stay united and lose money so the small market teams can be competitive, therefore all being on the same playing field (ice). All 30 teams suffered this past season, some more than others, therefore they should all have an equal shot at the draft
 

Dave is a killer

Dave's a Mess
Oct 17, 2002
26,507
18
Cumming GA
couple of options that popped into my mind

random lottery to start each round (all 30 teams)
snake style draft (if you get the #1 pick the next time you pick is at the END of the 2nd round)
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
I still think every team should have a chance at the 1st pick. But Detroit shouldn't have the same odds as a team like the Blue-Jackets. So how do you work it?

Here's my idea.

Take the records over the past three years.

From worst to best.

Teams 1-10 each have 3 balls
Teams 11-20 each have 2 balls
Teams 21-30 each have 1 ball.



(btw i haven't read thru the whole thread so if i took someone's idea, sorry)
 
Steve L said:
This makes as much sense as the Wings or Leafs GM saying "were the oldest team so we need younger players the most", actually that makes more sense than the Bruins argument.

Everyone is putting forward an idea that gives their team the highest change at the #1 pick.

Col, Det, Phi are all wanting an unweighted draft, the bottom 5 teams want it based on last years lottery, Ive no doubt we will see a couple more creative ideas from GMs desperate for the #1 pick.

Oldest team in the NHL... Montreal Canadiens (Pre-dates the league by a few years)

I like it!
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
These are big market teams with big budgets that will have to be trimmed. They are all short on quality prospects and could use an addition of a young star to take place of their top dog as he ages and retires

Sounds like Toronto, but you didn't include them in your list.

I wonder why not? :biglaugh:
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
PepNCheese said:
Sounds like Toronto, but you didn't include them in your list.

I wonder why not? :biglaugh:

I thought it was obvious? They have a future Norris trophy winning in Colaiacovo and a potential Hart candidate in Wellwood. The Leafs are stacked! Just ask anyone from the BWO.

;)
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
The Iconoclast said:
What makes St. Louis a big market team? I dunno. Fan base, corporate support, salary structure, broadcast market, etc. Detroit already has some good young talent in their lineup with Datsayuk, Zetterberg, Fischer, Kronwall, Hudler and Grigorenko. Philadelphia is also pretty well set with youngsters with star potential in Gagne, Pitkanen, Carter, Richards and Umberger. Toronto doesn't need any help. Ask their fans and they will tell you that they are set with Colaiacovo, Steen, Wellwood, Earl and White.

In all seriousness I was considering the balance in the league and the need for a future star in the western conference, especially in the large market teams. But that's all BS anyways. Frankly I think the top draft pick should go to the team that has been the weakest over the past five years and no one else. That's the tradition of the game and the selfish motivations of those who are in the big markets are embarassing IMO. They should be ashamed of themselves as this is just another indicator they couldn't care less about the competitive balance of the league and the ability for all teams to play from the same footing.

Your penis envy regarding the big-market teams couldn't be any more apparent. You are the one who couldn't care less about competitive balance. You want a salary cap that will force all the big spenders to ditch star players without the ability to replace them, so that the bottom feeders can pick them up and improve their teams. OK fine. Now the competitive balance is there. But on top of that, these teams are now supposd to be favored in a draft based on non-existent results with lineups that no longer exist? If everyone is now on an even financial footing and players have been dispersed around the league to create the precious "parity" you so desire, why shouldn't all the teams get a crack at high draft picks until some games have actually been played with these brand new lineups to determine who is and isn't good? You seem to worship the NFL model, but don't want to acccept that NFL-style results could happen in hockey.

And before you come back with the predictable "you are just a fan of a big-market team blah blah blah" nonsense: my team (the Wings) already traded their 2005 first rounder, so I have no vested interest at all in seeing them win the lottery. Frankly, I'd most like to have them lose it, give the 30th overall pick to Washington, and take the 31st for themselves.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
Epsilon said:
Your penis envy regarding the big-market teams couldn't be any more apparent. You are the one who couldn't care less about competitive balance. You want a salary cap that will force all the big spenders to ditch star players without the ability to replace them, so that the bottom feeders can pick them up and improve their teams. OK fine. Now the competitive balance is there. But on top of that, these teams are now supposd to be favored in a draft based on non-existent results with lineups that no longer exist? If everyone is now on an even financial footing and players have been dispersed around the league to create the precious "parity" you so desire, why shouldn't all the teams get a crack at high draft picks until some games have actually been played with these brand new lineups to determine who is and isn't good? You seem to worship the NFL model, but don't want to acccept that NFL-style results could happen in hockey.

