Regarding the draft debate

[Charge_Seven]

I like your idea.

I definitely like the idea of the first picking team getting the 60th in the second. We always should have done that.

 

[EroCaps]

I definitely like the idea of the first picking team getting the 60th in the second. We always should have done that.

This year, true.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

There's no article at the beginning of this thread at all. Are you referring to another thread?

All I did was repeat what Muckler said. Considering the credibility of a number of sources throughout this whole lockout, I am more inclined to listen to Muckler on this issue than some columnist. Besides, many reports in this lockout have reinvented themselves a few times even when they came from respected sources - THN, Bob McKenzie, etc. For example, Bob McK updated his story about "more playoffs teams" on Sportsdesk less than an hour ago (at 6:45 pm or so).

Why would any team, other than the 2 or 3 bottom teams, agree to such a heavily weighted lottery? Why would you vote yourself out of the shot at Crosby?

In my view, the Daly and Muckler version of the solution is way more consistent with a 1 in 30 chance than it is with a weighted lottery based on the last 3 years. I suppose you're accurate if it ends up being either system.

My bad, it was in fact in the other thread, but was widely reported in literally hundreds of papers (simple google search and go back 2 or 3 days and see). If you read between the lines it seems that the weighting will be pretty strong for teams who have the worst aggregate records over 3 or 4 years (specifically saying 'as good a chance as a team like Columbus may have compared to a team like Detroit' for example). The relevant parts:

As for the draft lottery, there was all sorts of talk after the meeting about a stormy debate on how best to proceed. In actual fact, one NHL GM made an impassioned plea to do the lottery one way but before any debate could take place, Bettman shut it down.

He basically told the GMs how it was going to be. It will be a weighted lottery. The teams that have missed the playoffs for the last three or four years will have a better chance to get the first pick overall, but all 30 teams will be in the running.

Non-playoff entities like Columbus and the New York Rangers will have a better chance of winning the lottery than, say, Detroit or Colorado, but everyone will have some shot at the top pick. And keep in mind, as good a chance as a team like Columbus may have compared to a team like Detroit, the field has a better chance of winning than the franchise that gets weighted as No. 1.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=120872&hubName=nhl

On the other hand, yesterday, also widely reported, an article that seemed to imply that the issue was not yet completely settled, that a significant number of clubs were balking at having 30 teams with a shot at number 1, no matter how small that shot:

NHL draft proposal gets chilly reception
Associated Press

April 10, 2005


NHL general managers ended two days of meetings bickering among themselves. The six-hour, closed-door session between the GMs on Friday dealt with how to handle a draft that follows a season that never was. The proposal to have all 30 teams enter a lottery for the first pick was --stunningly--unpopular among teams that finished the 2003-04 season at the bottom of the standings. Usually, the draft order is set based on the previous season's standings

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...ack=1&cset=true

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I definitely like the idea of the first picking team getting the 60th in the second. We always should have done that.

That's a wonderful idea. The Stanley Cup Champion definately will need the equivilent of two low first round draft picks much more than the team that won . . .say . . . . 11 games all year.

And you all wonder why some of us think that some big market fans have no shame.

 

[EroCaps]

learn to comprehend english.

"fairest possible" does not mean "fair."

does it favor big markets? does an equal chance for EVERY team in the league favor big markets? or, does equal chance mean that there is no favoritism to the process, and thus favors no one in particular?

i mean i don't know. the last time i checked, X = X, but maybe things have changed when it comes to probabilty theory... but probably not.

disregarding the inclusion of the big bad clubs how exactly can you fairly seperate the bottom half of the league in a weighted system? that seems unfair to all of them... how can you fairly seperate even the bottom 10 teams of the league? how is it fair to anyone to give a team that just drafted Ovechkin (thus presumably improved themselves greatly) another excellent draft pick, over someone who picked 5th-10th last year?

the issue isn't that the big clubs deserve an equal chance (though i think they do given the way the current situation has played out along with the fact that 50% of the league has had contractual death during the lockout... thus the league isn't what it was prior to the lockout in any way), it's that there is NO good way to deal with those factors as you propogate up the "ladder" of teams.

