Looking back to the 2005 draft lottery

[LeafsNation75]

Everyone will remember the 2005 draft lottery because the lockout had just ended and we would find out who would be getting the chance to draft Sidney Crosby. Now because of the lockout the NHL used a different system to figure out how many teams got the best chance of winning it and they used previous playoff appearances and winning the #1 pick in previous drafts. So teams with 3 balls and the best chance to win was the Buffalo Sabres, Columbus Blue Jackets, New York Rangers, Pittsburgh Penguins.

Teams with 2 balls was Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, Atlanta Thrashers, Calgary Flames, Carolina Hurricanes, Chicago Blackhawks, Edmonton Oilers, Los Angeles Kings, Minnesota Wild, Nashville Predators, Phoenix Coyotes.

Finally teams with 1 ball was Boston Bruins, Colorado Avalanche, Dallas Stars, Detroit Red Wings, Florida Panthers, Montreal Canadiens, New Jersey Devils, New York Islanders, Ottawa Senators, Philadelphia Flyers, San Jose Sharks, St. Louis Blues, Tampa Bay Lightning, Toronto Maple Leafs, Vancouver Canucks, Washington Capitals.

Now I also remember reading that a lot of people thought it was fixed so that the Rangers would win so the NHL gets Sidney Crosby in one of their major markets in the United States, although we know that never happened. Anyway looking back because of the lockout should the NHL have said all 30 teams have the same equal chance of getting the #1 pick, to make it as fair as possible.

Click to read more...

 

[JSmith81x]

If one of the 100+ point teams from 2003-04 had won (BOS, DET, NJ, PHI, SJ, TB, etc) and Crosby had gone there, people would say it was rigged for winning teams.

If one of the good-but-not-great teams had won (CGY, MTL, OTT, STL, etc), and Crosby had gone there, people would say it was rigged for to get those teams to break up the monotony of DET and NJ (almost) always being a top team in their conferences.

If one of non-playoff teams had won (BUF, EDM, LA, PIT, etc), and Crosby had gone there, people would say it was rigged so those teams wouldn't have to move or get new owners.

If a long-standing team had won (1967 or older), and Crosby had gone there, people would say it was rigged for those teams and the league regretted their 90s expansion choices.

If one of the southern teams had won (ATL, CAR, FLA, TB), and Crosby had gone there, people would say it was rigged for those teams so the league won't look bad for putting teams in those places.

 

[revolverjgw]

I almost had a stroke following that lottery. I never expected the Habs to have a chance with the one ball, but they got achingly closer to Crosby with every draw. It was bittersweet to end up with number 5.

 

[GKJ]

Jeremy Roenick said that the league should have made an executive decision and just give him to the Rangers.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

I almost had a stroke following that lottery. I never expected the Habs to have a chance with the one ball, but they got achingly closer to Crosby with every draw. It was bittersweet to end up with number 5.

I know what you mean. If you told me before the lottery we'd end up 5th I'd have started running around the block naked, but seeing it unfold the way it did I couldn't help but feel disappointed.

 

[Mayor Bee]

The purpose of the draft is to maintain competitive balance. Ergo, giving Detroit or Colorado the same chance as Columbus or the Islanders would have been completely nonsensical.

 

[Loto68]

I've never been able to get over the fact that the Ranger fell to 16th. Yes they traded up to 12 to select Marc Staal, but we had been absolutely brutal during the dark years and only came close to a winning record once and fell so far. I don't condone draft fixing, but it really wasn't right.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

I've never been able to get over the fact that the Ranger fell to 16th. Yes they traded up to 12 to select Marc Staal, but we had been absolutely brutal during the dark years and only came close to a winning record once and fell so far. I don't condone draft fixing, but it really wasn't right.

nobody got screwed worse than the Caps.

 

[BroadwayBlues]

nobody got screwed worse than the Caps.

They weren't getting Crosby anyway. They had Ovechkin already who was the #1 overall pick the previous year.

If I'm not mistaken the 5 teams that had the most lotto balls was based on previous playoff appearances and whether they had a number 1 overall pick in previous years??

 

[Loto68]

They weren't getting Crosby anyway. They had Ovechkin already who was the #1 overall pick the previous year.

If I'm not mistaken the 5 teams that had the most lotto balls was based on previous playoff appearances and whether they had a number 1 overall pick in previous years??

If past first overall picks were taken into account, then the Pens probably shouldn't have had a chance.

 

[BroadwayBlues]

If past first overall picks were taken into account, then the Pens probably shouldn't have had a chance.

True but I also had read that acquired picks (in this case Pittsburgh having what was Florida Panthers 2003 1st round pick) was not a penalty for whatever team in the lottery.
So for the 2005 draft it didn't factor into the equation that they had a 1st overall pick 2 years prior.


Personally I thought that was BS at the time and still think it is. I mean so what if it technically wasn't Pittsburgh's pick they still picked first.

