Regarding the draft debate

[Jester]

You are joking, right? The ownership of clubs like Detroit and Toronto will be some of the big winners under a new CBA, whatever their franchise values were before you can add multiples as they have increased earnings with fixed salaries and they become the strongest biggest earning cogs in a sport that should go up in popularity and value as it has its labor situation in hand. They were the biggest fish in a pond the size of women's basketball, if that big.

The big markets did nothing for the small markets, they did it all for themselves. The fact that small markets benefitted . . .just as the fact that fans and competition benefits . . .was very secondary to their concerns.

yes and no.

they gained a lot in terms of franchise value... obviously. do you really think franchise value means a lot to Snider? how about Illitch? those guys want to win... if franchise value and the bottom line was all they were concerned about they would have operated their teams MUCH MUCH differently under the old system... they would have operated like the Bruins.

so don't tell me that their concerns are just about franchise value in this whole thing. Snider genuinely cares about the sport of hockey and he's a guy that built a franchise in a non-hockey market to be one of the strongest organizations in the NHL. he can look any one of these small market owners that are whining about how awful there situation is and say, "i did it, why don't you do it?"

and by not voicing public opinion (even after bettman lifted the ban) they did a lot for the small markets.

 

[txpd]

What I'd love to see would be Toronto, Colorado, Detroit, NYR, and Philly owners all threaten to ruin solidarity if the draft is not equal. Threaten to publicly voice their dismay with the leagues practices, shatter the idea that everyone is on the same page.

Now there is a great attitude. Are you saying its your puck and unless you get what you want you will take it and your stick home??

by the way the NYR want nothing to do with an equal draft.

 

[Jester]

They had an advantage and they smartly used it. I don't blame them one bit for doing so; good businesses/good leaders exploit those openings if they can. So it doesn't surprise me in the least that GMs and owners from some of the bigger teams are lobbying for a random, equal draft. It's highly unlikely that this scenario/opportunity will ever arise again, they would be fools not to at least try.

But I just can't buy the argument that certain teams will owe certain other teams because of this possible new CBA. I can't buy that some teams are taking a major hit. They will actually be even better off financially but now they just won't have the opportunity to largely outspend many teams. I have a feeling that worries some of the larger teams, especially the ones who feel that their management team overall is a bit weak. That is certainly not a reason or justification for trying to get an equal draft.

The majority of teams stand to benefit from this deal, for years to come. Heck, every team should be better off when it comes to the finances. Then quite possibily the better teams will be the ones with good GMs, staffs, coaches, scouting, player development, etc. That's the hope at least.

I can't see it being anywhere near fair to give a handful of teams something like this when the only thing they will have lost is their ability to outspend their competitors. Especially when everyone should come out better in terms of $. The smaller teams don't owe them anything in this case.

depends on a number of factors that no one knows yet:

A) how will this lockout effect season-ticket sales in established cities?
B) what type of TV deals will big markets be able to get in the aftermath?
C) what type of advertising will the big markets be able to sell in the aftermath?
D) how screwed will they be by the cap competitively short term (and yes, many of the big owners do care greatly about this)?

so big owners will -- at least short term -- potentially lose the most from this lockout, disregarding the profits they would have made this past season. to argue that the big markets have gained the most from this lockout is absolutely asinine when the major complaint about the lockout is that the small markets have been driving the boat.

 

[triggrman]

They should do it like you do fantasy sports. If you get the first pick in round one you get the last pick in round 2, etc.

 

[Charge_Seven]

Now there is a great attitude. Are you saying its your puck and unless you get what you want you will take it and your stick home??

by the way the NYR want nothing to do with an equal draft.

No I'm saying that the Leafs the Red Wings and other large markets who did fine under the old CBA should stand up for themselves. I think the draft should go by the 2004-2005 standings, and those have every team finishing with the same record. It wouldn't be the Leafs (and others) "taking the stick and puck home", it'd be the Leafs (and others) telling the hockey world how they feel, which is perfectly fine, and they'd still take whatever pick they got and draft someone, however it's something that Gary Bettman, and the smaller markets do not want. I've said it before, I could care less about who ends up with Crosby, clearly I'd like to have him, but that's not my issue here, the issue is fairness in the procedure, and apparently what I see as fair, and what you and others see as fair is not the same thing, which is fine. The draft should be done just like any other, where the lowest point total gets the best shot at Crosby, and since every team finished with 0 points, the answer is pretty simple as to what should happen.

