HOH from Detroit: a twist on draft

[FlyersFan10*]

Iconoclast, I have no problems with anything that you post, but I do have a question for you. When does continually giving to the bottom feeders become too much? I mean, they get compensated in the form of high draft picks, that have a salary structure in place which all but assures their owners make money while paying out limited salaries, and they can continue to say "we're building through the draft" while four to five years of mediocrity continues. When is it time to say "Ok, you've had your fill. You obviously don't know how to run your franchise properly."

That's the only problem I have with the weighted draft proposal. I know I had an argument over in one of the other posts where when I mentioned something like this, I was completely jumped all over. Face the facts. Some teams don't know how to build a winner. As a result, they continue to get top notch draft picks, and in turn, they keep a low salary structure. I know that when I pointed out Columbus as being a bottom feeding team who has benefitted from low draft positions for years, someone responded that they've only been in the league for four years. Well, so has Minnesota and they've at least made the playoffs once. I know Ottawa made the playoffs after year four. Florida did it. Tampa Bay did it after year four as well. However, Atlanta and Nashville didn't.

So, my question is why does continuous mediocrity need to be rewarded with this draft? Why can't all teams just have their name thrown into a hat and drawn randomly? I mean, that's probably the fairest way when you think of it. And when you think that there's probably going to be a salary cap in place and many of the large market teams are gonna have to cut players, does the Columbus' and Pittsburghs not become more appealing because they have more salary room to play with? Just thought I'd pique your interest on this subject.

 

[EroCaps]

All fiscally related draft methods are redundant IMO. The NHL Entry Draft has never had anything to do with the team's bottom line. Teams need financial parity and the lockout and CBA serve that purpose. The Draft meets the practical need for parity.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

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.

Spending and winning are not related? Care to explain how in each of the past four seasons that 12 of the 16 top spending teams have made the playoffs each year. In other words, if you spend more than average you are 75% likely to make the playoffs. Conversely, if you are in the lower half of the spending teams you are 25% likely to make the playoffs. So I think we have proven that being a big spender has its advantages and that you are wrong in your assumptions. A team that controls its spending and stays below average may be successful, but if you spend more than average you increase your odds of making it to the post season by 300%.

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?

Okay, so what is you point. That the teams that were bad got to draft in the order where they would get players to improve their lot? Now why should that change? None of the bottom feeders showed they were bad enough to deserve the picks in question. Conversely they didn't show any improvement. And the top teams showed no signs of weakening either. Nothing has changed so the results from the last season still stand. If you don't like those results we can do what is suggested and do an average of the last three to five years. Either is satisfactory. You have yet to show a single reason as to WHY the teams that finished in the top portion of the league deserve an equal chance to draft earlier than their last finish position would dictate. NOT ONE. The potential down the road finish is not a reason.

Sorry, but how does player development figure into the order in which teams make their picks in the upcoming draft?

They really don't, but my point was that players drafted in the last three or four drafts don't mean anything except that they are a prospect somewhere in the system. All teams have prospects and those prospects have changed the expectation levels placed on them. All they are at this point is players that may or may not pan out. Conversely, it seems that you like to use them as an excuse to give the top teams access to the top picks. Hey, maybe Philadelphia would like to cough up Richards and Carter then?

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.

They don't exist? Really? Seems Toronto is pretty much the same roster. Seems Phiadelphia is the same roster. Detroit is pretty well intact. Its not like all the teams have been scattered to the wind. Most teams were fully expecting to have their key portions of their rosters back for play this year.

As for picks playing in the minors that's bull. The players that were selected the past could of seasons are still in junior hockey. There's really one or two classes that see a very small number of prospects playing in the minors right now. The top end prospects have been playing in Europe or sitting on the sidelines with the rest of the NHLPA. And all teams have that advantage working for them, not just the small market teams.

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 reality of the situation? No, you're not talking about the reality of the situation. The reality is that teams knew where this was headed for years. Some did something about it and some did not. Those that did not do not deserve jack. You OTOH are crying a river and saying how things are set up against the teams that refused to see past the end of their noses and recognize where this was headed. I say used the accepted method of setting the draft based on historical data. You say pick names out of a hat. PICK NAMES OUT OF A HAT! Yeah, that's a real sound methodology for addressing imbalance.

