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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chili

En boca cerrada no entran moscas
Jun 10, 2004
8,440
4,269
Jaded-Fan said:
........... except for 'combine the 2005 eligibles with 2006 draft.' which I do not see how you could do

What do you think happened when the draft age was lowered in 1979?

You effectively had two years of eligibles, 19 and 20 year olds. And not surprisingly, you had the best draft of all time.

It is certainly one possible scenario, imo.
 

Double-Shift Lasse

Just post better
Dec 22, 2004
33,355
14,030
Exurban Cbus
While I'm not opposed to it, I'm not sure raising the draft age would be that simple. Would the expected 2005 draft class have a legal challenge to it? The agents would at least consider it, I'd think. Maybe the CBA could include an exception for the 2005 draft class that they could become UFA eligible 2 years earlier than whatever standard gets established. The players are culpable in this work stoppage too. This, I guess, would create problems for subsequent draft classes.

As to how to select draft order - it's unreasonable to give all teams equal weight in a lottery. But I'm not sure how to make a lottery based on no results fair. A couple of ideas intrigue me that have been posted here: 1) The misinterpreted idea of combining 2003-2004 standings with the first half of next season's, then having the "2005" draft in early 2006, following up with a regular 2006 draft in the spring. I suppose this would face the same legal challenges as combining draft classes, but it's still intriguing as a solution to draft order; 2) the idea of a "selection committee" to determine 2005 draft order.

And however the order is achieved, how about a "snake" draft like fantasy leagues use? Would that balance out any perceived unfairness? Especilly if the draft classes were combined, there should be better talent available even at #60 when the top team would draft next.
 

The Maltais Falcon

Registered User
Jan 9, 2005
1,156
1
Atlanta, GA
Jaded-Fan said:
Makaveli said:
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.
And you can't address why it's not the right solution, other than that you root for a garbage team like Pittsburgh. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard you whine and whine about this topic and about how anyone who favors an everybody-gets-a-shot-at-Crosby system roots for Detroit or Colorado or New Jersey.

Jaded-Fan said:
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.
It's fair because if there's no season, there's no way to say who's most deserving of a top pick. You can't doubly reward bad teams like Pittsburgh or Washington based on one bad season. One bad season nets one top draft pick. One bad season should not net two top draft picks. Any given year, a bad team can make the jump to playoff caliber and a good team can fall in the crapper. If the league is going to blow up the current CBA and force good teams to shed top talent to fit under a cap, it only makes sense to allow good teams a shot at drafting the superstars of tomorrow.

And for the record, I root for ATLANTA, a team that was looking at going .500 at best if all the chips fell the right way for them had this season happened.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
:dunno:

........... get personal in the attacks, that helps show the brilliance of your points doesn't it? I know that I am impressed.

And teams do not just jump from worst to first, or first to worst, from year to year. Usually it is a four or five year process either way, if you are lucky, or unlucky, all things being equal. Of course, if you have the resources and any management at all you do not fall at all, do you?

In any event, I still have not seen any arguments that address why teams at the top should have as much of a chance as those who are at the bottom. Or do you really believe that the teams who made up the bottom six or seven will be favored to climb out of that hole very far no matter the new environment? Or that any of the top six or seven are falling very far?

You make no sense at all, but I really am not surprised given how you started you 'brilliant' thesis.
 

The Maltais Falcon

Registered User
Jan 9, 2005
1,156
1
Atlanta, GA
Jaded-Fan said:
........... get personal in the attacks, that helps show the brilliance of your points doesn't it? I know that I am impressed.
So I called you out for being a whiner. Big whoop. It's hardly worse than you accusing anyone who supports a system where everyone gets a shot at the top pick of being a Detroit fan. I've seen you do it several times to several posters, usually incorrectly.

In any event, I still have not seen any arguments that address why teams at the top should have as much of a chance as those who are at the bottom.
I gave you an argument! In fact, I gave you two.

The first one was that teams should not be doubly rewarded in the draft standings for one bad season or doubly punished for one good one.

The second one was that if the league is going to force good teams to bring their rosters under a salary cap by shedding star players then it makes sense that those teams should get a chance at drafting potential stars like Sidney Crosby or Gilbert Brule. If the league is going to hit the reset button with this CBA, they need to do it across the board.

You make no sense at all, but I really am not surprised given how you started you 'brilliant' thesis.
I made sense; you just chose not to listen.
 
Last edited:

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Shedding a couple of players or adding a couple will not significantly alter a team's fortunes one way or another. Admittedly everone has self interest in this, but if you actually believe that a salary cap at what the final numbers are likely to be will suddenly equalize Detroit and Chicago, Toronto and Phoenix, etc, etc you are very very delusional. Any lottery system has to have some weighting toward those who are at the bottom end of the spectrum. That is much fairer than having a team who is loaded, and will remain in the near term loaded next year, gain a top pick.

