Rumor: No weighted draft lottery

[Morbo]

Somebody says something in support of small market teams: wise, credible, in the loop

Somebody says something in support of large market teams: stupid, not credible, out of the loop.

Good, now we've got that cleared up...

 

[nyr7andcounting]

But the small market teams have zero chance of getting him or any decent prospect if theyre all UFAs because they will go to the big markets, at least the small markets have a decent chance of getting a good player in a lottery.

Why not? Isn't that what this CBA is about? All teams can spend the same amount, and be competative for the same players...especially players on entry level contracts. If in this new CBA Nashville can't afford to compete with Detroit for a prospect making 850k a year, then what the hell was all this for?

 

[HSHS]

Somebody says something in support of small market teams: wise, credible, in the loop

Somebody says something in support of large market teams: stupid, not credible, out of the loop.

Good, now we've got that cleared up...

One is linked and rather recent...

The other is older and hearsay from radio...

There's more a difference than you imply. But the same "logic" you describe of Jaded using has shown up over and over for multiple positions on both sides.

 

[LordHelmet]

The only way that a lottery weighted by the last three seasons' results is fair is if teams give up rights to their last three years draft picks..

Teams were already compensated for their poor finishes in 02, 03, and 04. Period. End of story.

There's so much whining about the unfairness about Crosby potentially going to Detroit, Colorado, Dallas, Toronto, etc... But somehow it's more fair for him to go to Washington, Columbus, or Carolina (putting him on the ice with Ovechkin, Nash/Zerdev, or Staal)

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

If you're going to base a lottery on standings from the past three years, then teams should also give up the rights to their last three years worth of draft picks..

Teams were already rewarded for their poor finishes in 02, 03, and 04. Period. End of story.

There's so much whining about the unfairness about Crosby potentially going to Detroit, Colorado, Dallas, Toronto, etc... But somehow it's more fair for him to go to Washington, Columbus, or Carolina (putting him on the ice with Ovechkin, Nash/Zerdev, or Staal)

I agree with you. If Philly fans want a shot at Crosby, cough up Richards and Carter. Washington can cough up Ovechkin. Simple as that.

If people are afraid of teams stock piling first pick talent, then the teams that have had a first pick in the last three to five years don't qualify. Seems like a good compromise to me. That moves the teams that should have the shot at number one (Rangers and Florida) to the top of the heap as it should be.

 

[HSHS]

I agree with you. If Philly fans want a shot at Crosby, cough up Richards and Carter. Washington can cough up Ovechkin. Simple as that.

If people are afraid of teams stock piling first pick talent, then the teams that have had a first pick in the last three to five years don't qualify. Seems like a good compromise to me. That moves the teams that should have the shot at number one (Rangers and Florida) to the top of the heap as it should be.

I agree with you if you are only talking about the first choice. I think that every Caps fan would give up on Crosby for a guaranteed top 5 pick. But if you are using that standard for the entire draft order, then it doesn't hold water.

Why should Pitt be able to keep their ball for their picks 2-5 over the last few years but the caps have to give one up for number one? It makes no sense UNLESS you are only describing the lottery for SC. You'd have to put those balls back in for picks 2-29.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I agree with you if you are only talking about the first choice. I think that every Caps fan would give up on Crosby for a guaranteed top 5 pick. But if you are using that standard for the entire draft order, then it doesn't hold water.

Why should Pitt be able to keep their ball for their picks 2-5 over the last few years but the caps have to give one up for number one? It makes no sense UNLESS you are only describing the lottery for SC. You'd have to put those balls back in for picks 2-29.

Keep arguing fellas. You're only proving our point.

There is one fair way to do this.
Every other way is rife with inequity.

The draft order must be random.
And it should be done 1-30, 30-1.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

I agree with you. If Philly fans want a shot at Crosby, cough up Richards and Carter. Washington can cough up Ovechkin. Simple as that.

If people are afraid of teams stock piling first pick talent, then the teams that have had a first pick in the last three to five years don't qualify. Seems like a good compromise to me. That moves the teams that should have the shot at number one (Rangers and Florida) to the top of the heap as it should be.

That makes no sense. Every team has had a 1st pick in the last three to five years.

Heck, you're even asking the Flyers to cough up a prospect they didn't even draft with one of their picks.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

That makes no sense. Every team has had a 1st pick in the last three to five years.

