ISS Mock Draft-TSN Insider
- Thread starter TRask
- Start date
- Status
Fozz
Registered User
Fighter said:
That's the whole point of this article. It simply shows that pretty much anything is possible even with a weighted lottery and that some teams will get screwed and others will get lucky. The fact that Toronto got the first pick certainly helped in making this a bigger story than it is, no doubt about that.
Patience my little friends, there will be a real draft lottery in a matter of weeks.
Hey Bob, how's your prospect guide coming along?
Hey Bob,
I will be doing a fantasy draft on my PS2 version of NHL 2005 tomorow. The order has been predetermined, Toronto will pick 8th and I will be picking for the Habs at #6. PM me if you would like details once the draft has taken place..
But in all seriousness I am suprised that a reasonably respected media figure would create a story based on a rediculously stupid mock draft, which was created on a speculated lottery system, when a real system hasnt been announced.
I will be doing a fantasy draft on my PS2 version of NHL 2005 tomorow. The order has been predetermined, Toronto will pick 8th and I will be picking for the Habs at #6. PM me if you would like details once the draft has taken place..
But in all seriousness I am suprised that a reasonably respected media figure would create a story based on a rediculously stupid mock draft, which was created on a speculated lottery system, when a real system hasnt been announced.
VernonForrest said:
I don't know about that. I'm far from a Toronto fan but any story about the draft is interesting. Personally, I would have liked an angle where they discussed the Leafs history with blowing first round picks and how in the past they have been free wheeling on dealing these selections with the most memorable "blow up" being the lost opportunity to select Scott Niedermayer in the 1991 draft after they made the deal for Tom Kurvers. Hard to beleive that Kurvers actually held out after the deal because he didn't want to play in Canada. That's one of those "mistakes" that Toronto has historically been able to spend itself out of - but how different would the series against L.A. been had they had Niedermeyer playing with Doug Gilmour? Again, not a huge Toronto fan but the importance of the draft on a franchise is always interesting and something most NHL fans really don't acknowledge.
hbk said:
There is no debate to the fact the draft is important to a franchise. If you read my post which you quoted, the meaning is a story about a stupid mock draft by some scouting service shouldnt be worthy of mention on a reputable sports network.
Caps at 24 is idiotic. I guess there is no end to the greed of the haves(Toronto, Colorado, Calgary, Philly etc) deserve 0 shot at Crosby and would not have had one without a strike. They use the "no season excuse." It's pretty lame. Please name the 23 teams they are better than right now!
It would definitely be reason to vote agaisnt an agreement if you are the Caps. A draft based on anything but order of finish is not acceptable. Random placement because a few teams want a shot at a good player is just wrong. I'm not sure if antitrust laws apply to hockey but I know that would never fly in baseball. If the Caps owner votes against the lockout resolution and takes a proposed draft to court based on damage to the team's future that is random and in the selfish interest of 16 playoff teams, I think he win in court. The draft cannot declare an order without a consensus in my mind without totally free agency. The Avs wanna bid for Crosby? Let me bid for Hedjuk and Foote. The Sens want to? Let me bid for Spezza and Chara. Just my opinion. Flame away all you playoff teams that can't admit your selfish interest.
It would definitely be reason to vote agaisnt an agreement if you are the Caps. A draft based on anything but order of finish is not acceptable. Random placement because a few teams want a shot at a good player is just wrong. I'm not sure if antitrust laws apply to hockey but I know that would never fly in baseball. If the Caps owner votes against the lockout resolution and takes a proposed draft to court based on damage to the team's future that is random and in the selfish interest of 16 playoff teams, I think he win in court. The draft cannot declare an order without a consensus in my mind without totally free agency. The Avs wanna bid for Crosby? Let me bid for Hedjuk and Foote. The Sens want to? Let me bid for Spezza and Chara. Just my opinion. Flame away all you playoff teams that can't admit your selfish interest.
Last edited:
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
borro said:
How could anybody do that? There aren't any games being played. Heck, there are very few rosters that are crystal clear right now.
How can anybody rank teams when there ARE no teams?
PS: Also ironic that you cry about "haves" when your team went on a gross spending spree not that long ago, which contributed to the whole mess. The fact you are crying about "haves" like the Calgary ****ing Flames and at the same time whining about your poor caps is absolutely hilarious.