Again, if there was year to year flux between top and bottom teams, then your argument would hold water. The usual situation does not have that being the case.

Oh yeah . . .ps, . . . . :p:
 

amazingcrwns

drop the puck
Feb 13, 2003
1,782
1
Western MA
Visit site
But anything can happen in any given season. A team can go from first to worst under a few different scenario's How good would the Bruins have been this year with the losses of Rolston, Murray, McGillis, O'Donnel, Nylander, etc. Probably not good enough to finish first in their division again. Then what happens if Thornton goes down with an injury for 2/3rds of the season. They'd have Bergeron as their front line Center between Samsanov and Lapointe. Boyes Hilbert and Fitzgerald on the 2nd, There defensive pairings would be Gonchar Boynton, Gill Girard (if he can even play) Moran and Jurcina.

That team is probably not going to make the playoffs. They finished 2nd in the conference last season. I use Boston as an example because yes I am a fan of them but also because they are one of the teams who didn't really sign anybody in the offseason because of the CBA Mess. If the season does start I don't think the Bruins will have a shot at the cup this year, they'll probably make the playoffs if they sign a first line Wing to play with Joe and Sammy but they're going to have a big drop off from last season if we can get a CBA in place.
 

MagnusJondus

Great Merican Hero
Mar 25, 2002
318
0
Ben Avon Hts, PA
The precedent has always been that the worst team gets the top pick, and more recently that the worst five get the top pick based on the records from the previous season. Any legal outcome is determined by examining precedents. It is difficult to circumvent them (but nonetheless could be done.)
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
amazingcrwns said:
But anything can happen in any given season. A team can go from first to worst under a few different scenario's How good would the Bruins have been this year with the losses of Rolston, Murray, McGillis, O'Donnel, Nylander, etc. Probably not good enough to finish first in their division again. Then what happens if Thornton goes down with an injury for 2/3rds of the season. They'd have Bergeron as their front line Center between Samsanov and Lapointe. Boyes Hilbert and Fitzgerald on the 2nd, There defensive pairings would be Gonchar Boynton, Gill Girard (if he can even play) Moran and Jurcina.

That team is probably not going to make the playoffs. They finished 2nd in the conference last season. I use Boston as an example because yes I am a fan of them but also because they are one of the teams who didn't really sign anybody in the offseason because of the CBA Mess. If the season does start I don't think the Bruins will have a shot at the cup this year, they'll probably make the playoffs if they sign a first line Wing to play with Joe and Sammy but they're going to have a big drop off from last season if we can get a CBA in place.

I agree, there are exceptions. But for the most part teams generally stay low or high for a few years before moving up or down (absent those teams who can buy their way up every year of course). I also agree that there is no such thing as an entirely 'fair' choice. But there are gradations of 'fair', and choices that are more unfair than others. I finally agree that we all have biases and interests in this, but that does not change the realities that I have cited. And in this situation, no season, the league will be forced to fudge fairness one way or another. No way to get around that. Hopefully they will make a choice that is well thought out.
 

Flukeshot

Briere Activate!
Sponsor
Feb 19, 2004
5,153
1,710
Brampton, Ont
I think that it is quite an intelligent idea using the first half of the next season in combination with last year's standings to form an order.

My thoughts have been closest to "Give all non-playoff teams an equal chance" though it does not really define what I think is best.

A combination of both drafts is not realistic and would be unfair to many teams including the Caps, Pens and lower teams of last season. For sake of argument we can label Crosby as #1 overall in 2005 and Kessel #1 overall in 2006 with separate drafts. Let us also suggest Pittsburgh is the last place team or would have 1st pick in a 2005 draft. Now the pens would draft Crosby in 2005. Now let us say that the Pens suck just as bad in the next season and get 1st pick in 2006 and take Kessel.

If you combined the draft years that is no longer possible. As Crosby and Kessel could go 1 and 2 in a 2005-6 super draft. Pittsburgh would go from having a shot at 2, #1 guys to having 1, #1 guy and a #15 guy (As in the 2nd round they'd draft the 31st overall player equal to about 15th overall in a regular draft.)

That and the complications of past trades involving draft picks. For example, if a team like TB has traded away a late 1st in 2005 it WAS worth a 30th overall player. Now it would be a 15th overall player. That value would be all messed up.