Heck, you're even asking the Flyers to cough up a prospect they didn't even draft with one of their picks.

Maybe I should have been a little more clear. Every team that has had the first pick over all should be excluded. A little clearer? The Philly comment was for those teams that are trying to play both sides of the fence in this argument, using the lack of a CBA to argue both ends of the spectrum when it comes to prospects and the draft.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Keep arguing fellas. You're only proving our point.

There is one fair way to do this.
Every other way is rife with inequity.

The draft order must be random.
And it should be done 1-30, 30-1.

Go play with your PS2 and leave the real world to the adults.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Keep arguing fellas. You're only proving our point.

There is one fair way to do this.
Every other way is rife with inequity.

The draft order must be random.
And it should be done 1-30, 30-1.

Thanks Wing fan....Pass..

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Maybe I should have been a little more clear. Every team that has had the first pick over all should be excluded. A little clearer? The Philly comment was for those teams that are trying to play both sides of the fence in this argument, using the lack of a CBA to argue both ends of the spectrum when it comes to prospects and the draft.

Ah, ok.

But wouldn't it be simpler to just put 30 balls in a cheap hat?

 

[HSHS]

Ah, ok.

But wouldn't it be simpler to just put 30 balls in a cheap hat?

It would be just simpler to have a fixed Cap not linked to revenues... but the NHL/NHLPA is hell bent on an 80 lbs of paperwork.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Ah, ok.

But wouldn't it be simpler to just put 30 balls in a cheap hat?

Sure, it would be easier, but it wouldn't be right. Going by that logic wouldn't it be easier just to throw 30 team names into a hat and select a name to see who wins the Stanley Cup? It would not be fair to those teams that have the talent to be contenders, but hey, it would be so much easier and "fair" to everyone.

 

[LordHelmet]

FYI guys, I wasn't proposing this as a way to run the lottery..

I just said it to make a point. Teams have already been compensated for their suckage in past years. There is no reason to compensate them again.

In my mind, that point overrides any discussion about the accuracy of predictive methods, the current roster of various teams, where the salary cap will be, and past team payrolls.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

leave the real world to the adults.

Says the man incapable of communicating without the use of a childish gimmick.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

FYI guys, I wasn't proposing this as a way to run the lottery..

I just said it to make a point. Teams have already been compensated for their suckage in past years. There is no reason to compensate them again.

In my mind, that point overrides any discussion about the accuracy of predictive methods, the current roster of various teams, where the salary cap will be, and past team payrolls.

I don't see how anyone can even touch this argument.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Sure, it would be easier, but it wouldn't be right. Going by that logic wouldn't it be easier just to throw 30 team names into a hat and select a name to see who wins the Stanley Cup? It would not be fair to those teams that have the talent to be contenders, but hey, it would be so much easier and "fair" to everyone.

Look, we didn't have a season. Therefore, we have no stanley cup winner.

I've always said one of the two alternatives is fair.
1) 30 names in a hat.
Or
2) Don't have the draft until the end of the next season

I believe #2 is the most fair option.
But the NHL desperately wants Crosby in the league, I suppose.

So now we go to an imperfect solution.

And to me, the fairest of the imperfect solution is the 30 names in a hat method.

It's absolutely ridiculous to reward teams for a bad season they never even played.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Says the man incapable of communicating without the use of a childish gimmick.

Says the man incapable of figuring out how the smilies work.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

FYI guys, I wasn't proposing this as a way to run the lottery..

I just said it to make a point. Teams have already been compensated for their suckage in past years. There is no reason to compensate them again.

In my mind, that point overrides any discussion about the accuracy of predictive methods, the current roster of various teams, where the salary cap will be, and past team payrolls.

So projecting performance results doesn't make much sense? Well, you just put several hundred thousand accountants, actuaries and economists out of work. Nice job.

As I said earlier, why bother playing games at all? Why not just throw all the team names into a hat and draw out the name of the Stanley Cup winner? It's fair and it won't harm the sensibilities of those that like to talk out of both of their faces.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Look, we didn't have a season. Therefore, we have no stanley cup winner.

I've always said one of the two alternatives is fair.
1) 30 names in a hat.
Or
2) Don't have the draft until the end of the next season

I believe #2 is the most fair option.
But the NHL desperately wants Crosby in the league, I suppose.

