if lockout who gets 1rst overall pick?

[Jacob]

Why would they care?

If anything, they'd like it, because the players drafted in 2005 would probably be under the previous CBA rules and regulations if a new deal isn't reached by draft day.

I have always just assumed that they will simply go by the 2004 draft order, with a redo of the lottery. As a Penguins fan (and probably for Caps and Blackhawks fans as well), it'd be a nice consolation for a locked-out season.

 

[barnabyrules]

There is no way that they put all the players into one huge draft. The teams wouldn't agree to that and the NHLPA wouldn't agree to that because unless they doubled the length of the draft the number of players drafted overall would be reduced and thats not what the NHLPA would want. Plus it would cause a huge problem when the teams try to negoitate with the second round picks becuase they would want 1st round money because in any other year they would have likely been 1st round picks.

I still think the best way would to have 2 seperate drafts with the "2005" draft order being determined by an overall record of the last 2-3 years.

 

[Ford Prefect]

What makes the most sense is to incorporate both draft years into one. They did that in '79 I believe when they lowered the draft elligible age from 19 to 18, basically putting 2 drafts into the same year. Do the usual 9 rounds, and then the rest are undrafted free agents. Or you can raise the age to 19. That might be better for the NHL as well. With an additional year, perhaps NHL clubs might have a better idea of what kind of players they'd be getting.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

We all have self-interest in seeing the draft done one way or another, truth is I always thought that they would just follow the same order of finish as they did this year if the season were lost, with a new lottery. That was why I was pulling so hard for the Pens to end up last. It makes no sense for them to start making up an entirely new system, be it averaging three years of losing (now there is a figure out of a hat). And btw, any of those systems would favor the Pens so I have no real need to be unbiased in saying this, remember the Pens ended up last this year, next to last last year. I just think any choice they make will favor somebody so how could they be fair other than by keeping the same system that they have used for how long is it? Twenty-five years or something like that? At least that way they have some logic behidn them. I really see no logical alternative than same system, same order, same draft, anything else would be totally out of the air and seem to be choosing one team to favor after the fact.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

There may not be a lottery. Without a CBA I'm not sure how its going to work. I can see 3 possible outcomes


3. Postponement of the draft until after there is a season. Just combine the 2005 and 2006 draft crops into one, or run two drafts one after the other as soon as the the season is done using that season's order.

I say take advantage and get the draft age backed up to 20. It would make the draft less of a crapshoot and the NFL winning their court dates vs Maurice Clarett (players must be 3 years out of highschool to enter the NFL draft) is a precedent if the NHL wanted to do so.

They only moved it to 18 from 20 to counteract the WHA back in the 70s.

 

[ginner classic]

We all have self-interest in seeing the draft done one way or another, truth is I always thought that they would just follow the same order of finish as they did this year if the season were lost, with a new lottery. That was why I was pulling so hard for the Pens to end up last. It makes no sense for them to start making up an entirely new system, be it averaging three years of losing (now there is a figure out of a hat). And btw, any of those systems would favor the Pens so I have no real need to be unbiased in saying this, remember the Pens ended up last this year, next to last last year. I just think any choice they make will favor somebody so how could they be fair other than by keeping the same system that they have used for how long is it? Twenty-five years or something like that? At least that way they have some logic behidn them. I really see no logical alternative than same system, same order, same draft, anything else would be totally out of the air and seem to be choosing one team to favor after the fact.

I cerrtainly understand what you are saying here, but I do not think it fair for any of the other teams to simply redo the same lottery with the same order. It is not fair for teams to get two years of great draft picks in exchange for one year of bad performance. We have seen there is tremendous variability on year to year positioning. San Jose misses the playoffs and then makes it to the top of their division. Teams like Florida are going to have that same outcome. Why should Florida be given an advantage over a team like Calgary based on one year. I would like to see a weighted average draft where the team finishing 30th gets 30 balls, 29th gets 29 and so on and they just keep drawing until they establish the draft order for all 30 teams. Calgary or Tampa would only have a 1 in 465 chance of getting the first pick if there is a lockout for the 2005 draft, but they should have a chance. Conversely Pittsburgh would have a 30 in 465 chance. They could even make a rule about how far you can fall.....Pittsburgh is guaranteed at worst the 5th pick or something like that.

