Poll: If Season is lost, most likely draft scenerio?

[Accord]

Use last years finish, and equal lottery chance for all non-playoff teams.

 

[Nimrods Son]

why would you do that, reward failure? Why punish teams like Calgary that finally, after near a decade of cellar dwelling, do well?

 

[PecaFan]

Combinin into one monster draft personally i don't like. Not only does it mean that some players will not get drafted when they should but you are givin the worse teams even more high end talent as they pick early.

What? You've got it backwards. Combining gives worse teams *less* talent, and the better teams more. For example, imagine a team consistently a the 10 spot. In a split draft, they get two #10 quality players. In a combined draft, they get a #5 quality player (1a,1b,2a,2b,3a,3b,4a,4b,5a,5b)

Similarly, imagine the worst team in the league, they have the first overall pick this year, and they would have been equally bad next year, and probably would have had the #1 pick again. With two drafts, they get *two* #1 players. With a combined draft, they get a #1, and a #16.

That's assuming the drafts are roughly equal in strength, but the principle still applies even if one is stronger.

 

[MiamiScreamingEagles]

Here is a concept totally radical. Of course the-powers-that-be would never go for such a concept (and for good reason) but for the sake of fun and interest let's base it on the most recent Stanley Cup Finalists. Franchises which have never appreared in the Finals or have not since prior to 1990 would head into a draft lottery (Crosby to Toronto? to Phoenix with Gretz? to New York - Isles?)

So here it goes, by my count 20 of the 30 NHL teams have been to the Finals since 1990. The 10 contenders in the draft lottery: NYI, St. Louis, Toronto, Ottawa, Columbus, Minnesota, Atlanta, Nashville, San Jose, Phoenix.

Then the rest of the picks go like this based on their most recent appearance in reverse order (tie breakers, like 11-12 or 29-30 among others, go to the loser in that Final): 11 BOS, 12 EDM, 13 CHI, 14 PITT, 15 LA, 16 MON, 17 VAN, 18 NYR, 19 FLA, 20 PHI, 21 WAS, 22 BUFF, 23 DALL, 24 COLO, 25 CAROL, 26 DETR, 27 ANA, 28 NJ, 29 CALG, 30 TB

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

What? You've got it backwards. Combining gives worse teams *less* talent, and the better teams more. For example, imagine a team consistently a the 10 spot. In a split draft, they get two #10 quality players. In a combined draft, they get a #5 quality player (1a,1b,2a,2b,3a,3b,4a,4b,5a,5b)

Similarly, imagine the worst team in the league, they have the first overall pick this year, and they would have been equally bad next year, and probably would have had the #1 pick again. With two drafts, they get *two* #1 players. With a combined draft, they get a #1, and a #16.

That's assuming the drafts are roughly equal in strength, but the principle still applies even if one is stronger.

No it does give worse teams more talent. Say the Caps had #1, they pick Crosby right then they have #31 pick and they pick a guy who would gone around #15 overall in his draft year. Meanwhile a good team say the Wings gets the #30 overall pick meaning the guy would have gone around #15. They then pick at #60 and get roughly a guy who would have gone #30 overall in his draft year.
The Caps get #1 and a guy who in a normal year would go #15. The Wings get a guy would go around #15 in a normal year and a guy who would go around #30 in a normal year. The Caps get double the talent in theory then they would usually get. That is unfair.

 

[Drake1588]

If the whole season is wiped, the fairest idea I can think of is to simply push back the draft age to 19. You take this year's draft class, and every subsequent draft class, and make them wait one extra year. No draft without NHL play, and no super draft comprising the equivalent of two regular draft classes either. There has been discussion about raising the draft age for years now anyway. Would any young players/player agents sue? I don't know, but I think that is a suit that hockey could win.

Barring that, any solution proposed is going to ruffle feathers somewhere or another.

In reality, that probably won't happen, and there will likely be some jury-rigged compromise idea. Maybe a non-playoff team weighted lottery or something. I don't see a lot of people being happy with that, but it's probably the direction in which the league would lean.

 

[PecaFan]

No it does give worse teams more talent. Say the Caps had #1, they pick Crosby right then they have #31 pick and they pick a guy who would gone around #15 overall in his draft year.
The Caps get #1 and a guy who in a normal year would go #15. The Caps get double the talent in theory then they would usually get. That is unfair.

You're not following your own argument. Concentrate on the Caps. They got a #1 and a #16 type at the #31 spot.