I think the best way would be to do a weighted lottery based on the standings of the past 2 or 3 seasons. However it would not just be for first overall, it would be done for each position. All teams would have a chance at each spot, however minimal it was. Sure Detroit wouldn't likely finish last in 2005 but there is the possibility that they could have, so they deserve a chance no matter how small of getting the first overall pick. I'd leave the percentages to math people but the current lottery system could be used and extended to all 30 teams. For example, TB as the Cup winners having a 1/1000 chance at 1st.
 

amazingcrwns

drop the puck
Feb 13, 2003
1,782
1
Western MA
Visit site
I just don't think it would be fair to give Washington, Pittsburg, Chicago, Columbus and Pheonix should be the only teams to have a shot at the number 1 pick. Pittsburg for example has Fleury and Malkin in their system already. I think with Malkin and Fleury playing for Pitts this season they would have at least finished in the top 25 teams.
 

TruGr1t

Proper Villain
Jun 26, 2003
22,906
6,497
Well I am not entirely against some weighted system, I am completely against using a previous seasons standings to determine the draft order, that is just dumb. The teams who sucked were compensated for their suckiness in the most recent draft, this next draft should have relatively nothing to do with any past season since those seasons have already been dealt with through a previous draft. I am not opposed to the idea of some sort of committee logically deciding on an order, or something like all non-playoff teams being put into a lottery for the top X number of picks. I am completely dead set against the same teams getting the exact same picks they got in last years draft, that is just ridiculous and in my opinion as unfair as having a completely open lottery.
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
Jaded-Fan said:
........... 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?

You'll have to explain how playing and determining the draft order the normal way is more unfair than arbitrarily basing it on long 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?

Not a Senator fan, thankyou. Ugh.

And why would you have a loaded team picking first, necessarily?

The other thing is, a lot of NHL rosters are in such flux right now, we don't even know who will be "loaded" and who won't be with any degree of precision.
 

KallioWeHardlyKnewYe

Hey! We won!
May 30, 2003
15,508
3,330
Boston is an interesting example. As is Pheonix, just for the FA factor. Boston has lost several. Pheonix added several (plus some trades).

I brought it up once and I'll mention it again -- selection committee. A committee of knowledgable hockey people (it is open to debate who this would be) could sit down and discuss this. i.e., it is reasonable to think Boston will not do as well given the losses to their roster, and reasonable to think Pheonix will improve. it is reasonable to think Tampa (since people are sick of Detroit as an example) will be better than Washington, etc...
You discuss it. You sit down and rank the teams based on factors such as recent history and how they seem to be trending from last year to this year, as well as over the last several years.
Everybody on the committee cranks out their own list. You average out the places for everyone (could even toss out the highest and lowest ranks for each team to get a more acurate figure).
Finally, you do a weighted lottery based on that list of 30.

You can't account for the "what if player X got injured" scenario. You just can't do it without playing games. The fact is player X didn't play and didn't get injured. Using that as an excuse to give all the teams an even shot is absurd. Giving an even shot to everyone ridiculously overcompensates for almost any "what if" scenario. You can't account for these factors without playing games. Period. That isn't a good reason for the even shot for everyone.

Remember, this isn't just about Crosby and the number one. They'll have 30 spots to fill. Not just one.

Try not to imagine your team getting the number one. Think about your team getting number 30. Then think about how fair that is (depending on your team).

Finally, as to the whole post-CBA, team X is going to have to cut half its roster scenario and then team X will suck - well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. We all know that the CBA will come before the draft. Once the CBA arrives, we can look at how it will immediately effect teams. Until then, we have no clue.

We can debate the draft order because we have a feel for how that works. We can't really debate the immediate roster effects of the CBA because it relies on a lot of details we won't know until a CBA is signed.
 
Last edited:

MagnusJondus

Great Merican Hero
Mar 25, 2002
318
0
Ben Avon Hts, PA
I think that keeping last year's order and redoing the lottery is most likely. Consider the history of the NHL when most of the time the league goes with the status quo (there are countless examples). We are talking about a potential superstar in Crosby, but I think the best bet is to look to the past to predict the future.
 

Chili

En boca cerrada no entran moscas
Jun 10, 2004
8,440
4,269
Flukeshot said:
That and the complications of past trades involving draft picks. For example, if a team like TB has traded away a late 1st in 2005 it WAS worth a 30th overall player. Now it would be a 15th overall player. That value would be all messed up.

If you browse through all of the trades of the last few years, note that that there are only a handful of 2006 picks which have been traded. I only found two from last season, both acquired by George McPhee. How hard would it be to award comp picks for these few picks?

And if you hold two drafts, are the undrafted players shifted to the second draft or do they become free agents? That could be a huge question.

The draft could still take place late summer if they reach an agreement in time fir next season. It did take place in August back in 1979. If there is no agreement though, then let the theories run wild. Still too early at this point.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Whatever you do, you absolutely have to keep the two draft classes separate, as I pointed out in the past. Even if you hold two drafts on the same weekend, you deal with class 1 first, draft 'em all, then start the next class.

The question "What happens to undrafted players?" is answered by the same thing as what happens now. What happened to those players who weren't drafted in 2004? If they're eligible for 2005, then you'd move them forward. If they became free agents, then they're free agents.