If there is no lockout, it is not an issue....we just keep going the way we have, it seems to work just fine. If there is, I would hate the idea of teams that are no longer the worst in the league getting the first pick based on two year old results.

 

[Blind Gardien]

First off, I'll acknowledge that nobody knows what will happen, not even Gary Bettman himself, and that they have other priorities (CBA) that are intrinsically a part of the process. That said, since it's so much fun to come up with cornball ideas on it:

If they settle the CBA in time for a draft in 2005 (but not a 2004-05 season), and they build in some kind of luxury tax / salary cap, then the entire makeup of many NHL teams changes overnight. A team like Dallas has a low pick in 2004, but many would expect them to fall into the lottery range with a revamped salary structure in 2005. It wouldn't necessarily be fair to make them pick as if they are still a middling playoff team when they are essentially just starting on a rebuilding project.

As an incentive to reduce salary then, a weighting factor should be applied relative to the team's payroll. Teams with lower payroll get a bonus in the draft order. Or teams which come under a certain salary ceiling also get some tickets in the draft lottery and therefore some percentage of moving up in the order.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

As an incentive to reduce salary then, a weighting factor should be applied relative to the team's payroll. Teams with lower payroll get a bonus in the draft order. Or teams which come under a certain salary ceiling also get some tickets in the draft lottery and therefore some percentage of moving up in the order.

Again, my problem is that at this point if they choose that plan or anyone but what they ahd in place, it will be entirely arbitrary and will by choice reward one team or a certain group of teams.

 

[Blind Gardien]

Again, my problem is that at this point if they choose that plan or anyone but what they ahd in place, it will be entirely arbitrary and will by choice reward one team or a certain group of teams.

At some point, you always have to come up with a system. The current system rewards teams which are miserable, but doesn't account for the fact that they may be miserable by choice (the lottery only partially offsets this). The hope is that you try to give high picks to teams that need the help as a way of inducing parity. Teams can change personnel and position in the standings drastically in just 1 season (ask Calgary). With so many free agents and possibly a completely new financial landscape in place with a new CBA, the balance of power is likely to shift even more in this 1 season than in most typical seasons. So I don't think it's fair to give teams the same draft position as last year either.

Without playing a season, you won't get a perfect system, you still can't really predict which teams will improve or get worse, and which teams will deserve the picks based on their play. However, you can see from their payroll which teams seem to be buying into cost certainty, or have small markets or small revenues, and it would be a good incentive (from a league perspective) towards further cost certainty to give them the incentive of somewhat better draft odds by factoring that into the consideration for the draft order. You can't make it the sole consideration (again, look at the payroll for Calgary/TB, they shouldn't be picking really high), but it could be worked in as a part of the calculation.

 

[FakePlasticJackets]

Are you saying that I should scrap my plane tickets to Raleigh next month? Bummer if so.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

At some point, you always have to come up with a system. The current system rewards teams which are miserable, but doesn't account for the fact that they may be miserable by choice (the lottery only partially offsets this). The hope is that you try to give high picks to teams that need the help as a way of inducing parity. Teams can change personnel and position in the standings drastically in just 1 season (ask Calgary). With so many free agents and possibly a completely new financial landscape in place with a new CBA, the balance of power is likely to shift even more in this 1 season than in most typical seasons. So I don't think it's fair to give teams the same draft position as last year either.

Without playing a season, you won't get a perfect system, you still can't really predict which teams will improve or get worse, and which teams will deserve the picks based on their play. However, you can see from their payroll which teams seem to be buying into cost certainty, or have small markets or small revenues, and it would be a good incentive (from a league perspective) towards further cost certainty to give them the incentive of somewhat better draft odds by factoring that into the consideration for the draft order. You can't make it the sole consideration (again, look at the payroll for Calgary/TB, they shouldn't be picking really high), but it could be worked in as a part of the calculation.

Actually a new CBA with a hard Cap (the only way Detroit and Dallas, The Avs, etc. would be effected as was said above) would remedy lots of this . . . Let us say the Pens won the lottery, or even the Caps, AO and Crosby . . .how long would they keep them? I am sure that folded into a new CBA would be free agency after a reasonable period, say four, five or six years, after which keeping that team together would be impossible. Crosby or AO would soon be on another team who had managed their Cap well. Which is why I am so for a Cap, it emphasizes smarts on the part of the team, drafting well, FA signings, making room when big names come up. It would make the winners much more deserving, and make hockey a year long endeavor to enjoy with FA periods and drafting having new meaning. So all in all, keep the system as it is, if there is a hard cap it would not hurt, nor if there is not one will it hurt.