Where would they have picked the second year, if the drafts hadn't been combined? #15 to #30? They went from being the worst team in the league, to being in the upper half of the league and in the playoffs? Of course not, that's extremely unlikely. They might improve a bit, but they're still going to be one of the worst teams in the league, and almost surely have a lottery pick.

The Caps get a #1 and a #16, instead of two #1's, two top 5's, etc. With two separate drafts, Washington can draft both an Ovechkin, and then a Crosby the next year. In fact, that's a quite reasonable possibility. By combining them into one draft, It's *impossible* for that to happen.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

With them all but playing the funeral dirge for this year's NHL, this question takes prominance as the next big issue once the NHL and NHLPA eventually do sign a contract. In fact, as a Pen's fan we are already debating the values of Brule vs. Johnson on our board.

Hence, instead of reposting this question, I will Bump the past discussions for further debate.

 

[GKJ]

Doug Armstrong is on the FAN right now and he says his understanding is that if there is no season, there is no draft. (like I said before)

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Doug Armstrong is on the FAN right now and he says his understanding is that if there is no season, there is no draft. (like I said before)

You misread the question. No season, no draft until a new contract is signed, at which point, immediately after, there will be a draft. This question addresses that moment.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Equal lottery chance for every team, or make them all open game.

No one addresses why this would be the right solution . . . other than the fact that they root for a team who picks near the bottom. No solution can be entirely 'fair' but how is allowing the Detroits, Colorado's Toronto's, etc. of the world end up potentially number one, and Chicago or Pittsburgh ending up randomly at 30 be the more fair solution? It is almost inevitable with a totally random system that someone who is stacked will end up near or at the top and a long suffering team will end up at or near the bottom.

I am waiting to hear someone explain this eloquently to me.

 

[Chili]

No new cba = no draft, I can pull out the Daly quote again if you like.

Any future draft will be spelled out in the cba, so you can only speculate on how it will go down, who drafts where, etc.

For all we know it this point, it could be 3 rounds.

I imagine that if and when the season is officially cancelled, this topic and the corresponding speculation will run rampant. Maybe Eklund will be able to provide some insight.

 

[GKJ]

You misread the question. No season, no draft until a new contract is signed, at which point, immediately after, there will be a draft. This question addresses that moment.

A scenario I heard somewhere (might have been on the FAN) that if there was deal signied after the draft, they would have the draft in like November, but didn't say how they would do it.

I say do the draft in January or February with the combined point totals from the 2003-04 season and the potential current season, combine them together and do a weighted lottery, with the #30 team having an .01% chance at the first pick, and moving up proper increments.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

No new cba = no draft, I can pull out the Daly quote again if you like.

Any future draft will be spelled out in the cba, so you can only speculate on how it will go down, who drafts where, etc.

For all we know it this point, it could be 3 rounds.

I imagine that if and when the season is officially cancelled, this topic and the corresponding speculation will run rampant. Maybe Eklund will be able to provide some insight.

Exactly . . . which is what I am doing with this thread, speculating what the new CBA will call for. Do not get all technical with me people, I get confused enough as it is . . .

 

[Sam I Am]

Upon cancellation of the season, Sidney Crosby should immediately become the sole and exclusive property of the Montreal Canadiens, ready to proudly bear the torch once held by Richard, Beliveau, Lafleur and others as soon as hockey resumes.

The rest of the 18-year-old can be drafted in order determined by random selection.

Clearly, the only truly fair solution.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

A scenario I heard somewhere (might have been on the FAN) that if there was deal signied after the draft, they would have the draft in like November, but didn't say how they would do it.

I say do the draft in January or February with the combined point totals from the 2003-04 season and the potential current season, combine them together and do a weighted lottery, with the #30 team having an .01% chance at the first pick, and moving up proper increments.

Not being smart, but unless I am missing something, how in the world would you figure a point total from this lost season to factor in?

 

[Chili]

Exactly . . . which is what I am doing with this thread, speculating what the new CBA will call for. Do not get all technical with me people, I get confused enough as it is . . .

The season hasn't been cancelled yet, so it's premature.

And you said above a draft would be held immediatly after a cba is signed. We don't know that. If a new cba is signed in Jan 2006, what is to say they won't wait until June 2006 and hold one draft of 18 and 19 year olds?

Bottom line, we won't know until a new cba is signed. The longer this goes on though, the more complicated holding the draft will become.

 

[Morbo]

It wouldn't be fair to use past standings in any way.

