Rumor: No weighted draft lottery

[NYR469]

I don't know what advantage that would be to the bulk of their clientele. 70% of the player are already in play and the cap is going to reduce offers, so why glut the market more?

for most guys it probably wouldn't but for some it would make a big difference because teams will try to force as many players as possible to sign QO to keep salary down...

guys like rick nash, kovalchuk, iginla, thornton, etc will all make alot more $$ on the open market then as rfas

it would probably create a situation were the top guys get more and the bottom guys get less

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Good post... My preference is no draft, raise the age... Everything else is a distant alternative, IMO...

I'd like this to happen, but only because that's the right thing to do for those youngsters.

The reality is, it's NOT a real solution. We need a solution in case this happens again. You can't bump players age every time you get a mess like this or over time, you're just going to draft them at 25 years old.

No matter if the NHL decides to bump the age, they need to rule on this issue and stop acting like indecisive little girls. It's bad enough they didn't think about this before.

 

[MontrealCruiser_83*]

It would be fun to see the reaction of all these disgustingly biased Rangers and Capitals fans if the lottery was weighed using past team performances and 2003 team payrolls. Bye bye top-10 pick... and rightfully so.

 

[NYR469]

I'd like this to happen, but only because that's the right thing to do for those youngsters.

The reality is, it's NOT a real solution. We need a solution in case this happens again. You can't bump players age every time you get a mess like this or over time, you're just going to draft them at 25 years old.

No matter if the NHL decides to bump the age, they need to rule on this issue and stop acting like indecisive little girls. It's bad enough they didn't think about this before.

well first hopefully this won't happen ever again that a whole season is lost. it has never happened before in pro sports so i doubt it will become a reoccuring problem...

and i've heard talks about them wanting to raise the draft age for years, so this isn't simply a case of being too lazy to figure out what order to make the draft and pushing everyone back. this would be more about saying 'hey we all think the draft age should be 19 anyway, instead of gradually transitioning into it. lets just skip this year, push everything back a year and make the age change all in 1 shot.'

 

[NYR469]

It would be fun to see the reaction of all these disgustingly biased Rangers and Capitals fans if the lottery was weighed using past team performances and 2003 team payrolls. Bye bye top-10 pick... and rightfully so.

don't make me laugh. like you aren't biased by favoring the no weighted lottery which favors a team like montreal

i love how any comment made that someone doesn't agree with is 'biased' or a 'homer', newsflash we are all biased and fans. some maybe more than others but if you go thru this thread you'll see that all the fans of bad teams are in favor of a weighted system, all the fans of the good teams are in favor of an unweighted system. both groups are in favor of the thing that benefits their team, so why is one side biased and the other not??

and you know damn well that if they could weight the draft to make the odds so crosby lands in montreal you would be all for that, but that wouldn't be biased right?

 

[PecaFan]

Teams have already been compensated for their suckage in past years. There is no reason to compensate them again.

Sounds lovely, until you actually think of the alternative. Which is that if you don't give the top picks to the lousy teams who actually sucked, you are giving the top picks to teams that *haven't* sucked.

Brilliant plan. Give compensation to those who never even suffered. Maybe we should start giving welfare to the rich. Or drought relief payments to non-farmers.

If Crosby goes to the teams benefiting from a weighted system (Washington, Columbus, Carolina, Pitt) he will be paired with other premium draft picks from the last few years (AO, Nash, Staal, Malkin)

What seems to continually escape you is that's what supposed to happen. Lehtinen joined the premium pick Kovalchuk. Kovalchuk joined the premium pick Heatley. Malkin joined Fleury. Zherdev joined Nash. Horton joined Bouwmeester...

Everything you keep decrying about a weighted draft is *normal*. That's the whole point of designing it that way.