You're right about the Rangers though, they were a poor team to include in the group.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

yes and no.

they gained a lot in terms of franchise value... obviously. do you really think franchise value means a lot to Snider? how about Illitch? those guys want to win... if franchise value and the bottom line was all they were concerned about they would have operated their teams MUCH MUCH differently under the old system... they would have operated like the Bruins.

so don't tell me that their concerns are just about franchise value in this whole thing. Snider genuinely cares about the sport of hockey and he's a guy that built a franchise in a non-hockey market to be one of the strongest organizations in the NHL. he can look any one of these small market owners that are whining about how awful there situation is and say, "i did it, why don't you do it?"

and by not voicing public opinion (even after bettman lifted the ban) they did a lot for the small markets.

I get it . . . oink oink, just like their fans. I gave some of the owners more credit about caring for the sport as a whole rather than themselves. Silly me. Especially since the unfair advantage that they are preserving over everyone else more often than not is based not on 'developing the market' but is based on completely random factors such as geography (150, 200, even 350 years ago someone said 'gee that would make a good port' or something similar and founded a town there). We only have something like 4 or 5 big markets where this occured and according to you, the rest should be out of luck.

 

[bigjfnd]

I think the idea of a 3 or 4 year average is a good idea for the teams that have been at the bottom of the league for that period of time. But I think playoff success should be more important than regular season points for ranking the later first round picks. Give each team a 3 or 4 year total based on how they finished. For example, last year TB gets 30 pts for winning the cup, Cal 29pts, Phi 28 (went 7 games in semi-final), SJ 27 (went 6 games in semi-final), etc. Do this for all playoff teams, then rank non-playoff teams based solely on points. If the goal for all teams is to win the cup, not just have a good regular season, I think some weight should be given to how they performed in the playoffs which is after all how you usually define how well your season went.

 

[mmbt]

No matter how they do it, it's going to piss some people off if they insist on having the 2005 draft.

So why not just roll the 2005 class into 2006, roll the second half of the 2006 class into 2007 ... effectively making it 2 years for 3 drafts' worth of players? That way the 2006 draft isn't made overly stacked, and no one can complain about getting better or worse position than they deserve.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

instead of doing 3 year avg with equal weights in each year.

How about just 3 year avg of distributed weight, being, the last year counted 50%, a year ago couts 30%, and 2 years ago, 20%.

This way, we can find out the direction of the teams and have numbers that most resembles to the direction.



In this case, Calgary wouldnt pick as high as say in top 15 and would have less chance at #1 simply because they were a 90+ point team last year, and the weighted avg reflects that.


In addition, take the result of last year's stanley cup playoff into consideration as the Stanley cup champions obviously would have to pick lower than what they should be (after the weighted 3 year average).

 

[txpd]

so don't tell me that their concerns are just about franchise value in this whole thing. Snider genuinely cares about the sport of hockey and he's a guy that built a franchise in a non-hockey market to be one of the strongest organizations in the NHL. he can look any one of these small market owners that are whining about how awful there situation is and say, "i did it, why don't you do it?"

and by not voicing public opinion (even after bettman lifted the ban) they did a lot for the small markets.

If Philadelphia is a non-hockey market, I wonder how many Hockey markets their can be. Certainly the term must have WILDLY different meaning if you want to compare cold, blustery, northeast Philly and Atlanta.

Also there is a HUGE difference between Philly as a market and the small markets that you say Snider can say, "I did it, why don't you do it?". Philly is the 6th largest US market. Nashville is the 44th. The Philly metro area has 4.3m people and Nashville metro is 1.1m people. Columbus 1.3m, Pittsburgh 2.0m, Tampa-St Pete
2.2m. Edmonton and Calgary are about the same size.