as i said in another post, if you can come up with a good method, i'm all ears. i just don't think a good method exists to seperate the teams into a weighted lottery pool. therefore the "fairest" possible way to do this is throw your hands up in the air and just give everyone an "equal" lottery drawing for the draft order from top to bottom.

does it suck for the weaker teams that definitively would have been in the lesser portion of the standing this past year? yeah, but maybe they shouldn't have adopted such a hardline stance during the lockout if where they drafted was something they really were concerned with.

ps - "Oink Oink" marginalizes anything smart you will ever argue...

You're right it's not fair to go with 03-04 but 03-04 is the closest thing to a fair representation. What really wouldn't be fair would be to toss aside ANY notion of parity and let perennial contenders like TO, Philly, Detroit, and Colorado get high picks.

As far as the Caps lucking out w/Ovechkin- see Atlanta (Kovalchuck, Lehtonen, Heatley, Coburn), Pittsburgh (MA Fleury, Malkin, Whitney), Columbus (Nash, Zherdev, Picard), and Florida (Bouwmeester, Horton, Weiss) and the NYI. The Caps have had two top 5 picks in 20 years (including last year's). There's an echo in here.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

You're right it's not fair to go with 03-04 but 03-04 is the closest thing to a fair representation. What really wouldn't be fair would be to toss aside ANY notion of parity and let perennial contenders like TO, Philly, Detroit, and Colorado get high picks.

As far as the Caps lucking out w/Ovechkin- see Atlanta (Kovalchuck, Lehtonen, Heatley, Coburn), Pittsburgh (MA Fleury, Malkin, Whitney), Columbus (Nash, Zherdev, Picard), and Florida (Bouwmeester, Horton, Weiss) and the NYI. The Caps have had two top 5 picks in 20 years (including last year's). There's an echo in here.

As I said before, the Caps had under a 15% chance. They got lucky and good for them. Even under the best scenerio for the Caps (use of last years standings, same weighted lottery), which by the way is seeming more and more unlikely, you would have the same low chance. If you win it again I would be the first to say congrats, the hockey Gods must be smiling at you. I do not understand the venom sent the Caps way over the draft issue with some moral weighing of 'deserving' or not. You got lucky. So what. If you get lucky again, deserving has nothing to do with it.

 

[Charge_Seven]

That's a wonderful idea. The Stanley Cup Champion definately will need the equivilent of two low first round draft picks much more than the team that won . . .say . . . . 11 games all year.

And you all wonder why some of us think that some big market fans have no shame.

So the idea is to punish the winners, or reward the losers? Which one?

Which is better? Drafting 1st and 60th or 30th and 31st? How about we give the biggest loser the option then? They choose which one they want to be. Would that make you happy? No, here's a better idea, we don't let playoff teams draft anyone, until the 5th round? Would that work better for you?

 

[EroCaps]

As I said before, the Caps had under a 15% chance. They got lucky and good for them. Even under the best scenerio for the Caps (use of last years standings, same weighted lottery), which by the way is seeming more and more unlikely, you would have the same low chance. If you win it again I would be the first to say congrats, the hockey Gods must be smiling at you. I do not understand the venom sent the Caps way over the draft issue with some moral weighing of 'deserving' or not. You got lucky. So what. If you get lucky again, deserving has nothing to do with it.

I doubt we would, I'm just throwing in on behalf of scope for small markets and rebuilding teams. I think the Caps will be fine regardless. All bets are on Brule or Kopitar for Washington if there's any modicum of 03-04 involved in the draft. I'd be ecstatic w/either. I'd really like to see Chicago or...gasp...the Rangers get #1 overall and Crosby.

 

[Charge_Seven]

I doubt we would, I'm just throwing in on behalf of scope for small markets and rebuilding teams. I think the Caps will be fine regardless. All bets are on Brule or Kopitar for Washington if there's any modicum of 03-04 involved in the draft. I'd be ecstatic w/either. I'd really like to see Chicago or...gasp...the Rangers get #1 overall and Crosby.