Ummm, well, considering that we're talking about a draft that is in the future, well, I guess everyone reading this thread does..

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..

And when there is no last season you revert to the one prior. You don't stop at your uncles habadashory and pick up a brand spanking new fedora to decide draft order. That's just insane and makes the league look even more mickey mouse than it presently does.

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.

Okay, the second one is weaker. They will have the lesser talent on the top lines. They have a greater oppotunity to get better in the near future, but at present the first team is likely stronger. Those with the top end talent are more likely to get to the playoffs and attain greater success in the short term.

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?

You've got your answer. Now take you silly hat scenario and take it to the corner and find a new revenue stream for one of your fat cat teams that needs so much help. They certainly do not deserve a shot at a top draft pick, and frankly, we would not be having this conversation if Syndey Crosby were not available.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

So, my question is why does continuous mediocrity need to be rewarded with this draft? Why can't all teams just have their name thrown into a hat and drawn randomly? I mean, that's probably the fairest way when you think of it. And when you think that there's probably going to be a salary cap in place and many of the large market teams are gonna have to cut players, does the Columbus' and Pittsburghs not become more appealing because they have more salary room to play with? Just thought I'd pique your interest on this subject.

Columbus chose a given way to build a team. They went with a lot of youngsters when they drafted their team and hoped to build an up and comer. They are improving, but slower than expected. They decided to go against the systematic aproach that Minnesota took, and play crap hockey, and try to go the younth route. I don't think they have been as successful at drafting as they would have liked and that has slowed their growth. But that is the way they chose to operate. Right or wrong they made the decision based on the parameters put in place by the league and operated in that fashion. You may consider that as continuous medocrity, but to those teams that cannot afford to take risks on players like Leclair and Amonte they do what they have to move forward. They see small steps to getting better where you see mediocrity.

See, you have no concept of what building a team through drafts is like. As a Flyer fan you have always had the luxury of knowing that the next big star player is just a paycheck away and that being mediocre is not in the cards with the ability to spend $60+ million. If you had to wait for players like Gagne and Williams to mature into front line players and suffer in the lower end of the pack while they learn to carry the load you might appreciate it better. But because you've always had a Lindros or a Roenick or a who ever a signature away its easy to look down your nose at those teams that are forced to build through the draft and find momentum from that.

I am not against large markets. I support the Rangers having a crack at the top pick. They have paid their dues and deserve a shot at the top player available. But the teams that have been perrenial playoff teams over the past decade can go to hell IMO. They have no right to expect anything other than to sit on the sidelines and watch Crosby go to one of the lower eschelon teams. That's fair and that's the way things have always been done. Just because there was a season lost to work stoppage does not mean we resort to some stupid system where a team that has not missed the playoffs in over a decade has the same chance to get the franchise player as a team that has been to the playoffs once or twice in that same time.

 

[PecaFan]

Iconoclast, I have no problems with anything that you post, but I do have a question for you. When does continually giving to the bottom feeders become too much?

That's easy. NEVER.

We kept giving high picks to Quebec because they continued to suck. We kept giving high picks to Ottawa because they continued to suck.

It's always been that way, always will be.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

Columbus chose a given way to build a team. They went with a lot of youngsters when they drafted their team and hoped to build an up and comer. They are improving, but slower than expected. They decided to go against the systematic aproach that Minnesota took, and play crap hockey, and try to go the younth route. I don't think they have been as successful at drafting as they would have liked and that has slowed their growth. But that is the way they chose to operate. Right or wrong they made the decision based on the parameters put in place by the league and operated in that fashion. You may consider that as continuous medocrity, but to those teams that cannot afford to take risks on players like Leclair and Amonte they do what they have to move forward. They see small steps to getting better where you see mediocrity.

But what gets me about Columbus was that they had an EXTREMELY competitive team in year one. Every year after that, they continually tanked. Improvement should be seen year after year, but there hasn't been any improvement. At some point, someone has to say "wait a second here. What the hell is going on? We should be better by now, but we're getting worse. How come?" And nobody has asked that. The moment anyone who is a fan of a big market team mentions that, then we're accused of buying our team. Fact of the matter is this. Columbus was a competitive team in year one and they've slipped every year after that. Pascal Leclaire has been a bust pick, Kiel McLeod was let go for nothing, Rostislav Klesla has taken a step backwards in his development and all the veterans MacLean has brought in hasn't helped the team. At some point, after years and years of high draft picks, do you not think that maybe there's something wrong with management there? And that's what I mean by mediocrity. It isn't an issue of just players, but at some point, you have to begin to question whether the management in place can get the job done. And that's the problem that I have. It's proven that it can't get the job done.