And before you come back with the predictable "you are just a fan of a big-market team blah blah blah" nonsense: my team (the Wings) already traded their 2005 first rounder, so I have no vested interest at all in seeing them win the lottery. Frankly, I'd most like to have them lose it, give the 30th overall pick to Washington, and take the 31st for themselves.

Hmmmm, so by saying that honoring the tradition of the draft and the process by which the draft has been run successfully over the past 30+ years, I'm experiencing penis evny? What a joke. What happened to fair play and the bottom feeders getting their chance to improve? That's what the draft is all about. Not what I want, but what is fair based on the weakness of the teams in the league and the past standings. What I, or anyone else for that matter, would like to have happen is and should be irrlevant. As I have pointed out, it doesn't matter what happens as my favorite teams are slated to draft in the middle of the pack no matter what, so my interests cannot be served in any fashion. The fact that I am championing fairplay by the historical and traditional methods the NHL has used to predicate who drafts where is idenitified as "penis envy". Wow. Common sense just went out the window.

BTW... do you hear me complaining that the Rangers, the largest of the big spenders, are in a position to draft in the top four based on one of the scenarios under consideration by the league, and that they could jump up to the top pick? No, I don't care one way or the other. If the Rangers get the first pick, good on them. But they have been a bottom feeder for the last seven seasons and have not been at the top of the league standings, so they would be deserving of that right. Your team, the team that finished top of the heap on average over the past three to five years, does not deserve a shot at the first pick. NONE. And that has nothing to do with how little your winkie is and has everything to do with fair play. So says the traditions of the game.
 

LordHelmet

Registered User
May 19, 2004
956
0
Twin Cities
The Iconoclast said:
Hmmmm, so by saying that honoring the tradition of the draft and the process by which the draft has been run successfully over the past 30+ years, I'm experiencing penis evny?
Name one draft in the past 30+ years that has been conducted without a prior season to base the draft order on. Sorry, but your precious "draft tradition" was dead when Bettman cancelled the season...

The Iconoclast said:
What a joke. What happened to fair play and the bottom feeders getting their chance to improve? That's what the draft is all about.
Hey wait a sec, I thought that a salary cap was the end-all, be-all solution to helping the bottom feeders improve... Now you're saying that it's not? Are you Pro-PA now or what? Plus, the bottom feeders have already received their chance to improve - they recieved high draft picks over the last 3 or 4 years...

The Iconoclast said:
Not what I want, but what is fair based on the weakness of the teams in the league and the past standings.
Again - the 'weak' teams have already been compensated for their weakness in the past standings. The weakest teams over the last three-four years have been rewarded with the highest draft picks over the last three-four years. The balance has been achieved. The opportunities to improve have been granted. Why should they be rewarded AGAIN? Due to their high draft picks over the last few years, the 'weak' teams should rise to the top of the heap if they develop their prospects correctly.

Icon, you may claim to form your opinions based on "fairness" but unfortunately, your definition of "fair" is 'whatever screws the large market teams the most'...
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
JWI19 said:
Shame it took a lockout to stop Holland from trading away the teams 1st round pick.

I'm sure there will be a few days between when the CBA is signed and the draft is held. Plenty of time for Kenny to deal. :D
 

LordHelmet

Registered User
May 19, 2004
956
0
Twin Cities
Icon - let's talk "Fairnesss.." Assume that the next CBA will be based on a $40MM cap. Compare two hypothetical teams..

The Big Market Bullies - what you call a "strong" team...
-$30MM spread across 4 veteran players signed through 2007.
-$15MM spread across 10 other players signed through 06.
-They're $5MM over the cap so they'll have to dump most/all of their midrange players.
- Even if they get rid of their entire group of 10 midrange players, they still have to fill out a roster (19 players) with $10MM. That's just a bit more than $500k per player.
-They've made several trade deadline deals for vets, so their prospect pool is light and they've drafted low for several years..