 

[deandebean]

don't make me laugh. like you aren't biased by favoring the no weighted lottery which favors a team like montreal

i love how any comment made that someone doesn't agree with is 'biased' or a 'homer', newsflash we are all biased and fans. some maybe more than others but if you go thru this thread you'll see that all the fans of bad teams are in favor of a weighted system, all the fans of the good teams are in favor of an unweighted system. both groups are in favor of the thing that benefits their team, so why is one side biased and the other not??

and you know damn well that if they could weight the draft to make the odds so crosby lands in montreal you would be all for that, but that wouldn't be biased right?

Nope. It's his favorite team. Would be just normal for him to land where he wants to go first...

 

[MontrealCruiser_83*]

don't make me laugh. like you aren't biased by favoring the no weighted lottery which favors a team like montreal

i love how any comment made that someone doesn't agree with is 'biased' or a 'homer', newsflash we are all biased and fans. some maybe more than others but if you go thru this thread you'll see that all the fans of bad teams are in favor of a weighted system, all the fans of the good teams are in favor of an unweighted system. both groups are in favor of the thing that benefits their team, so why is one side biased and the other not??

and you know damn well that if they could weight the draft to make the odds so crosby lands in montreal you would be all for that, but that wouldn't be biased right?

I never said that only one side is biased. I said that one side is being disgustingly biased. I don't think I need to specify any further.

For the record, I care very little as to whether one system helps the Habs chances. From a personal point of view, I think that an equal oppurtunity draft would be a very exciting mid-summer treat to the fans who missed out on playoff hockey last season. Perhaps New York fans weren't too eager for 2004-05, but I certainly was.

 

[jacketracket*]

Good post... My preference is no draft, raise the age... Everything else is a distant alternative, IMO...

I agree.

Announce that, along wth other changes being made to the game through the new CBA and on-ice rule changes, the league has decided to raise the entry age to 19. Get the new CBA in place, get a season started on time, and base the Crosby sweepstakes on next season's results.

 

[HockeyCritter]

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.

Actually one of the proposed systems did just that - - the further back they went (four years I believe) the less “weight†the points had. So it would be something like 03/04=40%, 02/03=30%, 01/02=20%, 00/01=10%

 

[LordHelmet]

Sounds lovely, until you actually think of the alternative. Which is that if you don't give the top picks to the lousy teams who actually sucked, you are giving the top picks to teams that *haven't* sucked. Brilliant plan. Give compensation to those who never even suffered.

What you're missing is that the teams that *haven't* sucked *were* suffering via lower drafting positions. How many top-5 picks have Colorado, Dallas, Detroit, Toronto, and Philly had over the last 5 years? None.

That's my point - if you're going to weight the draft on past seasons' results, fine. But teams were already compensated for past seasons' results via the draft picks they were awarded, therefore any weighting that occurs should also factor in past seasons' draft positions. I'm talking the picks that are originally awarded to each team by the league at the end of the year, not picks aquired through trades.

In the end, the low finishing position of poor teams is canceled out by their high draft picks and the high finishing position of good teams is canceled out by their low draft picks. What you end up with is each team having an equal 1-in-30 chance..

 

[Steve L*]

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?

Its not that they cant afford to compete, its the fact that hes going to choose his best chance to win a cup and that sure isnt going to be places like Nashville, Columbus or Minnesota.
With a lottery at least they have a one in 30 chance, thats better than zero chance.

 

[Steve L*]

What you're missing is that the teams that *haven't* sucked *were* suffering via lower drafting positions. How many top-5 picks have Colorado, Dallas, Detroit, Toronto, and Philly had over the last 5 years? None.

That's my point - if you're going to weight the draft on past seasons' results, fine. But teams were already compensated for past seasons' results via the draft picks they were awarded, therefore any weighting that occurs should also factor in past seasons' draft positions. I'm talking the picks that are originally awarded to each team by the league at the end of the year, not picks aquired through trades.

In the end, the low finishing position of poor teams is canceled out by their high draft picks and the high finishing position of good teams is canceled out by their low draft picks. What you end up with is each team having an equal 1-in-30 chance..