Vlad The Impaler said:
Vlad I admit the Caps went overboard with Jagr. They took a gamble and paid for it. Lang was a reasonable acquisition. The Caps were not the one to escalate the whole market and you should know better. Other teams you don't even bother to mention did that. They thought Jagr was a 120 pt guy and he turned out to be an 80 point guy. That is like the first move the Caps made in 20 years. It is amazing that player after player leaves the Caps because they don't want to pay money and they get one guy and you are up in arms. History disagrees with you and so do I!
The biggest reason they turned Scott Stevens match down? Did not want to pay dollars.
Why did they trade Gartner? Dollars.
Factor what the Caps spent over the last 20 years versus what they refused to spend or lost and they come out as a non-spender.
So you base all your flimsy argument on Lang and Jagr. Just does NOT add up. Oddly it's ok for Pittsburgh to get Crosby though in mocks. Why Pittsburgh? Lets hope they go back to the last year actually played-where they can actually get some credibility. Most people view the Lemieux drafting as a huge tanking by Pittsburgh. I see alot of the wrong sentiment. Who do you want? I don't care who anyone wants. I don't care what Toronto wants, they deserve no shot at Crosby. Some better idea needs to be coming before hockey ticks off the rest of it's waning fan base.
Last edited:
DarthSather99
Registered User
borro said:
You nail it on the head bro .....no season due to a lockout is no reason for the elite teams to get a shot at not just Crosby but a top 10 pick.
Leaf Army
Registered User
borro said:
Please, the Caps already got their "reward" for sucking. His name is Ovechkin.
I have no idea why they should be handed another top 5 pick on a silver platter as a reward for sucking in a season that wasn't even played.
Especially considering that two seasons ago, the Capitals only had 6 fewer points than the Leafs and a $51 million payroll.
Yeah so the Caps tank one season and you want them to end up with both Ovechkin and Crosby. Can't blame you for trying, but that's obviously ridiculous.
DarthSather99
Registered User
Vlad The Impaler said:
This argument is a joke. It's as if the fans of the great teams really think that the best players from the best teams are going to be playing with another team. Most of the great players in their prime will STILL be restricted free agents, therefore the shift in "talent" will be not more than it would be any other year. Add to this the new salary cap and teams will have to be careful what free agents they sign.
I can guarantee that Toronto, NJ, Philly, Colorado, Tampa Bay and Ottawa will still be elite playoff teams with their stars staying with their teams after the lockout. Chicago, NYR, Columbus, Minnesota will still be on the bottom of the heap with little tatent to match up with the aforementioned teams.
To say that every team is equal because a season wasn't played is rediculous. If that's the way teams want it, then declare every player above the age of 22 a TOTAL free agent. Then I'll agree that every team is equal and deserves a shot at the #1 overall or a top 10 pick.
DarthSather99 said:
Tampa went from one of the worst teams to a division winner can cup contender in 1 year. Then went onto win the cup the following year.
Calgary went from last in their division to the cup finals in one year.
You can't just assume the bad teams would have been bad again.
Furthermore, there are a lot of UFA's out there that are very good players. How can you say the shift in talent is no more then any other year when the number of UFA's is completely unprecendented. I think you need to look at the list of players that are UFA's, based on what you wrote you would be shocked.
Also, most of the teams at the top just bit the bullet on a whole season for the benefit of teams near the bottom. The Flyers make money on hockey. They didn't need the cap or the lockout. They just lost a whole season, and they've just lost (or will lose) 3 of their top 4 scorers from the previous year because of this labor situation of the teams that lose money. The playing field will be level, or more so at least, in the future. I think it's only fair then that teams like the Flyers and Wings and Leafs and Av's that didn't need to waste a whole season, and that will lose more players then most teams, get a shot at a pick just like anyone else.
And lastly, if you're mad now, just wait till the real thing when it isn't even weighted.