Acceptable solutions to me would be:

-combine the 2005 eligibles with 2006 draft.

-holding the 2005 draft immediately when hockey returns, using a totally random order.

-make ALL 2005-eligible draftees free agents, giving all teams the equal opportunity to sign them.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I'm with Jaded. Someone please explain why a team like Detroit deserves an equal shot as a team like Pitt?
Sure, Detroit COULD be god-awful and get the first pick if a season were played and Pitt COULD come out of nowhere and win the cup. But anything could happen in the COULD scenario.
The question shouldn't be what could happen. It should be what likely could happen. Is that 100% acurate? Absolutely not, but without a season, you're not going to get a 100% acurate draft order. You have to get as close as you can.

Assuming Pitt would be worse than Detroit is the starting point. Assuming Pitt and Detroit are the same is not.

 

[TruGr1t]

I agree, it's debatable whether the current lottery system is even any good, so why take this 'my team sucks so automatically give me another ridiculously high draft pick' mentality into a draft where you really don't have to. I'm sorry if your team sucks, but I see no reason to carry this ridiculous tradition into a draft year where the NHL has no standings on which to base it. Throw the prospects all into a pool, randomely select the order and draft. Chance is a pretty good equalizer and as far as this season is concerned the teams are all equal with 0 points.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

It wouldn't be fair to use past standings in any way.

Acceptable solutions to me would be:

-combine the 2005 eligibles with 2006 draft.

-holding the 2005 draft immediately when hockey returns, using a totally random order.

-make ALL 2005-eligible draftees free agents, giving all teams the equal opportunity to sign them.

........... except for 'combine the 2005 eligibles with 2006 draft.' which I do not see how you could do (what are you proposing, leave them undrafted for a year while you play hockey to determine order?), explain how these are 'fairer' than using past standings? As stated above you inevitably will have a loaded team with high end talent end up number one or close to there, and a long suffering team with not nearly so much talent end up picking last or near last. That is fairer? Why? Because you both are Senators fans?

I am NOT necessarily arguing for using last years standings, I am open to suggestions. But to use a totally random order is ridiculous unless someone can explain the fairness and whys of it better than I have seen so far.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I'm with Jaded. Someone please explain why a team like Detroit deserves an equal shot as a team like Pitt?
Sure, Detroit COULD be god-awful and get the first pick if a season were played and Pitt COULD come out of nowhere and win the cup. But anything could happen in the COULD scenario.
The question shouldn't be what could happen. It should be what likely could happen. Is that 100% acurate? Absolutely not, but without a season, you're not going to get a 100% acurate draft order. You have to get as close as you can.

Assuming Pitt would be worse than Detroit is the starting point. Assuming Pitt and Detroit are the same is not.

Not just Pitt . . .but Chicago and Phoenix are not going anywhere soon either . . . among some other teams.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Here's my crazy idea that I just thought up.
Assemble an unbiased (or at least balanced) board of hockey experts. Lock them in a room to debate this issue, accounting for factors such as recent history, whether or not the team looks like its improving or regressing over the last few years, and any other worthy issues to debate regarding this topic.
Taking this into account, they determine the draft order to the best of their abilities.

Sort of like the NCAA basketball selection committee.

Discuss.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Not just Pitt . . .but Chicago and Phoenix are not going anywhere soon either . . . among some other teams.

You're right. I just needed teams as examples.

 

[amazingcrwns]

Every team should have an equal shot at the number 1 pick if no season is played. I realize that with no season there is no draft but assuming a CBA is signed but without enough time to save the season. I don't think you can go based on last seasons standings because the teams are different now. Free Agents have been signed leaving some teams (like the bruins) without many players at all. Teams that didn't make the playoffs last year got the cream of the crop in last years draft. Washington shouldn't have a better chance at drafting Crosby than Boston at this point. Washington got Ovechkin based on last seasons results already. Pittsburg has Fleury in their system from 2 seasons ago and Malkin from last season. Why should they get a better shot at Crosby now? there team wasn't any worse off than any other team this season. They all didn't play so we don't know how any of them would have looked compared to the others. We can speculate but we don't know.

If Detroit is forced to release a bunch of players to get under a cap and they are picked up by Pittsburg at a reduced rate then Pittsburg might be the better team already. If we don't know how the teams would do head to head in a regular season/playoffs then you can't base a draft order on what people think would have happened. The only fair way to do the draft would be to have everybody get a fair shot at where they pick in the first round.