A snaking draft would be hilarious: "Canucks move up and trade their 2nd round pick for Pittsburgh's". HEY!
 

Chili

En boca cerrada no entran moscas
Jun 10, 2004
8,440
4,269
PecaFan said:
The question "What happens to undrafted players?" is answered by the same thing as what happens now. What happened to those players who weren't drafted in 2004? If they're eligible for 2005, then you'd move them forward. If they became free agents, then they're free agents.

You're basing that on the prior cba. News here, it has expired. We don't know what the new rules will be.

How do you know that the next draft will even be 9 rounds? Or that comp picks for free agents will still apply?

New cba = new rules and we won't know what they are until there is a new agreement in place.
 

Flukeshot

Briere Activate!
Sponsor
Feb 19, 2004
5,153
1,710
Brampton, Ont
Chili said:
If you browse through all of the trades of the last few years, note that that there are only a handful of 2006 picks which have been traded. I only found two from last season, both acquired by George McPhee. How hard would it be to award comp picks for these few picks?

This would apply to 2005 and 2006 draft picks though. Which means a lot more picks are effected. Obviously the issue is most important in the early rounds but the same argument holds for the later rounds too. A combined draft would have to have 18 rounds in it as well. And at least any year that has had draft picks traded in it should have a minimum of 9 rounds as that is what GM's have based trades on.

I wish I had the link for Jayzin's (of Fhockey.com) list of draft pick ownership that would help a lot. I just don't think that merging 2 drafts into one would be logical.

I am curious to how things happened in '79. It should be noted though that yes the draft "classes" were merged into one draft, but it did not involve the elimination of a draft. There still was a '78 and an '80 draft. A 2005 draft would not exist if merged. It would be a 2006 draft with more players in it plus perhaps 18 rounds.
 

Flukeshot

Briere Activate!
Sponsor
Feb 19, 2004
5,153
1,710
Brampton, Ont
Digger12 said:
Anyone remember that little blurb from the QMJHL pres about Crosby having to play in Rimouski next year if there's no CBA or draft?

Looks like the entire CHL is taking the same stance regarding undrafted junior age players:

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/Junior/2005/01/28/913325-cp.html

What will happen though is the enormous amount of graduated junior players looking for a limited amount of jobs. An entire year worth of players will be competing for the few overage spots available and the rest that normally would be sent to where ever their NHL team thought best (AHL or ECHL) will be on their own to find employment.
 

MagnusJondus

Great Merican Hero
Mar 25, 2002
318
0
Ben Avon Hts, PA
PecaFan said:
A snaking draft would be hilarious!

Actually, I think that's both interesting and plausible... something to chew on.

I say this because obviously the top 5 will be happy to get their shot at winning the lottery. Also the playoff teams who are probably resigned to the fact they won't get a shot at the number one pick may also vote in its favor because of the advantages they receive in subsequent rounds.

If the idea is open to a vote amongst owners, it takes a majority of 16 votes to pass (I believe). But whether or not it will be changed/voted on/ or a draft will even be held, is anyone's guess.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Chili said:
You're basing that on the prior cba. News here, it has expired. We don't know what the new rules will be.

How do you know that the next draft will even be 9 rounds? Or that comp picks for free agents will still apply?

New cba = new rules and we won't know what they are until there is a new agreement in place.

This labour fight isn't about the draft eligibility rules. You can pretty much take it to the bank that the rules regarding undrafted eligible players will be the same under the old system as in any new system.

I didn't say a thing about how many rounds there would be, or compensation picks. Because they are irrelevant to the discussion of "what happens to the players who weren't picked". Number of rounds only affects how many players are not picked. Compensation picks only affect who gets the pick.
 

MagnusJondus

Great Merican Hero
Mar 25, 2002
318
0
Ben Avon Hts, PA
PecaFan said:
A snaking draft is a necessity if the system is based primarily on random drawing.
Very true. But I also think that we won't see a radical change to this system such as a random draw because there is too much self-interest in it. I don't think the NHL would put any changes to the system for a vote because it is such a devisive issue. Right now, the owners seem galvanized because of the lockout, and tabling this issue could put themselves at odds. The play-off teams have an argument as to why they should have a chance. The lottery/non-play-off teams obviously do as well. You could open a can of worms where teams try to lobby for a changed provisional system that acts in their interests alone. And even though it doesn't make sense or is unethical, if the issue is on the table, they may try any means to get the votes through to get it done.

Selfish? Of course, but we are talking about big business here.

I think status quo is the way the NHL can help keep its solidarity. Or having no draft at all may also have the same effect, IMO. I would hate to see owners at each other's throats over a draft pick even if it is Crosby.

If I was Bettman, i'd try my best to keep the issue off the table.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->