See, you have no concept of what building a team through drafts is like. As a Flyer fan you have always had the luxury of knowing that the next big star player is just a paycheck away and that being mediocre is not in the cards with the ability to spend $60+ million. If you had to wait for players like Gagne and Williams to mature into front line players and suffer in the lower end of the pack while they learn to carry the load you might appreciate it better. But because you've always had a Lindros or a Roenick or a who ever a signature away its easy to look down your nose at those teams that are forced to build through the draft and find momentum from that.

Ok, the comment about the Flyers is something I take great offense with. We don't know what it is like to build through the draft? Please. When we traded for Lindros, it robbed us of our farm system and talent. It was only once Clarke came on board that our farm system began to replenish. We've built very astutely through the draft. What nobody mentions is how we've done trade wise. Leclair and Desjardins were acquired in a trade, Esche and Handzus were acquired in trades, Jonsson and Markov were trades, Pitkanen was a trade, Amonte and Brashear were trades. So, that statement in itself holds little water because the only free agent we signed was Roenick. All of those players that I've mentioned were players that we've traded for. What many people fail to mention is that the $60 million payroll in Philadelphia came to keep our talent in place. As well, the payroll also came because as a market, we could afford to do so. Philadelphia has top notch corporate sponsorship, a great tv and radio deal, and excellent fans. Yet, because we're a large market team that have worked hard at building our market, then we should have to support a salary cap. No, I don't believe that at all. What I do believe is that if you want a salary cap, then full revenue sharing like the NFL must take place. Why is the league so against that concept for? I'll tell you why. Owners in Chicago and Boston, that's why. Two owners who continue to screw their fan base, make lots of revenue, yet they want a cap system in place with no real revenue sharing. Why? To maximize their profits, that's why. With real revenue sharing, it means having to report all revenue. And if I remember correctly, didn't Jeremy Jacobs get nailed for not reporting revenue?

I am not against large markets. I support the Rangers having a crack at the top pick. They have paid their dues and deserve a shot at the top player available. But the teams that have been perrenial playoff teams over the past decade can go to hell IMO. They have no right to expect anything other than to sit on the sidelines and watch Crosby go to one of the lower eschelon teams. That's fair and that's the way things have always been done. Just because there was a season lost to work stoppage does not mean we resort to some stupid system where a team that has not missed the playoffs in over a decade has the same chance to get the franchise player as a team that has been to the playoffs once or twice in that same time.

So, what you're saying then is that any large market team with good management, a strong fan base, the ability to generate their own revenue and has consistently done well doesn't deserve a shot a Crosby? Why should good teams be punished for? And that's essentially what has gone on in the NHL. It has punished teams for working hard to create their market, getting a great fanbase with corporate support and having good hockey people running an organization. Do you honestly believe this lockout was about players salary? C'mon, this lockout wasn't about that. It was something the league could focus on because it was something that was public. This lockout is about the haves and the have nots. It's about punishing the teams who have worked hard to build their markets.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

That's easy. NEVER.

We kept giving high picks to Quebec because they continued to suck. We kept giving high picks to Ottawa because they continued to suck.

It's always been that way, always will be.

And you know what happened, they eventually got good. Really, really good. But Quebec and Ottawa didn't get good until good management was brought in. Funny, noticed how good Quebec became when Marcel Aubut, Pierre Page and everyone was canned and Marc Crawford and Pierre Lacroix were brought in? Funny, remember how good Ottawa became when Pierre Gauthier and Jacques Martin were brought in? Seems everyone fails to mention that you can have all the great draft picks, but if your managment and coaching staff suck, well, you're still gonna suck.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Hey Flyersfan, and others with similar arguments. A simple question. What is the draft for? Listening to you I hear that it by rights should be 'yet another perk for the big market teams.'

You should read Joseph Conrads 'The Heart of Darkness' where Europeans basically said that they took resources from the Africans because they were just not capable of fending for themselves. Not smart enough. Dumb, dumb Africans, we knew how to use their resources better, it was for their own good.