Whatever your description of "non-hockey market is" the Philadelphia market is NOT a small market. its one of he largest markets and has had its hockey team since the league expanded from 6 to 12 teams. No matter how you come to your non-hockey market conclusion the fact is that if Columbus was as successful at what they do as the Flyers have been, the Jackets would still not be able to approach even 50% of the Flyers revenue base purely because of the size of their market place.

 

[Shawnski]

There truly is one, and only one, fair way to do things.

Skip the 2005 draft completely. Raise the age to 19. Use the results of next season (yes, there will be one) to determine draft order just as it normally would have.

Teams are going to change so radically in some cases for next season that by doing anything differently would be an injustice to those that WILL need that first pick.

The one change to the draft I do like is picking 1 and 60 instead of 1 and 31.

 

[Ol' Dirty Chinaman*]

Every team gets 1/30 chance in the lottery.

Everybody gets an even shot, period.

That is the best method of drafting the lockout year.

 

[bigjfnd]

There truly is one, and only one, fair way to do things.

Skip the 2005 draft completely. Raise the age to 19. Use the results of next season (yes, there will be one) to determine draft order just as it normally would have.

Teams are going to change so radically in some cases for next season that by doing anything differently would be an injustice to those that WILL need that first pick.

I agree, but my faith in the NHL as of late to do the logical thing has been shaken pretty hard, what with talk of bigger nets and stuff. The only problem with drafting at 19 is the whole set of legal issues it brings, but it would be good to see long term and definately more fair in the short term.

 

[NYIsles1*]

No I'm saying that the Leafs the Red Wings and other large markets who did fine under the old CBA should stand up for themselves.

The Wings lost 20m last year going to the second round of the playoffs, that is not doing fine. How many years has Illitch said his team has to win a cup just to break even? They stood for themselves so often they cannot make a profit no matter what they do now.

Toronto made a profit of only 10-14m, considering their revenue sources that is not doing fine either.

A market based on corporate ownerships spending more just to lose more is not a large market.

 

[Kimi]

I'm not sold on the change the order in the second round thing. If one year had a very deep talent pool, the cup winners would be rolling in it; along the same line, if the talent level was low, the owners of the first over all would be given a hard deal.

 

[NYIsles1*]

If Philadelphia is a non-hockey market, I wonder how many Hockey markets their can be. Certainly the term must have WILDLY different meaning if you want to compare cold, blustery, northeast Philly and Atlanta.

Also there is a HUGE difference between Philly as a market and the small markets that you say Snider can say, "I did it, why don't you do it?". Philly is the 6th largest US market. Nashville is the 44th. The Philly metro area has 4.3m people and Nashville metro is 1.1m people. Columbus 1.3m, Pittsburgh 2.0m, Tampa-St Pete
2.2m. Edmonton and Calgary are about the same size.

Whatever your description of "non-hockey market is" the Philadelphia market is NOT a small market. its one of he largest markets and has had its hockey team since the league expanded from 6 to 12 teams. No matter how you come to your non-hockey market conclusion the fact is that if Columbus was as successful at what they do as the Flyers have been, the Jackets would still not be able to approach even 50% of the Flyers revenue base purely because of the size of their market place.

That all sounds nice and reads well. Only problem is Philadelphia went to the
semi-finals and might as well have been Carolina or Nashville for all the large market impact they had on the games. They did nothing to make more people watch and played as good a series as can be asked for.

When it was over Snider did not say " I did it, why don't you do it?", what he did say his club in a modern building having four games in the conference finals still lost money last season. That's not a big market or a large market and there is nothing successful about it...

Folks can quote attendance figures in population centers and compare markets but if you cannot make a profit your not a big market team.

 

[dolfanar]

I agree, but my faith in the NHL as of late to do the logical thing has been shaken pretty hard, what with talk of bigger nets and stuff. The only problem with drafting at 19 is the whole set of legal issues it brings, but it would be good to see long term and definately more fair in the short term.

You would almost certainly have to leave a door open for a player to sign and play at 18 next year.