That post sums up perfectly why a 1 in 30 chance is fair.
Poor teams have already handicaped big market team teams with a cap, now they want to be rewarded twice for sucking.


There will be *****ing about whoever gets the #1 pick.
If its NYR or LA, it will be a fix.
Of its Tor, Phi, Det or Col if will be the NHL looking after the big market teams.
If its Atl, Chi, Pit, Fla then it will be poor teams unfairly rewarded for sucking.

Either have a 1 in 30 chance or let them all become UFAs then everyone has the same chance of signing any player. I dont see how anyone can moan at that without looking stupid.

 

[Hasbro]

Colorado cleary deserves the #1 pick. We are ranked 30thin the almighty HF prospect ratings therefore we need Crosby the most.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Actually one of the proposed systems did just that - - the further back they went (four years I believe) the less “weight†the points had. So it would be something like 03/04=40%, 02/03=30%, 01/02=20%, 00/01=10%

Reread what I posted.

 

[arrbez]

i've been hearing for a few years that the league wants to raise the draft age and imo this is the PERFECT chance to do it since the easy way to increase the draft age is to skip a draft year. but they aren't going to do that because of crosby. if sidney crosby wasn't part of the draft i don't think there is any doubt that if crosby wasn't part of this draft they would just push everything back a year.

raising the draft age would still leave a few guys wouldn't it? a guy like Danny Syvret was passed over before, but I figured he'd be drafted this year, even though he's 20

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Hmmmm, it seems you're the one that keeps throwing "market size" into the equation, .

With great disdain, you're the one that tied to the Wings $70M payroll. Go figure

 

[Mr Sakich]

I have been on the fence on this draft for a while. My oilers would greatly benefit if the plan to reward non-playoff teams in the last 3 years was used. I think this is unfair. We missed the playoffs, we got our draft picks. Lets move on to next year.

The small market, non-playoff teams look like they will be rewarded in the new cba. The big market owners will benefit a lot more than their fans will because we are going to see some pretty insane profits coming out of toronto, NYR, and Philly.

The only people who are getting screwed over in the new cba is the fans of the big market teams who have become accustommed to big payrolls and automatic playoffs. For this reason, I see no reason to punish them any more.

30 teams, 30 balls, 2nd round in reverse order as first round

simple and fair.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I agree.

Announce that, along wth other changes being made to the game through the new CBA and on-ice rule changes, the league has decided to raise the entry age to 19. Get the new CBA in place, get a season started on time, and base the Crosby sweepstakes on next season's results.

Fine with me . . . looking at what my Pens have, and what they are likely to have (Malkin is unlikely to be over, Fleury is still years away, young prospects are years from their prime and will make tons of mistakes, the defense should blow big time) we likely would end up with the best chance at Crosby and Kessel. Proving my point. We do have a pretty good idea where teams were last year, where they would be next year, at least in the slots that matter at all. Top five and bottom five. Take slots 6-25 in any draft and to be honest the difference is far less than between the top five and the rest. So really the only slots that we have to peg as accurately as possible are the top and bottom if we want to be fair. The vast middle is as likely to have a Semin at slot 6 or slot 22.

 

[HF2002]

Sounds lovely, until you actually think of the alternative. Which is that if you don't give the top picks to the lousy teams who actually sucked, you are giving the top picks to teams that *haven't* sucked.

What seems to continually escape you is that's what supposed to happen. Lehtinen joined the premium pick Kovalchuk. Kovalchuk joined the premium pick Heatley. Malkin joined Fleury. Zherdev joined Nash. Horton joined Bouwmeester...

If the NHL plans to switch to the random 1 in 30 draft every year then I would agree with you.

 

[The Old Master]

ok here it is. every team get a 1-30 chance at the top pick,then go with last yr.s standings for the rest of the draft. everybody get a shot at crosby, and the weaker teams still get the top picks by at most only moveing down one slot in the first round. every body will be happy!