DarthSather99
Registered User
Leaf Army said:
Not that I'm defending the Caps but if you look at the history of the draft, teams that are bad WILL be bad for more than one year. Therefore they will accumilate top picks for sometimes up to a decade until they can pull themselves out of the bottom of the league. Look at the Devils, Penguins, Islanders, Tampa Bay and Ottawa as teams that got REWARDED year after year because they were deficient of talent. The same holds true now, the teams that were at the bottom of the standings last season FOR THE MOST PART will still be the teams deficient of talent. Players will still be RESTRICTED from being totally free from signing with any team. The good teams will still be good and the bad teams will still be bad. Why should the good teams be REWARDED for a non season. Don't give me the idiotic excuse that no season was played and a team like Tampa Bay or Ottawa could have finished with the worst record in hockey and teams like Chicago or Columbus could have won the Stanley Cup. That is total ignorance by convenience.
DarthSather99
Registered User
Liquidrage said:Tampa went from one of the worst teams to a division winner can cup contender in 1 year. Then went onto win the cup the following year.
Calgary went from last in their division to the cup finals in one year.
You can't just assume the bad teams would have been bad again.
Furthermore, there are a lot of UFA's out there that are very good players. How can you say the shift in talent is no more then any other year when the number of UFA's is completely unprecendented. I think you need to look at the list of players that are UFA's, based on what you wrote you would be shocked.
Also, most of the teams at the top just bit the bullet on a whole season for the benefit of teams near the bottom. The Flyers make money on hockey. They didn't need the cap or the lockout. They just lost a whole season, and they've just lost (or will lose) 3 of their top 4 scorers from the previous year because of this labor situation of the teams that lose money. The playing field will be level, or more so at least, in the future. I think it's only fair then that teams like the Flyers and Wings and Leafs and Av's that didn't need to waste a whole season, and that will lose more players then most teams, get a shot at a pick just like anyone else.
And lastly, if you're mad now, just wait till the real thing when it isn't even weighted.
How many years did Tampa Bay accumilate top picks, same for Calgary. You named two teams in 20 years. Unless the vast majority of bad teams make drastic improvements EVERY YEAR then your argument is poor. One or two teams making a move is not a good argument for a major overall.
Every team has lost in this lockout, not just the teams with the most money. the Flyers, Leafs, Wings and Avs will still be stronger than Columbus, Chicago, Phoenix or the Rangers.
Pangu
Registered User
- Jun 20, 2005
- 4,675
- 107
The Caps are in one of the best poitions of any team. Far better than the Leafs. They have a ton of cap room. There will be a ton of cheap free agents. They have last year's #1 and a bunch of young players. They could easily become one of the best teams right away. They should not get the #1. Hell, the teams like Detroit could be the ones in trouble. They have to move their top players, they have no youth (which is THE most valuable asset under a cap since young players are almost always paid less than they are worth) and know everyone wants to take their pick away. This whole year has been wasted to help the bottom dwellers. So the best teams should have an equal shot at the ball.
DarthSather99
Registered User
champben2002 said:
Then heck, Detroit will have a prime pick next year if they prove to be so bad off. So they'll have their chance to "rebuild". Next years talent pool is just as good as this years. We should feel sorry for them because they have too much talent? Yeah, good reason for giving them a top pick and throw out the whole reason for a draft.
DarthSather99 said:
Not even close. Teams like the Flyers that didn't need the cap, and just got wrapped up trying to help the "nots" lost more. And will lose more. They had to let their leading scorer walk for nothing, and are going to have to buy out Amonte and LeClair for nothing and just let them go sign elsewhere.
Yeah, I'd expect them to still be good and better then some teams. But not as good as they could have been without the cap. And in the future it will only get closer in part because of the cap. That's fair, again I don't have a problem with it. But don't tell me "everyone lost". On the surface that might be true, but then some teams lost a lot more then others.
Only reason the Flyers look in good shape for the future is they did what any team could have done. They've drafted really really well and made some great trades and signings. Pitkanen, Carter, Richards, Umberger, Seidenberg, Niity, Sharp, Ruzicka, Eaton, etc... Clarke's been preparing for this, and if he hadn't been I would seriously say the Flyers would be in a lot of trouble. And I think some of the better teams will be. If not this year, then the year after.
DarthSather99 said:
No, because right now, they are going to lose talent to the lesser teams. Which is fair, but the lesser teams are usually the ones with the smaller payrolls that right off the bat are going to be able to get a lot of players from teams like Detroit.
So what you're saying if you want the lesser teams to get to take players off the better teams roster (which is going to happen) AND still give them the highest picks?