You sound just like that regarding smaller market teams. Dumb dumb small market teams, they should not have any draft picks. We should not be uppity to our betters, right? You deserve our picks as we would just waste 'em, anyways.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

But what gets me about Columbus was that they had an EXTREMELY competitive team in year one. Every year after that, they continually tanked. Improvement should be seen year after year, but there hasn't been any improvement. At some point, someone has to say "wait a second here. What the hell is going on? We should be better by now, but we're getting worse. How come?" And nobody has asked that. The moment anyone who is a fan of a big market team mentions that, then we're accused of buying our team. Fact of the matter is this. Columbus was a competitive team in year one and they've slipped every year after that. Pascal Leclaire has been a bust pick, Kiel McLeod was let go for nothing, Rostislav Klesla has taken a step backwards in his development and all the veterans MacLean has brought in hasn't helped the team. At some point, after years and years of high draft picks, do you not think that maybe there's something wrong with management there? And that's what I mean by mediocrity. It isn't an issue of just players, but at some point, you have to begin to question whether the management in place can get the job done. And that's the problem that I have. It's proven that it can't get the job done.

Yup, and that's why a team like Calgary made the move they did and brought in a guy they had all the faith in the world in and gave him free reign to do what he needed to. Columbus has a good man in MacLean and he's executing his plan. Has it come completely together? Nope. Should he be canned for it? he's coming up to year five. If he doesn't perform I think he's toast.

Ok, the comment about the Flyers is something I take great offense with. We don't know what it is like to build through the draft? Please. When we traded for Lindros, it robbed us of our farm system and talent. It was only once Clarke came on board that our farm system began to replenish. We've built very astutely through the draft. What nobody mentions is how we've done trade wise. Leclair and Desjardins were acquired in a trade, Esche and Handzus were acquired in trades, Jonsson and Markov were trades, Pitkanen was a trade, Amonte and Brashear were trades. So, that statement in itself holds little water because the only free agent we signed was Roenick. All of those players that I've mentioned were players that we've traded for. What many people fail to mention is that the $60 million payroll in Philadelphia came to keep our talent in place. As well, the payroll also came because as a market, we could afford to do so. Philadelphia has top notch corporate sponsorship, a great tv and radio deal, and excellent fans. Yet, because we're a large market team that have worked hard at building our market, then we should have to support a salary cap. No, I don't believe that at all. What I do believe is that if you want a salary cap, then full revenue sharing like the NFL must take place. Why is the league so against that concept for? I'll tell you why. Owners in Chicago and Boston, that's why. Two owners who continue to screw their fan base, make lots of revenue, yet they want a cap system in place with no real revenue sharing. Why? To maximize their profits, that's why. With real revenue sharing, it means having to report all revenue. And if I remember correctly, didn't Jeremy Jacobs get nailed for not reporting revenue?

I'm sorry you take offense to it, but its a fact of life. Philadelphia has had an advantage that other teams have not had, that being a massive budget. Not many teams in this league can live with the mistakes of contracts like Chris Gratton, Tony Amonte and John Leclair. One of those contracts would have crippled a few teams. Two would have crippled most. The Flyers just continue along as if nothing happened. That is a massive advantage.

The Flyers are a team I'm actually pretty easy on because they have a pretty good organization. They develop some good players, but they can do so because they have the assets to support them. As I said earlier, if the Flyers had to actually go through a serious draft and development phase, like they may be faced with in the future in a capped world, it will be interesting to see how they react. Flyer fans should remember the early 90's and how painful that was. A repeat of that will likely be in the cards in the future at some point. That's the way sports is.

So, what you're saying then is that any large market team with good management, a strong fan base, the ability to generate their own revenue and has consistently done well doesn't deserve a shot a Crosby? Why should good teams be punished for? And that's essentially what has gone on in the NHL. It has punished teams for working hard to create their market, getting a great fanbase with corporate support and having good hockey people running an organization.

No, I am not saying that any large market team with all those things doesn't deserve a shot at Crosby. They can get that shot if they wish, through making a trade with the team that has earned the right to draft first. I'm sure a package of Richards, Carter and Pitkanen would get the attention of what ever team has the first pick. But if your asking me if a team that has made the playoffs for a decade, and has never finished worse than middle of the pack, deserves a shot at Crosby or any other top five draft pick, then I answer no.