I'd be very happy to see Chicago get Crosby, it'd be terrible news for him, but it would be good to see. As long as it's done in an equal opportunity draft.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

So the idea is to punish the winners, or reward the losers? Which one?

Which is better? Drafting 1st and 60th or 30th and 31st? How about we give the biggest loser the option then? They choose which one they want to be. Would that make you happy? No, here's a better idea, we don't let playoff teams draft anyone, until the 5th round? Would that work better for you?

Neither. That is where you screw up majorly, thinking that this system is a reward or punishment. It is neither, it merely is a mechanism to keep competitive balance. You have a team that is competitive you pick later. You have a team that sucks big time, and yes the worst teams probably have screwed up big time somewhere . . .but remember this is not about rewarding or punishing. It is about a leg up to teams who are behind. Once they become competitive then the leg up goes to other teams left behind.

 

[EroCaps]

I'd be very happy to see Chicago get Crosby, it'd be terrible news for him, but it would be good to see. As long as it's done in an equal opportunity draft.

You're not kidding. Bill Wirtz + Crosby = Eli Manning 2.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

The Caps have had two top 5 picks in 20 years (including last year's). There's an echo in here.

And other than that, how many times have they picked in the top 10? As well, how many of those picks did they blow? Thought so......

 

[EroCaps]

And other than that, how many times have they picked in the top 10? As well, how many of those picks did they blow? Thought so......

Including Ovechkin, 5 times since 1985...what's your point?

 

[NYIsles1*]

The Leafs ownership earned more than any player on the team, even by your number (which I believe is incorrect, last I heard, and no I cannot give a link the Leafs earned closer to $20,000,000). In terms of the Wings, I find it laughable for it to be suggested they lost $20,000,000, absolutely laughable.

How much money do you people want teams to make? The bar right now apparently has a $14,000,000 profit at "too little". Anyone want to do the math on what the players would make team by team salary wise if everyone did so poorly as to make $14,000,000 a year? I think the players might be paying the owners to play under those conditions.

http://www.forbes.com/home/lists/2004/11/10/04nhland.html##Static

I'm not a big Forbes fan. They understate losses and overvalue franchises, but here is the link so please feel free to check. Leafs operating income was 14.1 million in 2003-04, first in the NHL and only one of two teams over 10m (Minnesota). Wings lost 16.4 million.

Levitt's numbers reflect much greater losses for most teams.

With all these high prices and revenue streams in Toronto, this is the best they can do qualifying for the playoffs with high expectations?

What's going to happen when a poor Leafs team cannot add salary to keep fan interest or revenue coming in with a cap.

 

[thenextone]

What's going to happen when a poor Leafs team cannot add salary to keep fan interest or revenue coming in with a cap.

You think the Leafs need to add salary to maintain fan interest? The ACC will be sold out for a last place team

 

[triggrman]

It's looking more and more likely that the NHL will have a strict salary cap in place for next season meaning that some teams with multiple high dollar players, like Philly, Detroit, Colorado, Toronto, Dallas, St. Louis, etc are going to have to cut their current roster back to get "under the cap figure". Some of the lower salary teams like my beloved Nashville Predators are going to have to add salary or might now have the luxury of doing a little free agent shopping.

To continue on with my point. It's not fair to tell these high payroll teams that not only are you going to have to rebuild now, but you're also not going to get an equal chance at a high draft pick, we're going to give those to the lower payroll teams also, and really handcap your team.

To make it fair for all, the NHL needs to make it equal for every team, but however you high you pick in the first round, you pick that low in the second round.
So if you win the first overall pick, you get the last pick in round 2, first pick in round 3, last pick in round four, etc. If you finish with the last pick in the first round, you get the first pick in the second, 4th, 6th, etc.

I think this is the only "fair" way to do it.