I still think that lotto was fixed for the Pens....

 

[Loto68]

True but I also had read that acquired picks (in this case Pittsburgh having what was Florida Panthers 2003 1st round pick) was not a penalty for whatever team in the lottery.
So for the 2005 draft it didn't factor into the equation that they had a 1st overall pick 2 years prior.


Personally I thought that was BS at the time and still think it is. I mean so what if it technically wasn't Pittsburgh's pick they still picked first.

I still think that lotto was fixed for the Pens....

For a 5 year stretch, the Pens would have 5 straight top 5 picks: 5th, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 2nd

This would become, Ryan Whitney, Marc-Andre Fleury, Evgeni Malkin, Sidney Crosby, Jordan Staal.

Plus, if the arguement that the Caps never had a shots at winning the 2005 lottery because of Ovie, then the Pens getting Malkin should have had the same effect. IIRC Ovie was not really rated much more highly than Malkin, and that there were some who preferred to take Malkin 1st.

 

[Michael Farkas]

For a 5 year stretch, the Pens would have 5 straight top 5 picks: 5th, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 2nd

This would become, Ryan Whitney, Marc-Andre Fleury, Evgeni Malkin, Sidney Crosby, Jordan Staal.

Plus, if the arguement that the Caps never had a shots at winning the 2005 lottery because of Ovie, then the Pens getting Malkin should have had the same effect. IIRC Ovie was not really rated much more highly than Malkin, and that there were some who preferred to take Malkin 1st.

This is an inexplicable case of sour grapes here...

It was playoffs and first overall picks leading up to that 2005 lottery, IIRC...the Pens didn't make the playoffs and they didn't pick first overall by way of winning a lottery...

Picked 5th and got Whitney, had 3rd overall in 2003 and needlessly traded up (sacrificing a young Mikael Samuelsson along the way) to #1, selected 2nd with Evgeni Malkin (and if you want to even hint at getting "screwed" the Pens LOST the lottery to the Capitals, as I recall) and then the worst team got #1 when everyone had the chance and the best team (Tampa Bay, the defending champs) got #30...it worked out just fine...

Whether 3 out of 10 scouts preferred Malkin over Ovechkin couldn't be more irrelevant to this discussion and I'm pretty incredulous as to why it was even brought up...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Personally I thought that was BS at the time and still think it is. I mean so what if it technically wasn't Pittsburgh's pick they still picked first.

I still think that lotto was fixed for the Pens....

Why should they be penalized further when they were already penalized to get the #1 pick...they finished as one of the worst teams in the league and then didn't pick first overall and then used a 2nd round pick and a young Mikael Samuelsson (IIRC) to get first overall even though it was pretty clear that Florida and Carolina weren't going to pick Fleury...so, what if Detroit traded up to get first overall after winning the Cup, ala the 1974-75 Flyers? Should they therefore get zero chance to win the 2005 lottery? Because of crafty GMing, they get punished in a 30-team lottery? That doesn't make a ton of sense to me...

And the team that had the greatest mathematical chance to win the lottery and arguably (maybe not, arguably) the worst team in the league in the previous three or four years won a draft lottery...that would sound pretty suspicious if it didn't happen just about every year since the Entry Draft was instituted...

 

[Epsilon]

A lot of people seem to be confused as to how the 2005 draft lottery took place. We frequently see comments like "the Ducks were one ball away from getting Crosby!" and the like (some similar comments about the Habs are in this thread). The league only announced the picks in the order they did to great suspense, the actual picks were done in descending order. So the first ball that was drawn was Pittsburgh's giving them the 1st overall pick, and after that point no team had a chance to get Crosby, regardless of how they were "revealed".

 

[revolverjgw]

A lot of people seem to be confused as to how the 2005 draft lottery took place. We frequently see comments like "the Ducks were one ball away from getting Crosby!" and the like (some similar comments about the Habs are in this thread). The league only announced the picks in the order they did to great suspense, the actual picks were done in descending order. So the first ball that was drawn was Pittsburgh's giving them the 1st overall pick, and after that point no team had a chance to get Crosby, regardless of how they were "revealed".

Well yeah, maybe I should have said "announcement" rather than "draw", but you know what I mean.

 

[reckoning]

The purpose of the draft is to maintain competitive balance. Ergo, giving Detroit or Colorado the same chance as Columbus or the Islanders would have been completely nonsensical.

But the problem with that draft was that there was no season before it, therefore no standings to use to determine who the best and worst teams were.

How many predicted Phoenix would have one of the best records in the West this year? Or that Colorado would be in contention for a playoff spot? Every season has surprise teams. Nobody knows how the standings would've finished had there been a '04-'05 season.

Giving all 30 teams an equal chance was the only fair option.

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a 30 team lottery every year, for no other reason than it would shut up the "TANK" crowd on the main board.