Do you honestly believe this lockout was about players salary? C'mon, this lockout wasn't about that. It was something the league could focus on because it was something that was public. This lockout is about the haves and the have nots. It's about punishing the teams who have worked hard to build their markets.

Okay, now that comment I take offense to. I have seen first hand the struggles that the Alberta teams have gone through. No one has worked harder to survive in the NHL than Edmontn and Calgary. NO ONE. The creativity they have shown in finding revenue streams to compete has been incredible. The Canadian teams have been up against a terrible disadvantage because of the currency difference. The league has helped, but it has not been enough. The Alberta teams have done everything imaginable to keep their teams a float and competitive. They have great followings, Calgary has great corporate support, and they have the communities behind the teams because they ARE part of the community. All teams have faced their own challenges (I know the Florida teams plights pretty well too) and they have all worked very hard to grow their markets. But it is very hard when you don't have the massive budget and revenue streams that the corporate owned teams have at their disposal. Its hard to reach out to the community at times. This is the weakness I saw in Florida, but it wasn't for trying.

There are teams out there that are not doing much to improve their market (Phoenix is pathetic IMO) so you have a point there, but you can't tar everyone with the same brush. Just like I look at the big spenders individually I look at the bottom feeders individually as well. I think certain teams should be folded or relocated, but the vast majority need a system that works for them as well as it works for the big spenders. This is what the NHL is trying to do. It has zero to do with punishing anyone, and has everything to do with creating an environment where 30 teams (hopefully 30 teams) can compete on an even field. But together there the bottom feeders need to find quality players that can help them build up excitement in their markets and that's where the draft come in. Without the weaker teams being compensated with earlier draft picks the league will die a slow and painful death IMO.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

And you know what happened, they eventually got good. Really, really good. But Quebec and Ottawa didn't get good until good management was brought in. Funny, noticed how good Quebec became when Marcel Aubut, Pierre Page and everyone was canned and Marc Crawford and Pierre Lacroix were brought in? Funny, remember how good Ottawa became when Pierre Gauthier and Jacques Martin were brought in? Seems everyone fails to mention that you can have all the great draft picks, but if your managment and coaching staff suck, well, you're still gonna suck.

Maybe Philadelphia should wisen the hell up and tie the can to Bobby Clarke? The guy has had an awesome team for the better part of a decade but never makes the right move to get his team over the hump. Maybe its time for Philly to make a change too?

 

[Jaded-Fan]

One thing for some of you to think on.

Under a capped environment you eventually will become one of the bottom feeders. All of us will. So before you get too high and mighty just remember that eventually that will be you getting pissed on. I wonder what tune you will be whistling then? No I don't, I know exactly what the tune will sound like.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

Yup, and that's why a team like Calgary made the move they did and brought in a guy they had all the faith in the world in and gave him free reign to do what he needed to. Columbus has a good man in MacLean and he's executing his plan. Has it come completely together? Nope. Should he be canned for it? he's coming up to year five. If he doesn't perform I think he's toast.



I'm sorry you take offense to it, but its a fact of life. Philadelphia has had an advantage that other teams have not had, that being a massive budget. Not many teams in this league can live with the mistakes of contracts like Chris Gratton, Tony Amonte and John Leclair. One of those contracts would have crippled a few teams. Two would have crippled most. The Flyers just continue along as if nothing happened. That is a massive advantage.

The Flyers are a team I'm actually pretty easy on because they have a pretty good organization. They develop some good players, but they can do so because they have the assets to support them. As I said earlier, if the Flyers had to actually go through a serious draft and development phase, like they may be faced with in the future in a capped world, it will be interesting to see how they react. Flyer fans should remember the early 90's and how painful that was. A repeat of that will likely be in the cards in the future at some point. That's the way sports is.



No, I am not saying that any large market team with all those things doesn't deserve a shot at Crosby. They can get that shot if they wish, through making a trade with the team that has earned the right to draft first. I'm sure a package of Richards, Carter and Pitkanen would get the attention of what ever team has the first pick. But if your asking me if a team that has made the playoffs for a decade, and has never finished worse than middle of the pack, deserves a shot at Crosby or any other top five draft pick, then I answer no.