DarthSather99
Registered User
Liquidrage said:
You contradict yourself. The teams with lesser payrolls will take players from the better teams???? Do you think teams like Pittsburgh, Columbus, Minnesota are going to hit the TOP of the salary cap? NEVER. Teams with the lesser payrolls will STILL have lesser payrolls. They will not be signing high end talent for top contracts. They never have or never will. Their markets will not allow it.
Like I said, if these better teams will be SO bad off under the new CBA then they will get prime picks in future years. No reason to help them out now because they are "cursed" with good talent.
DarthSather99
Registered User
Liquidrage said:
So according to you, because the top revenue producing teams lost the most money they should get the top picks? yeah that makes alot of sence. The Flyers way over paid for Amonte. The Flyers should be rewarded for this? LeClair is on the downside of his career, the Flyers I'm sure would rather a young cheaper player take his spot. Why did the Flyers HAVE TO let their leading scorer walk? Do you want to open this can of worms?
The reward for drafting wisely and making good personel decisions is having a great team, not getting a top draft pick.
DarthSather99 said:
Do I think they are going to sign players from better teams? Yes. Did the Pens not already sign Recchi away from the Flyers? Yes, they did. And there's going to be a floor to the cap it seems. The difference in payroll is not going to be anywhere near what it used to be. They will be signing high end talent for top contracts because under the cap, the top contracts are not going to be anywhere near where they used to be. Teams like the Flyers won't be able to pay top dollar for player after player because it won't fit under the cap.
Yeah, and if those bad teams are going to get help from the draft for all those years of sucking, there's no reason they just get to sign away players from the better teams.
Yet they have and will because the better teams can't afford all the players and still come in under the cap.
DarthSather99 said:
What you replied to clearly showed players and money. You don't get to just cherry pick out the money.
The Flyers could afford to pay Amonte what they paid him. Now, they are being penalized for this.
I'm sure they'd rather just not have a cap, keep making money as they were, and keep the players they want.
Because they wouldn't pay him the money he wanted because of the upcoming cap. Yeah, he signed with the PENS. Something you're claiming wouldn't even happen.
And you still want the bad teams to get a double bonus for sucking. You want them to automatically have the top picks and you want them to sign away players from the better teams. This is of course coming off a year with no hockey. No, sorry, don't agree. Why don't you just shove a ball-gag in Ed Snyder's mouth and get it over with.
Between 1994 and 2004 the Capitals made the playoffs six our of ten years. Two of those trips took them to the division finals. I don't think that qualifies as a "have not".
Over the course of the 2003/2004 season the Capitals traded away Jaromir Jagr, Sergei Gonchar, Peter Bondra, Robert Lang, Michael Nylander, Mike Grier and Steve Konawalchuk. By stripping the team of its captain, a gritty third liner and its five biggest offensive threats the Capitals effectively torpedoed any chance of doing well that season and guaranteed themselves a top four pick. Through luck of the draw they managed to get the first overall pick. They also obtained two additional first round picks and a cadre of prospects in exchange for the talent they offloaded. So, for the price of having one poor year, the Capitals obtained:
Jakub Klepis (Grier)
Brooks Laich (Bondra)
2nd round pick 2005 (Bondra)
Thomas Fleischmann (Lang)
1st round pick 2004 - Mike Green, 29th overall (Lang)
4th round pick 2006 (Lang)
Jared Aulin (via Anson Carter from the Jagr trade)
Shaone Morrison (Gonchar)
1st round pick 2004 - Jeff Schultz, 27th overall (Gonchar)
2nd round pick 2004 - Michail Yunkov, 62nd overall (Gonchar)
2nd round pick 2006 (Nylander)
Plus the bonus of getting the first round pick for finishing last: Ovechkin.
So in addition to the potential bonanza of wealth the Capitals acquired for dismantling their team, the Capitals deserve a guaranteed top four pick in this draft as well? And in addition to this teams who put forth the effort to ice a competetive team in 2004/2005 are to be dropped back down to the bottom of the draft class? These teams sacrificed their recent prospects and picks (a must to succeed in the upcoming NHL). The players they gained were most likely lost to free agency at the end of last season or at the end of the locked out season because their contracts expired. And now these teams should be penalized in the first draft as well?
To me it makes no sense to reward a team twice for the same season, especially after the shameful firesale the Capitals had. It's like they quit their job, sunk all their money into the stock market, claimed they now "had no money" and went on welfare. Now they want to come back and get another year's welfare.