 

[Mayor Bee]

But the problem with that draft was that there was no season before it, therefore no standings to use to determine who the best and worst teams were.

How many predicted Phoenix would have one of the best records in the West this year? Or that Colorado would be in contention for a playoff spot? Every season has surprise teams. Nobody knows how the standings would've finished had there been a '04-'05 season.

Giving all 30 teams an equal chance was the only fair option.

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a 30 team lottery every year, for no other reason than it would shut up the "TANK" crowd on the main board.

I haven't done a study or seen one in hockey, but I've seen the ones in baseball. The reason why a team that rises up from nowhere is so fondly remembered years down the road is because it's so uncommon.

I think there's just some basic points to note.
- The purpose of the draft is to ensure competitive balance
- The teams with the least talent tend to cluster toward the bottom of the league
- The teams with the least talent need more of it, hence the draft
- It is extremely uncommon for a team to plummet from one season to the next (and is usually explained by various factors)
- It is extremely uncommon for a team to surge from one season to the next (and is usually explained by various factors)
- Since wild swings are uncommon, it stands to reason that teams that have had the most recent success will continue to have success in the immediate future
- It also stands to reason that teams that have been downtrodden will continue to struggle until they either acquire more talent or the rest of the league declines across the board
- Ergo, a weighted system that took the preceding three seasons into account is also reasonable where one that took the lone preceding or the preceding five would not be
- The main boards is largely packed with yahoos who clearly demonstrate that it isn't the smartest sperm that a child is conceived with, just the fastest or hardiest
- Anyone that's ever thought about it recognizes the inherent fallacy with the idea that there "needs" to be a complete overhaul of something as vital as the draft for the purpose of silencing one group of numbskulls

 

[Canadiens1958]

Worst

What has to be appreciated about any sport draft - NHL,MLB,NFL,NBA is that only players are drafted.

The worst teams, in theory, have the highest picks which is small consolation when these picks are usually made by the worst organizations, who have the worst coaches, scouts, farm systems, etc.

 

[JFA87-66-99]

The 2005 draft lottery, I remember it very well as I'm from pittsburgh. It was July 22nd and I remember leaving school early just to watch it. I never thought in a million years that Crosby would be playing in my hometown, but I was so happy I was in tears. I said that day that this is like drafting lemieux all over agian and we would win the cup in the next 5 years. It was a great day

 

[reckoning]

- The purpose of the draft is to ensure competitive balance
- The teams with the least talent tend to cluster toward the bottom of the league
- The teams with the least talent need more of it, hence the draft
- It is extremely uncommon for a team to plummet from one season to the next (and is usually explained by various factors)
- It is extremely uncommon for a team to surge from one season to the next (and is usually explained by various factors)
- Since wild swings are uncommon, it stands to reason that teams that have had the most recent success will continue to have success in the immediate future
- It also stands to reason that teams that have been downtrodden will continue to struggle until they either acquire more talent or the rest of the league declines across the board
- Ergo, a weighted system that took the preceding three seasons into account is also reasonable where one that took the lone preceding or the preceding five would not be
- The main boards is largely packed with yahoos who clearly demonstrate that it isn't the smartest sperm that a child is conceived with, just the fastest or hardiest
- Anyone that's ever thought about it recognizes the inherent fallacy with the idea that there "needs" to be a complete overhaul of something as vital as the draft for the purpose of silencing one group of numbskulls

My comment about a permanent 30 team lottery was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

But when there's no season, I still think it's only fair. More than just the season being cancelled, there was a tremendous amount of roster overhaul all over the league due to all the contracts that had expired at the end of '04. Boston and Washington had planned it so they'd have next to no old contracts on the payroll when the league restarted.

With this exorbitant amount of free agents on the market (plus more players due to a lower UFA age and buyouts), it was a unique situation unlike any other. Which is why I don't think the usual draft rules (or a variation that gave certain teams a better chance than others) should've applied. There was too much of an unknown factor about the quality of the teams. Carolina, the '06 Cup winner, was picked by most of the experts to finish near the bottom of the standings before the season.

Basically, the teams like Pittsburgh who had finished near the bottom of the league in '03 and '04 were already compensated for that with high picks in those respective years. That was my biggest problem with giving them better odds than some other teams.

I will concede that what the league did was much better than simply using the 2004 draft order again (something many on this board at the time were in favour of).

Anyways, what's done is done. There were scores of heated debates on here about it at the time. Had it been the Stefan year instead of the Crosby year, no one would care today.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

What has to be appreciated about any sport draft - NHL,MLB,NFL,NBA is that only players are drafted.

The worst teams, in theory, have the highest picks which is small consolation when these picks are usually made by the worst organizations, who have the worst coaches, scouts, farm systems, etc.

Good point.....


The lone exception being the Rangers of course, who had all of the above except never picked in the top 5.