How about this:

Sign all the 18 year olds that you want, but they *MUST* remain on your 23 man roster the entire season AND play a minimum of 60 games (20 if a goalie) or they get put back intot he draft next year.

Next year you go back to a regular draft. It's the only way you could get around legal implications, avoid the mess of a crazy draft this year, and still be able to go back to a draft next year.

Ofcourse Crosby ends up signing as a free agent this way... but then Wayne Gretzky was never drafted either...

 

[codswallop]

depends on a number of factors that no one knows yet:

A) how will this lockout effect season-ticket sales in established cities?
B) what type of TV deals will big markets be able to get in the aftermath?
C) what type of advertising will the big markets be able to sell in the aftermath?
D) how screwed will they be by the cap competitively short term (and yes, many of the big owners do care greatly about this)?

so big owners will -- at least short term -- potentially lose the most from this lockout, disregarding the profits they would have made this past season. to argue that the big markets have gained the most from this lockout is absolutely asinine when the major complaint about the lockout is that the small markets have been driving the boat.

Turn those questions around to the less established and/or smaller markets. Everyone loses, but some teams have a lot less margin for error than the bigger clubs. It's about survival for some; having to possibly sell your team if this doesn't work out is definitely losing more than a short term, two or three year dip in profits. And some smaller markets may not rebound as quickly as someone like a Toronto or Detroit.

And I'm pretty sure that their competitiveness under this cap is worrisome. Now, the owners and GMs were told this was coming. Being that it was their side of this farce, they knew that this was not an idle threat. Everyone has had time to prepare for a lower payroll, or at least have workable contingencies set up for many different scenarios that could surrond it. They have had time to get their entire staff prepared and ready for the differences that this potential cap will bring. If they are good and smart hockey people, the transition won't be that tough. They'll be ready for it. But if they aren't and have relied on a spending advantage to hide their lack of knowledge, can't really have any sympathy for them. Hell, I don't have sympathy for any team that brings problems upon itself; rich or poor.

In terms of sheer $, sure the big clubs will lose more (or in their case, make less). In terms of percentages and the impact this lockout will have on less financially secure teams, the smaller clubs will be (relatively speaking) hit much harder in the short term. I don't know who exactly is "driving this boat", reports on this have been all over the place. I can remember hearing at least three reports that have cited a variety of different teams when talking about this issue. I have a pretty good feeling that there are at least a few owners of teams not considered small markets that are doing their share of the driving as well.

 

[Jester]

Turn those questions around to the less established and/or smaller markets. Everyone loses, but some teams have a lot less margin for error than the bigger clubs. It's about survival for some; having to possibly sell your team if this doesn't work out is definitely losing more than a short term, two or three year dip in profits. And some smaller markets may not rebound as quickly as someone like a Toronto or Detroit.

Smaller markets didn't really have those revenue streams to begin with... thus they didn't lose much.

 

[Ol' Dirty Chinaman*]

I'm not sold on the change the order in the second round thing. If one year had a very deep talent pool, the cup winners would be rolling in it; along the same line, if the talent level was low, the owners of the first over all would be given a hard deal.

I missed the memo where cup winners or successful teams needed to be punished.

Seriously, the big market teams are already throwing you guys a bone with the lockout, evenly weight the draft or bump it up to 19.

 

[Jester]

If Philadelphia is a non-hockey market, I wonder how many Hockey markets their can be. Certainly the term must have WILDLY different meaning if you want to compare cold, blustery, northeast Philly and Atlanta.

go back 40 years and look at the market that Snider came to. it was definitively NOT a hockey market. what built the flyers up was the fact that they won almost immediately and haven't stopped...

Philly is cold during the winter, but it isn't as if we can go out and play pond hockey. i'm 24, when i was growing up there was a very small chance to play hockey in the area for most people. not a lot of HS teams, or any of that. at this point the sport is exploding with rinks and roller hockey all over the place. the market has DEVELOPED into a very strong hockey market... did not start as one.