Okay, now that comment I take offense to. I have seen first hand the struggles that the Alberta teams have gone through. No one has worked harder to survive in the NHL than Edmontn and Calgary. NO ONE. The creativity they have shown in finding revenue streams to compete has been incredible. The Canadian teams have been up against a terrible disadvantage because of the currency difference. The league has helped, but it has not been enough. The Alberta teams have done everything imaginable to keep their teams a float and competitive. They have great followings, Calgary has great corporate support, and they have the communities behind the teams because they ARE part of the community. All teams have faced their own challenges (I know the Florida teams plights pretty well too) and they have all worked very hard to grow their markets. But it is very hard when you don't have the massive budget and revenue streams that the corporate owned teams have at their disposal. Its hard to reach out to the community at times. This is the weakness I saw in Florida, but it wasn't for trying.

There are teams out there that are not doing much to improve their market (Phoenix is pathetic IMO) so you have a point there, but you can't tar everyone with the same brush. Just like I look at the big spenders individually I look at the bottom feeders individually as well. I think certain teams should be folded or relocated, but the vast majority need a system that works for them as well as it works for the big spenders. This is what the NHL is trying to do. It has zero to do with punishing anyone, and has everything to do with creating an environment where 30 teams (hopefully 30 teams) can compete on an even field. But together there the bottom feeders need to find quality players that can help them build up excitement in their markets and that's where the draft come in. Without the weaker teams being compensated with earlier draft picks the league will die a slow and painful death IMO.

Points well taken, but to rebut a couple of things. First, when the Flyers signed Chris Gratton, people fail to remember that here was a 6'3, 220 pound centerman who had scored 33 goals and assisted on 37 others for 70 points on a bad Tampa Bay team. When he came to Philadelphia, he came with the expectation that he would center the second line and that he and Lindros would be the two headed demons that no one wanted to face. The problem was that the coach at the time (Wayne Cashman), took a crap on the bench and had this moronic idea to put Gratton on the wing. His play suffered because he was not comfortable at the wing (it was evident in his play) and when Cashman was fired and replaced by Roger Neilson, one of the first things Neilson did was put Gratton back at center. Funny thing is, Gratton still ended up with 70 points in his first season in Philadelphia. However, the Flyers got eliminated in the first round by Buffalo that year. On top of that, Gratton and Alexandre Daigle were the two best Flyers players in that series. I've always felt that Grats got the shaft in Philadelphia and because Neilson didn't quite rely on him in his second season, he was dealt back to Tampa Bay for a couple of stiffs. I'll say this about Philadelphia. It's an organization that is a confidence killer. Too many good players have been ruined there.

It's funny Icon, but I'd like to think that you and I think very similar when it comes to hockey. My only problem with hockey right now is that everything is being done to protect the mediocre franchises. And like I said, this lockout isn't about protecting the teams that really need the help, this is about protecting the teams with bad ownership and poorly run structure. If this lockout were about truly protecting the teams that really need the help, then there is no reason why the league wouldn't be looking at a full revenue sharing plan like the NFL. The fact that they won't look at anything like that clearly indicates that there are those who don't want to put the money where their mouth is. Until there is, it will always be a league about haves versus have nots.

 

[PecaFan]

And you know what happened, they eventually got good. Really, really good. But Quebec and Ottawa didn't get good until good management was brought in. Funny, noticed how good Quebec became when Marcel Aubut, Pierre Page and everyone was canned and Marc Crawford and Pierre Lacroix were brought in? Funny, remember how good Ottawa became when Pierre Gauthier and Jacques Martin were brought in? Seems everyone fails to mention that you can have all the great draft picks, but if your managment and coaching staff suck, well, you're still gonna suck.

None of which is relevant to your question, or the topic at hand.

As long as the team sucked in the last season played, regardless of reason, we give them the top picks.

 

[Mess]

None of which is relevant to your question, or the topic at hand.

As long as the team sucked in the last season played, regardless of reason, we give them the top picks.

But we did that already based on standings .. That is way Washington has Ovechkin now ... how many times are we going to use the same results .??.

 

[nyrmessier011]

i didn't want to start a new thread for this...but in the middle of the mckenzie article regarding the new playoff format, didn't he say the two sides had promise to meet in toronto on monday...any details on whether there was an informal meeting or not btw bettman/goody etc?

 

[cstu]

How about using the Hockey's Future organizational rankings and giving Crosby to the 30th ranked team? Sounds like a plan to me.