 

[Levitate]

i tend to think a weighted system is the best way...of course i'm biased in that since my favorite team would benefit from that, but the way i look at it is certain teams like the caps and rangers (just the easiest examples that come to my mind since they had firesales last year) were very unlikely to go anywhere if there was a season last year. it's extremely likely they would have been in the running for the top pick. and i also think it's pretty damn likely a team like the flyers or avs would have been competing for the cup as usual. nothings absolutely certain but i don't think it's possible to just regard all teams as equal when it comes to this

a system that gives everyone a shot but gives some of the "poorest" teams a little better shot seems fair to me, but again i can just as easily be called biased

 

[FlyersFan10*]

OK, I've got an even greater way to devise the draft. This is completely fair, completely random, and completely out of this world. What you do is you take every draft eligible player and you assign them a six digit lottery number. What you do after that is put the lottery numbers into random balls. Once that is done, you stamp the random balls with a team emblem. Nobody knows what lottery number is in that ball. When you draw, you open the ball and you see what lottery number you are assigned. From there, you call out the lottery number and voila, you have your draft choice. Odd, yes. Very fair though and very random.

 

[MontrealCruiser_83*]

i tend to think a weighted system is the best way...of course i'm biased in that since my favorite team would benefit from that, but the way i look at it is certain teams like the caps and rangers (just the easiest examples that come to my mind since they had firesales last year) were very unlikely to go anywhere if there was a season last year. it's extremely likely they would have been in the running for the top pick. and i also think it's pretty damn likely a team like the flyers or avs would have been competing for the cup as usual. nothings absolutely certain but i don't think it's possible to just regard all teams as equal when it comes to this

a system that gives everyone a shot but gives some of the "poorest" teams a little better shot seems fair to me, but again i can just as easily be called biased

Honestly, which team do you think suffered more last year? The Caps or the Flyers?

Going 30-52 isn't good but I think missing out on playoff revenues, a shot at the cup, and adding a year to the age of the premiere players is indicitive of a significantly "worse" season.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

i tend to think a weighted system is the best way...of course i'm biased in that since my favorite team would benefit from that, but the way i look at it is certain teams like the caps and rangers (just the easiest examples that come to my mind since they had firesales last year) were very unlikely to go anywhere if there was a season last year. it's extremely likely they would have been in the running for the top pick. and i also think it's pretty damn likely a team like the flyers or avs would have been competing for the cup as usual. nothings absolutely certain but i don't think it's possible to just regard all teams as equal when it comes to this

a system that gives everyone a shot but gives some of the "poorest" teams a little better shot seems fair to me, but again i can just as easily be called biased

But what constitutes a poorer team? You can't say that Washington is a team with market issues because they at one time had a fairly stiff payroll with Gonchar, Jagr, and Lang all onboard. They were throwing money around. So, you can't consider them poor. All what they did was a salary dump in 2003/2004.

The same can be said with the New York Rangers. You take a look at the roster they had on paper at one time. There was Big E, Mess, Holik, Jagr, Kasparitis, Leetch, Poti, etc.....and then they did the big salary dumps as well.

The only real small market or market trouble teams there are right now are most of the Canadian teams (and that's because of taxes - when one Canadian team pays taxes equivalent of what all the teams in the U.S. pay combined, there's an issue), teams like Nashville, Phoenix and even Tampa Bay. Let's remember that Tampa Bay are the defending champs and they couldn't even sell out. As part of ticket promotions, they were giving away free beer and that didn't even work either.

Fact of the matter is that revenues in the league are drying up because the corporate sponsorship is moving away. They don't have a TV contract in the states other than the regional affiliates that have agreements with the teams, and there is absolutely no revenue sharing. If there were revenue and debt sharing in place, that would go a very long way in straightening out the game. No one seems to recognize that though. And until that's addressed, it's always going to be the same, even with a cap. Mark my words, when this agreement is signed, you can bet that in another six years from now, the owners will be crying once again that they are losing money and they need to lower the cap.