In my mind there is no team that can currently lay rightful claim to a high draft pick. Every team has their own obstacles currently and there is no one who is a clear cut contender coming into this next season. The lottery should be an equal chance for everyone. If they are weighting the draft, they should go back at least five years.
I hope this CBA brings us a weighted draft at the bare minimum. And I hope it keeps the rookie salary cap low enough that Ovechkin decides to stay home and play in the RSL. Now that's poetic justice.
Over the course of the 2003/2004 season the Capitals traded away Jaromir Jagr, Sergei Gonchar, Peter Bondra, Robert Lang, Michael Nylander, Mike Grier and Steve Konawalchuk. By stripping the team of its captain, a gritty third liner and its five biggest offensive threats the Capitals effectively torpedoed any chance of doing well that season and guaranteed themselves a top four pick. Through luck of the draw they managed to get the first overall pick. They also obtained two additional first round picks and a cadre of prospects in exchange for the talent they offloaded. So, for the price of having one poor year, the Capitals obtained:
Jakub Klepis (Grier)
Brooks Laich (Bondra)
2nd round pick 2005 (Bondra)
Thomas Fleischmann (Lang)
1st round pick 2004 - Mike Green, 29th overall (Lang)
4th round pick 2006 (Lang)
Jared Aulin (via Anson Carter from the Jagr trade)
Shaone Morrison (Gonchar)
1st round pick 2004 - Jeff Schultz, 27th overall (Gonchar)
2nd round pick 2004 - Michail Yunkov, 62nd overall (Gonchar)
2nd round pick 2006 (Nylander)
Plus the bonus of getting the first round pick for finishing last: Ovechkin.
So in addition to the potential bonanza of wealth the Capitals acquired for dismantling their team, the Capitals deserve a guaranteed top four pick in this draft as well? And in addition to this teams who put forth the effort to ice a competetive team in 2004/2005 are to be dropped back down to the bottom of the draft class? These teams sacrificed their recent prospects and picks (a must to succeed in the upcoming NHL). The players they gained were most likely lost to free agency at the end of last season or at the end of the locked out season because their contracts expired. And now these teams should be penalized in the first draft as well?
To me it makes no sense to reward a team twice for the same season, especially after the shameful firesale the Capitals had. It's like they quit their job, sunk all their money into the stock market, claimed they now "had no money" and went on welfare. Now they want to come back and get another year's welfare.
In my mind there is no team that can currently lay rightful claim to a high draft pick. Every team has their own obstacles currently and there is no one who is a clear cut contender coming into this next season. The lottery should be an equal chance for everyone. If they are weighting the draft, they should go back at least five years.
I hope this CBA brings us a weighted draft at the bare minimum. And I hope it keeps the rookie salary cap low enough that Ovechkin decides to stay home and play in the RSL. Now that's poetic justice.
DarthSather99
Registered User
pit said:
Your using one teams fire sale to justify your position. In essence you ignore the 10-12 other teams that have hit rock bottom due to lack of talent. I agree with you that there should be a weighted lottery at the minimum. The thing I don't understand is that most people who support a non-weighted lottery view a weighted lottery as a guaranteed position at the top for the bad teams. Look at the mock draft on TSN that ISS did. Toronto won the thing.
DarthSather99
Registered User
Liquidrage said:
Um, a weighted lottery doesn't GUARANTEE anything. Tampa Bay 90-00's, Ottawa 90-00, New Jersey 80-90's, Pittsburgh 80's-90's, Anaheim 90's, Los Angeles 90's and many more teams were given top 10 picks for many years. When teams are bad one year's draft doesn't give them a player that makes them a top 10 team. I don't care about the year of no hockey. Teams are all in the same boat. The best players will stay with the best teams. If the new system is bad for any team it will be proven throughout the new season and the teams that are hurt will be rewarded with a top pick NEXT YEAR.
Of course I don't expect you to agree. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want your top players in the NHL, a playoff team, a shot at the Stanley Cup every year and a shot at the #1 overall pick and the top 18 year olds coming into the NHL. If I was a fan of a team that was winning I'd want it too. Would I think it's fair based on the history of a draft, absolutlely not. Would I admit it to anyone, NO!
- Status