Telling a team they must cut their cost and take a late pick is a little harsh.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

With a $42 million salary cap, 24% roll back, only a handful of players remaining under contract, how many big market teams will take any hit at all from the new CBA? Even one?

That is a myth. If the new CBA had gone into effect last year perhaps one or two teams, Toronto and Detroit come to mind, may have struggled to get under the numbers. Next year though? Name one team. And yet they have tied up the star players, the Vets who will make them the favorites, yet again, for the Cup next year while the same ones who would have been in line for a chance at Crosby will be in line for a chance at Kessel. Does anyone really believe otherwise?

Nice logic you all use to justify your grab for the icing on your already pretty well made cakes of vetern skilled teams. Too bad it has no basis in reality.

 

[HockeyCritter]

I still contend the only "fair" way to have a draft is to have a season or half a season . . . . . . I know the league wants to anoint the next savior of the sport (we've seen this before) as soon as possible, but they'll just have to wait. Any system that is not based on standings will give unfair advantage to some team . . . . just wait it out . . . most of the draftees still have junior eligibility left (including you know who though it’s overage eligibility).

 

[HSHS]

That's a wonderful idea. The Stanley Cup Champion definately will need the equivilent of two low first round draft picks much more than the team that won . . .say . . . . 11 games all year.

And you all wonder why some of us think that some big market fans have no shame.

I think its an interesting idea for all sports to snake their drafts... would cause more trades OUT of the top 10.

 

[HockeyCritter]

I think its an interesting idea for all sports to snake their drafts... would cause more trades OUT of the top 10.

But that means the Stanley Cup Champion would pick 30 and 31 whereas the team that finished dead last would pick 1 and 60 . . . . somehow that doesn’t seem quite right - - especially when you consider that hockey draft picks (unlike other sports) do not make it to their parent team for three to five years.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I think its an interesting idea for all sports to snake their drafts... would cause more trades OUT of the top 10.

Again, the reason for the draft is not to make it interesting theater (with trades out of the top ten), not to reward already stacked teams, but to give a hand up to teams who are not stacked. Picks near the top of each round do that. And once more, under the new CBA, some of the teams not used to picking near the top eventually will get their chance. I want to hear what tune they whistle when their team ages and they have to rebuild. Will they then say, sure, I know that you all are stacked but we will gladly not pick again until pick number 60? I look forward to being on these boards when that day comes. It will not come next year as so many claim (to justify their grab for number one), but within the next five years some of the perenial powerhouses will have to rebuild, and will not be able to buy UFA's at will or make lopsided trades based on dollars more than on trade values. Then we will hear an entirely different tune.

 

[HSHS]

Including Ovechkin, 5 times since 1985...what's your point?

Toronto had 9 for reference... if it matters to anything.

 

[HSHS]

Again, the reason for the draft is not to make it interesting theater (with trades out of the top ten), not to reward already stacked teams, but to give a hand up to teams who are not stacked. Picks near the top of each round do that. And once more, under the new CBA, some of the teams not used to picking near the top eventually will get their chance. I want to hear what tune they whistle when their team ages and they have to rebuild. Will they then say, sure, I know that you all are stacked but we will gladly not pick again until pick number 60? I look forward to being on these boards when that day comes. It will not come next year as so many claim (to justify their grab for number one), but within the next five years some of the perenial powerhouses will have to rebuild, and will not be able to buy UFA's at will or make lopsided trades based on dollars more than on trade values. Then we will hear an entirely different tune.

Hey man, I only said it was interesting... I've been seeing things mostly your way through this debate.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Hey man, I only said it was interesting... I've been seeing things mostly your way through this debate.

I was not upset. Not with you at all in your post, not with anyone actually, even those I disagree with like Flyersfan. The internet does not convey emotions very well.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I think its an interesting idea for all sports to snake their drafts... would cause more trades OUT of the top 10.

Snake drafts should not be used at all when a season has occurred, but a snake style draft, should absolutely be used this time when no season happened to base draft results on.

Bob McKenzie reported a few days ago that a snake style draft WILL happen this year.