 

[jt2004]

If there is no CBA in place, there is no draft, it's that simple. 2006 would/will be stocked.

There may not be a draft and all the players could be declared UFA's for '05? Since they will say it's not there fault and they have a right to earn a living after they turn 18.

 

[Fincan]

I think the best solution would be to do the 2005 draft in 2006 and then, the minimal age to be draft would be 19. The 2006 draft pick wich some team alredy trade would become 2007 draft pick. Like that, the prospects would be more NHL ready and it would be fair for every teams...

I was gonna say this myself and was surprised that nobody said it before you. There has been talk in the past that the drafting age of NHL players should be older, and if there was a bright spot that could come out of this, raising the age one-year might be it. Any two in one drafts or using the same order really is not fair to anybody. It would not be fair to a team that is good now but is on the downhill to have two low picks when they might have had 1 high and 1 low pick if there is a season next year. If you do all in one "superdraft" suddenly the top teams are getting guys late in the 1st round that should be mid-1st rounders, and teams that would be bottome dwellers in both those years lose out on one of their two impact top 10 selections. Id hope that they would just raise the age.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

I would be in favor of increasing the minimum age before the draft as well. Could be a good time to do so. 18 years old is too young, IMO. It isn't in the players' best interest in the long run and it isn't in the teams' best interest either as they get very unknown quantity too often. 19 or 20 years old would be much better.

As for how they will determine the draft, I don't really care but my favorite method would be, f things stay the same, a completely random order where each team has an equal chance. Since there is no way of knowing the standings, it's as good and as bad as any other method.

You will not find a perfect method, IMO. There are arguments for and against any method we could come up with.

 

[Prucha73]

If there is a lockout who will get 1rst overall pick next season?

Maybe they should give it to the team that hasn't made the playoffs the longest

 

[Blind Gardien]

I would be in favor of increasing the minimum age before the draft as well. Could be a good time to do so. 18 years old is too young, IMO. It isn't in the players' best interest in the long run and it isn't in the teams' best interest either as they get very unknown quantity too often. 19 or 20 years old would be much better.

This would be ideal, but wouldn't it just open up the same old legal issues again?

Perhaps if you went with the 18-year-olds-only-allowed-in-Round-1 option, cancelled the 2005 draft due to the lockout, and then had a stacked 2006 1st round with a completely random draft order, it would lessen the impact, because the depth in the 1st round would be fabulous and teams might feel like they could get a great 18- or 19-year old at most positions in the 1st round, with the rest of the draft going back to "normal" 19-year olds only.

 

[petec1978*]

The owners won't be able to raise the minimum age. No way. They're going to have to probably make concessions on the UFA age already if they're seriously going to go after some sort of cap or luxury tax.

The league would be best served to hold the '05 draft based on random drawing and then try to get the player's association to accept it or some version of it (there could be a reduction in draft rounds to 7 too as a part of the new CBA) as a part of the final CBA.

Dumping the 05 and 06 drafts together is not something the owners are likely to allow as it will create a lot of free agents who would otherwise be decent 4th and 5th round picks who will be able to demand considerably more on the open market than they would've been able to slotted in as day two picks.

-Pete Choquette

 

[King'sPawn]

I cerrtainly understand what you are saying here, but I do not think it fair for any of the other teams to simply redo the same lottery with the same order. It is not fair for teams to get two years of great draft picks in exchange for one year of bad performance.

What if you separated the playoff and non-playoff teams from this year (as it's always done)... except teams 1-14, who didn't make the playoffs would be completely random. Teams 15-30, who did make the playoffs, would be random.

This way the teams that are inherently rebuilding still get high picks, and you don't automatically award teams with two high picks for one year of bad performance.

It's a little self serving, yeah, since I'm a Kings fan and the highest I could ever hope was 7... but at the same time agree that teams that have been prospering should get a chance at a high pick.

Or the alternative is to hold the draft 10-20 games into the season, and rank the teams from there.