The Small Market Weasels - what you call a "weak" team...
-$20MM spread across 5 players
-$5MM across 10 more players
-They're $15MM under the cap, and have a ton of low priced UFA's to choose from.
-They've recieved high draft picks in the last 3-4 drafts
-They've acquired several extra draft picks and quality prospects from large market teams at the trade deadline. These prospects have been playing in the minor leagues during the lockout.

Please explain your conclusion that the small market team is in a weaker position than the large market team.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
EndBoards said:
Icon, you may claim to form your opinions based on "fairness" but unfortunately, your definition of "fair" is 'whatever screws the large market teams the most'...

Market size has nothing to do with it, but if you wish to look at it that way then that is fine. 6-8 large market teams versus 22-24 mid to small market teams. That's a 3:1 break at worst, so I think that doing what works best for 75% of the team in the league is the "fair" thing to do. But as I said earlier this has ZERO to do with market size, or do I have to point out that I am a supporter of the Rangers being able to retain their high draft position, and potential for a number one selection, based on their poor standing in the league over the past three to five years.

What I am dead set against is ANY team using a phoney baloney excuse of no hockey being played last year as a reason for all teams to have an equal shot at the first pick. Well that is not true wither as only the worst four teams had a legitimate shot at the top pick so those bottom dwellers, including the biggest spenders of them all, are getting screwed out of their rightful chance to draft a player that could turn their franchise. Detroit does not deserve a chance at the first pick and neither does Tampa. Philadelphia doesn't deserve a shot and neither does Calgary. Yeah, I'm really out to screw the big markets. Especially if the Rangers win the lottery for the non-playoff teams, when hockey was last played, that I support.

:shakehead
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
EndBoards said:
Icon - let's talk "Fairnesss.." Assume that the next CBA will be based on a $40MM cap. Compare two hypothetical teams..

The Big Market Bullies - what you call a "strong" team...
-$30MM spread across 4 veteran players signed through 2007.
-$15MM spread across 10 other players signed through 06.
-They're $5MM over the cap so they'll have to dump most/all of their midrange players.
- Even if they get rid of their entire group of 10 midrange players, they still have to fill out a roster (19 players) with $10MM. That's just a bit more than $500k per player.
-They've made several trade deadline deals for vets, so their prospect pool is light and they've drafted low for several years..

The Small Market Weasels - what you call a "weak" team...
-$20MM spread across 5 players
-$5MM across 10 more players
-They're $15MM under the cap, and have a ton of low priced UFA's to choose from.
-They've recieved high draft picks in the last 3-4 drafts
-They've acquired several extra draft picks and quality prospects from large market teams at the trade deadline. These prospects have been playing in the minor leagues during the lockout.

Please explain your conclusion that the small market team is in a weaker position than the large market team.

Boo hoo for team one. Would you like a tissue? This isn't a situation that was sprung on anyone. ALL of the owners and General Managers knew this was coming and where the solution was heading. This has been on the horizon since 1999, so save your sob stories. Every team had choices to make knowing what the future of the league looked like. Teams like Boston prepared by making sure they had very few contracts to deal with. Teams like Toronto continued to over-spend and practice business as usual. The smart teams prepared for the likelihood of a new system where the cap would be low. The dumb teams continued to spend and spend and spend. Whose fault is that? No one but the teams themselves. It will be refreshing to see how the the big spenders feel about having to dump "big ticket" talent with rock bottom returns like many of the teams in the NHL have been forced to do over the last decade.
 

LordHelmet

Registered User
May 19, 2004
956
0
Twin Cities
The Iconoclast said:
What a joke. What happened to fair play and the bottom feeders getting their chance to improve? That's what the draft is all about.

Once again:
1) Haven't you been among the throng of Bettman lovers saying that a salary cap is the end-all, be-all answer to helping the bottom feeders improve?? Now you're saying that it's not??

2) The bottom feeders have already received their chance to improve - they recieved high draft picks over the last 3 or 4 years. "Fairness" has already been achieved.

The Iconoclast said:
Boo hoo for team one. Would you like a tissue? This isn't a situation that was sprung on anyone. ALL of the owners and General Managers knew this was coming..blah, blah, blah..
That's the best you can do? I didn't ask for a recap of how we got here I asked how you can make the claim that the 2nd team is 'weaker' than the first. Do you have an explanation or do you concede that the teams with poor records and empty rosters are in a stronger position going into the next CBA?