 

[Jester]

I get it . . . oink oink, just like their fans. I gave some of the owners more credit about caring for the sport as a whole rather than themselves. Silly me. Especially since the unfair advantage that they are preserving over everyone else more often than not is based not on 'developing the market' but is based on completely random factors such as geography (150, 200, even 350 years ago someone said 'gee that would make a good port' or something similar and founded a town there). We only have something like 4 or 5 big markets where this occured and according to you, the rest should be out of luck.

at least we're not bitter.

and that's not what i said at all... the issue here is what is fair to do with a one-time only draft that is following the cancellation of the season. i advocate a 1/30 chance for every franchise simply because there is NO good way to come up with an evaluation that tells you what they would have finished this past season. none.

so do it in the fairest possible way, and just give everyone a shot. do a lottery for the whole draft order, and go from there.

 

[txpd]

That all sounds nice and reads well. Only problem is Philadelphia went to the
semi-finals and might as well have been Carolina or Nashville for all the large market impact they had on the games. They did nothing to make more people watch and played as good a series as can be asked for.

When it was over Snider did not say " I did it, why don't you do it?", what he did say his club in a modern building having four games in the conference finals still lost money last season. That's not a big market or a large market and there is nothing successful about it...

Folks can quote attendance figures in population centers and compare markets but if you cannot make a profit your not a big market team.

The Flyers just spent beyond what is reasonable. Taking on Tony Amonte's contract or signing Keith Primeau's was really not necessary. Spending what they spent on Sean Burke as insurance is a sure sign of the team's willingness to throw money down the toilet.

By the same token did Detroit really need Cujo AND Hasek?? those two guys alone were nearly Nashville's team payroll and only one of them could play at a time.

BUT, it is large market/big market. the flyers had a $70m payroll and lost the same amount of money as teams with $28m payrolls. BIG difference there.

 

[txpd]

go back 40 years and look at the market that Snider came to. it was definitively NOT a hockey market. what built the flyers up was the fact that they won almost immediately and haven't stopped...

Philly is cold during the winter, but it isn't as if we can go out and play pond hockey. i'm 24, when i was growing up there was a very small chance to play hockey in the area for most people. not a lot of HS teams, or any of that. at this point the sport is exploding with rinks and roller hockey all over the place. the market has DEVELOPED into a very strong hockey market... did not start as one.

Well, ok...if pond hockey is a requirement to be a hockey market then there is TO, Montreal, Ottawa, Edmonton and Calgary, plus Boston, Buffalo, Detroit and MN that are actually hockey markets. Funny to find out that Vancouver is not a hockey market, but now i know.

 

[kdb209]

I agree, but my faith in the NHL as of late to do the logical thing has been shaken pretty hard, what with talk of bigger nets and stuff. The only problem with drafting at 19 is the whole set of legal issues it brings, but it would be good to see long term and definately more fair in the short term.
lfanar]

You would almost certainly have to leave a door open for a player to sign and play at 18 next year.

How about this:

Sign all the 18 year olds that you want, but they *MUST* remain on your 23 man roster the entire season AND play a minimum of 60 games (20 if a goalie) or they get put back intot he draft next year.

Next year you go back to a regular draft. It's the only way you could get around legal implications, avoid the mess of a crazy draft this year, and still be able to go back to a draft next year.

Ofcourse Crosby ends up signing as a free agent this way... but then Wayne Gretzky was never drafted either...[/QUOTE]

I don't really see any legal issues preventing the next CBA bumping the draft age up to 19 (either permanently or as a one time thing).

The Maurice Clarett case pretty much upheld age based draft restrictions. In the NFL case it was 3 yrs after HS graduation of your class - effectively 20 or 21.

Clarett blocked from NFL draft
By Richard Willing, USA TODAY
NEW YORK — A federal appeals court Monday suspended a lower-court order that briefly had opened the NFL draft to underclassmen and high school players.

...

In a suit brought by Clarett, who was not projected to be a first-round pick, a U.S. district court judge ruled in February that an NFL rule that restricts the draft to players at least three years removed from high school was an unfair restriction on their ability to earn a living.

The NFL appealed, arguing that federal labor law and court precedents allow the league to set minimum eligibility requirements in collaboration with the players union.