 

[Chimaera]

I agree with the everyone has a shot at the top pick thing.




Though... I've heard it said on here before, and I agree with this idea.


Add the number of their finish this year, with a randomnly drawn number, and the lowest number of those two gets to pick first.


So, say, the Penguins would get 1 + (random number)


Also making sure no one can drop more than say, 5 slots.


Everyone would have a shot at the top pick, and bad teams wouldn't get slighted totally.

 

[me2]

There may not be a draft and all the players could be declared UFA's for '05? Since they will say it's not there fault and they have a right to earn a living after they turn 18.

These 18 year olds would be free to join AHL clubs or whatever. If there is a lockout and no CBA then the NHL clubs won't be signing players anyway. As regards a draft in 2006 they would still be eligible to be drafted as 19 year olds anyway.

 

[Coffey77]

I would be in favor of increasing the minimum age before the draft as well. Could be a good time to do so. 18 years old is too young, IMO. It isn't in the players' best interest in the long run and it isn't in the teams' best interest either as they get very unknown quantity too often. 19 or 20 years old would be much better.

As for how they will determine the draft, I don't really care but my favorite method would be, f things stay the same, a completely random order where each team has an equal chance. Since there is no way of knowing the standings, it's as good and as bad as any other method.

You will not find a perfect method, IMO. There are arguments for and against any method we could come up with.

I agree. Making the draft age higher would make the draft more meaningful since teams would have a better idea of who is NHL caliber. Like in basketball or NFL. Besides, only a select few players can play at 18 anyway.

I would prefer a draft (if there's a lockout) where it's totally random rather than having the teams that tanked this season get rewarded again.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

I agree with whomever said this decision will have HUGE ramifications. I think it MAY NOT be a big issue right now, but once the lockout is launched, it won't be long before this 2005 draft issue becomes a very hot topic. In another year, it might not have been, but with Sidney Crosby as the prize, it's going to be really interesting to see what happens. Let's not forget about WHA 2 starting up, and allowing 17-year-olds to play in their league. That means Crosby will get drafted in the league and, who knows, he might jump ship a la Gretzky.

I don't agree with moving the age up to 19 or 20. If there's one player every year good enough to play at age 18, it should be reason enough to keep it at 18--not to mention the legal implications. Also, players that are NOT READY at age 17-18 should NOT opt-in...that should start to be used more and more. Better that than to have to wait four years for guys like Crosby and Ovechkin, who might have cracked an NHL roster at 16 (not advocating moving the age down to 16, so don't call me out on that!).

Also agreed with having EVERY NHL club have a crack at No. 1 in 2005, should there be no season. Hey, if there was a season, every team would have a chance at Crosby, even though you wouldn't expect Detroit to finish last (or have enough assets to pull off a deal for someone else's top pick). So, if no season, everybody should get a crack at it. Maybe the lottery could be weighted based on past results of teams having picked first overall. In other words, if you've NEVER had the first pick in the draft since 1969, you'd have the most balls in the bin. Something like that might be fair. The downside? Most of the teams that haven't chosen first overall over the years are teams that favor other means to build their rosters (cough, ahem, Toronto).

Anyways, this issue will become a powder keg sooner rather than later, and a lot of it has to do with Sidney Crosby, IMHO.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

This would be ideal, but wouldn't it just open up the same old legal issues again?

same old legal issues again? Did I miss something?

Not sure if you follow football, but the NFL just successfully blocked two players from entering their draft because they have a rule that players cannot enter the draft until they are out of high school for 3 years (until they are 21 and have 3 years of college ball basically--- to get around the drop outs) The players appealed and the ruling was upheld in the NFL's favour.

The reason the NHL moved it from 20 to 18 was because of the WHA.

I kind of like the idea of maybe 1st round 18 year olds are eligible, because you do get players like Nash, Kovalchuk, as two recent examples, who can play and are not out of place. Maybe 2nd round is openend to 19 year olds and the rounds 3 and on are 20 year old draft.

 

[capman29]

Whatever the decision, it has huge ramificatiions! We're talking about #1 pick Sidney Crosby, the so-called 'Next One' (no pressure though).

I say we let him decide who he wants to play for

That sounds like total free agency and the highest bidder get him and you also wold have to give everyone the same chance.