So now we go to an imperfect solution.

And to me, the fairest of the imperfect solution is the 30 names in a hat method.

It's absolutely ridiculous to reward teams for a bad season they never even played.

And that's why the NHL is going to use three to five seasons to define who picks when. Its called trend analysis and is a pretty accepted manner for resolving matters like this. The trend each team has been on will decide where they pick. That is a much better, and more widely accepted methodology, for resolution of this issue rather than picking names out of a hat.

 

[Slats432]

Look, we didn't have a season. Therefore, we have no stanley cup winner.

I've always said one of the two alternatives is fair.
1) 30 names in a hat.
Or
2) Don't have the draft until the end of the next season

I believe #2 is the most fair option.
But the NHL desperately wants Crosby in the league, I suppose.

So now we go to an imperfect solution.

And to me, the fairest of the imperfect solution is the 30 names in a hat method.

It's absolutely ridiculous to reward teams for a bad season they never even played.

Everything you have said during the lockout wants to keep the competitive advantage for your team.

Tampa gets Crosby? Yep...that would be fair.
How about Detroit? Again...super duper.
What about Philly? Buenos with a little noschachos.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

And that's why the NHL is going to use three to five seasons to define who picks when. Its called trend analysis and is a pretty accepted manner for resolving matters like this. The trend each team has been on will decide where they pick. That is a much better, and more widely accepted methodology, for resolution of this issue rather than picking names out of a hat.

You're not talking about trend analysis.

You're talking about averaging the last few seasons.

Nothing in your "analysis" will take into account which way the Red Wings were trending (downwards).
Your trend analysis won't take into account that Yzerman may or may not have played. That Schneider wasn't going to be resigned. That Hull was gone. That Hatcher may or may not recover his form after major knee surgery., That Chelios, if signed, was another year older.
That our energy line guys (Draper/Maltby/Homer/McCarty) are all another year older and, most likely, slower.

Your trend analysis isn't analysis at all.

It's garbage designed give the mediocre teams another prime seat in front of the trough.

 

[LordHelmet]

So projecting performance results doesn't make much sense? Well, you just put several hundred thousand accountants, actuaries and economists out of work. Nice job.

a) Where did I say anything remotely like "projecting performance doesn't work"? Please show me a quote - otherwise quit mischaracterizing my statments.
c) If you can't see the difference between financial accounting and a player draft for a sports league, then you're far less intellegent than I thought.

As I said earlier, why bother playing games at all? Why not just throw all the team names into a hat and draw out the name of the Stanley Cup winner? It's fair and it won't harm the sensibilities of those that like to talk out of both of their faces.

Why play the games? Easy, because it's more entertaining than picking winners at random. Besides, where did anyone propose selecting the cup winner at random? If you can't debate the topic thats fine, just remain quiet instead of making crap like this up out of nowhere..

Side note: Many the reasons given in support of a salary cap are quite close to selecting a team at random to win the cup. You know - all of the ideas like parity, competitive balance, all teams having an equal shot every year..

2nd Side note: Although you have a valid point about some posters spouting their teams strength in some threads and then crying about their weakness in threads about the draft - please note that not all posters are doing so.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

You're not talking about trend analysis.

You're talking about averaging the last few seasons.

Nothing in your "analysis" will take into account which way the Red Wings were trending (downwards).
Your trend analysis won't take into account that Yzerman may or may not have played. That Schneider wasn't going to be resigned. That Hull was gone. That Hatcher may or may not recover his form after major knee surgery., That Chelios, if signed, was another year older.
That our energy line guys (Draper/Maltby/Homer/McCarty) are all another year older and, most likely, slower.

Your trend analysis isn't analysis at all.

It's garbage designed give the mediocre teams another prime seat in front of the trough.

Awwwww, would you like a kleenex? I'm sure that everyone feels soooooo sorry for you and you $70 million payroll. Too bad, so sad. If you were so concerned about the draft after the lockout you should have hoped your Red Wings would have sucked real hard and finished at the bottom of the league instead of the top of the heap. Yeah, the Red Wings have really been on a downward trend! Losing a whole point in the standings from the year before! Yup, they deserve the first overall pick, the poor dears!