The Iconoclast said:
It will be refreshing to see how the the big spenders feel about having to dump "big ticket" talent with rock bottom returns like many of the teams in the NHL have been forced to do over the last decade.
Once again, it becomes evident that seeing large market/big spending/successful punished is more important to you than seeing a healthy league. You claim that you hate the things that happened under the old CBA, yet right here you say that you're looking forward to the same thing - i.e. departure of talent - continuing to happen.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
EndBoards said:
Once again:
1) Haven't you been among the throng of Bettman lovers saying that a salary cap is the end-all, be-all answer to helping the bottom feeders improve?? Now you're saying that it's not??

Elimination of the disparity in salary structures is indeed a major step toward getting the game back under control. A push toward player development is the second natural step, one many teams have been on for quite some time, including a couple of the top spending teams in the league. These two mechanisms together will make the NHL more competitive IMO.

We'll turn this around and let you answer a couple of questions. So you're saying that by having a $60 million gap between the top and bottom spending teams is good for the game and breeds competition? You're also saying that when teams are forced to deal away players that they invested a lot of time and energy into developing and turning into the player they were expected to be that it is good for the game, especially when the teams spending $20-30 million over average are the teams gainingthe advantage?

2) The bottom feeders have already received their chance to improve - they recieved high draft picks over the last 3 or 4 years. "Fairness" has already been achieved.

And those draft picks have been awarded because of their lack of competitiveness in the league. Those draft picks were earned by getting their butts kicked on a regular basis and being set up in a system where they could not afford the players they themselves developed. This is the way it has always been and that's the way it will likely always be. It's not much of a reward to get a high draft pick when you've been getting humiliated in front of your own fans for years.

One thing you fail to acknowledge is that the team still have to develop a player once he is drafted. A player is likely not going to step in and play for the next four or five years and likely will not turn into the player he was projected to be for the next five or six years. The teams that get these draft picks still have to make them payoff and still have to work with the players in question. That is a big commitment, one that takes time and money to make come to fruition. Mean while all of that development time can go for naught should the player breakout and become unaffordable in your market. Oh, but that's fair!

So I guess fairness to you is being a top team in the league and still getting a chance to draft the very best players available? Fair is being able to draft poorly, not develop players, and only be able to open the wallet to buy what you need? Fairness is just waiting for the time to come when you know the star in development is ready to price himself out of the market where he plays and then you can swoop in and snap him up for moderate draft picks and prospects?

That's the best you can do? I didn't ask for a recap of how we got here I asked how you can make the claim that the 2nd team is 'weaker' than the first. Do you have an explanation or do you concede that the teams with poor records and empty rosters are in a stronger position going into the next CBA?

Who cares how things look right this minute or in the future. The draft is based on past performance. So what you're saying is that because a team spent itself into this position and did nothing to prepare for the landscape that the BOG knew was coming that the NHL should take pity on their stupidity and reward them now with a shot at the top player to come along in 15 years, because they might be bad in the next four or five years? Hey, here's a real novel idea. Play the string out, take your lumps, earn your top draft picks like the teams prior to you, draft the best player available and then take the next five years developing that talent and hoping they turn into the player. That's fair.

Once again, it becomes evident that seeing large market/big spending/successful punished is more important to you than seeing a healthy league. You claim that you hate the things that happened under the old CBA, yet right here you say that you're looking forward to the same thing - i.e. departure of talent - continuing to happen.

No, I'm loking forward to the level of the playign field. For too many years it was tilted in the favor of the big spenders. Now the big spenders will feel the budget pinch that the the smaller markets have had to deal with. Its not a matter of punishment as some of those teams have been punshed enough (the Rangers missing the playoffs, the Blues being forced to suffer through Tkachuk's antics, the Flyers having to eat Leclair's salary, the Avs being used repeatedly by Forseberg, the never making it to the cup, etc.). Its just going to be interesting to see how these teams will react to the economic reality that the majority of teams have had to live through. That's fair and has nothing to do with "punishment".
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
Have to admire Boston for trying something like this, even though it makes no sense whatsoever. I wonder how many other teams presented a draft scenario that was so blatantly in their favour? How about:

- Montreal, based on how long teams have been in the league
- Chicago, based on longest Stanley Cup drought
- NY Rangers, based on longest playoff drought
- Edmonton, based on latitude (north to south)
- Florida, based on latitude (south to north)
- Edmonton, based on the number of owners
- Phoenix, based on fewest playoff series victories ever
- Toronto, based on longest Stanley Cup Final drought
- Boston, based on number of retired numbers
- Los Angeles, based on how far teams have to travel to get to the draft in Ottawa
- Toronto, based on proximity to the centre of the universe
- Anaheim, based on ugliest uniforms to nicest uniforms

Just give everyone an equal shot at #1. If you have to weigh it, do so only slightly, so the "best" team has a 4% chance and the worst team has a 3% chance. Pick 1-30 in the 1st round and 30-1 in all other rounds, so if you get Crosby, you also get the last pick in rounds 2 through 8.
 

LordHelmet

Registered User
May 19, 2004
956
0
Twin Cities
The Iconoclast said:
So you're saying that by having a $60 million gap between the top and bottom spending teams is good for the game and breeds competition? You're also saying that when teams are forced to deal away players that they invested a lot of time and energy into developing and turning into the player they were expected to be that it is good for the game, especially when the teams spending $20-30 million over average are the teams gainingthe advantage?
Never said any of that. Don't know where you got any of it from. My position is that high salaries and winning are not directly related. High salary teams can fail, low salary teams can succeed. I agree with you that more emphasis should be placed on player retention and player development. Unfortunately, instead of working on a CBA that encourages teams to develop and keep their players, Mr. Bettman's only cares about getting a CBA with a linked salary cap.

The Iconoclast said:
And those draft picks have been awarded because of their lack of competitiveness in the league. Those draft picks were earned by getting their butts kicked on a regular basis and being set up in a system where they could not afford the players they themselves developed.
Please note that all phrases in bold are in the past tense. So you concede that the teams with poor records over the last three years have already been compensated by receiving high draft picks over the last three years?

The Iconoclast said:
One thing you fail to acknowledge is that the team still have to develop a player once he is drafted.
Sorry, but how does player development figure into the order in which teams make their picks in the upcoming draft?

The Iconoclast said:
So I guess fairness to you is being a top team in the league and still getting a chance to draft the very best players available?
Who are the top teams, Icon? How do you determine it? The teams that achieved winning records and made the playoffs over the last three years don't exist anymore. The bottom feeder teams that got high draft picks have an advantage in that they have high picks in their system playing in the minor leagues.

The Iconoclast said:
Fair is being able to draft poorly, not develop players, and only be able to open the wallet to buy what you need? Fairness is just waiting for the time to come when you know the star in development is ready to price himself out of the market where he plays and then you can swoop in and snap him up for moderate draft picks and prospects?
Isn't your new CBA with a salary cap going to fix all of that? I'm talking about the reality of the situation going forward. You're still whining about the past.

The Iconoclast said:
Who cares how things look right this minute or in the future.
Ummm, well, considering that we're talking about a draft that is in the future, well, I guess everyone reading this thread does..


The Iconoclast said:
The draft is based on past performance.
What past performance, Icon? There isn't an 04-05 season to base the 05 draft on. You're the one talking about the 'tradition' of the draft. The tradition is that the order is based on the PRIOR season's results, not an average over a period of four years..

The Iconoclast said:
So what you're saying is that because a team spent itself into this position and did nothing to prepare for the landscape that the BOG knew was coming that the NHL should take pity on their stupidity and reward them now with a shot at the top player to come along in 15 years, because they might be bad in the next four or five years? Hey, here's a real novel idea. Play the string out, take your lumps, earn your top draft picks like the teams prior to you, draft the best player available and then take the next five years developing that talent and hoping they turn into the player. That's fair.
Again, I've said nothing at all like that. You are the one claiming that you want to be fair to the weaker teams. I'm fine with that, but you still won't take a position on which of my two hypothetical teams is weaker.

The Iconoclast said:
No, I'm loking forward to the level of the playign field. For too many years it was tilted in the favor of the big spenders. blah, blah, blah..
Again, more whining about the past. They had a bunch of money to spend, we'll show them, let's get them back!!!

Which of my two hypothetical teams is weaker, Icon? Why won't you answer that?

Why won't you address the fact that teams who have performed poorly over the last four years have already been compensated for their performance with high picks over the last four years?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->