Should the NHL change the Draft rules

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Wow. Original idea for a thread. This is about as stupid as someone saying Crosby is going to finish the year with like 45 pts. Oh, wait ..... I'm sensing a pattern here.

i think he said 40, and can i say. . . . burn

 

[Gophers]

While you are at it--why not add in this rule: IF the Chicago Blackhawks make their fans suffer humiliation by finishing as a bottom feeder,they automatically get the #1 pick because everyone knows the hockey gods will never allow them to win a lotto or to tank badly enough to increase the % chances for such --in fact everyone knows the Hawks are more likely to get smashed in the teeth and to have to drop 1 position after a lotto win by a team with a better record...imagine --how many lousey seasons now and no saviours like Ovechkin,Crosby,Malkin---yes the fans will line up in droves to pay big $$$ to watch Cam Barker! (Laugh....)..the NHL owes Blackhawks fans bigtime and it would be a travesty if Pitt wins the lotto again --or even if they picked ahead of The Hawks this time--imagine Crosby and Malkin on the same team=ridiculous! Furthermore, they may not even be in Pitt but back in Hartford of all crazy things! Ridiculous....FOLD THEM --give Crosby and Malkin to the Hawks--HOW CAN THE THIRD LARGEST MEDIA MARKET IN THE U.S. BE THIS IGNORE BY THE NHL: PUTRID SCORING/NO "SIZZLE STAR" TO MARKET--result: 50% EMPTY SEATS IN A ONCE GREAT HOCKEY TOWN NOW REDUCED TO THE BACK PAGES IN THE SORTS SCENE THERE....it is a shameful tragedy...but as I said the hockey gods revel in this Blackhawks misery of bad luck--even when bad the Hawks never are bad enough to get a franchise player to brings the fans back to the seats--so what is the point of stinking year after year if you never get rewarded --if you never get lucky? All that happens is a dwindling fanbase. A tragedy.

If only the Hawks could draft Kessel...

 

[Pens1566]

i think he said 40, and can i say. . . . burn

I thought it was 45, oh well. And you'll notice he hasn't been back here in a while. Probably deleting all his Crosby = next Daigle posts.

 

[Letang fan 58]

even if it is weighted, the NHL should seriously consider doing this. Even if it's only 1 team that gets to move up to spot one, the NHL should make an event of it. Imagine how many fans will tune into the 2nd intermission of an NBC game just to see if there teams get a better pick(that's 14 teams fans).

It's all about the entertainment, and for teams with bad records, they still would get a decent pick no mater what.

I do believe that only the top 8 teams in the NBA have a chance at the number 1 pick each year.........it basically is the same system as the NHL uses with 3 added teams having an opportunity to move up to first.

 

[Burgs]

Would've been better off not tanking quite so hard and getting the #2 pick.

You gotta help me out here, who was drafted after Daigle? Because, you know, "nobody remembers #2".

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Ann Arbor Michigan? Another Detroit Fan I assume who is sickened by the idea that they get to go deep in the playoffs and have to draft near the bottom year in and year out, eh?

God, how I wish some of the ones whining about this could get their way. The Pens, who this is aimed at because they got lucky and their 4% chance at Crosby came through last August, are very unlikely to be drafting anywhere near the lottery for the next decade or more. Detroit and some other teams are mostly old as the hills and will have to be rebuilding soon just like St. Louis, Toronto, and other teams who had been used to playoff spots year in and year out found out this year. So by all means change the lottery rules so my Pens have a chance at a number one pick when they are in the playoffs and contending for a cup in a couple of years. Then see how you feel when we add a number one pick to Malkin, Crosby, Johnson/Kessel, Fleury, Whitney, Orpik and on and on AFTER we finish first in the conference. Be careful what you b*tch for, you might get more than you bargained for.

1. The Salary Cap will be a bigger equalizer than the draft ever has been.
2. I just don't think it's right to trade away productive players in March. Fans who payed big money to see a team are getting ripped off. Teams are purposely TANKING the season, and the worse they do, the better. If you're gonna suck, you may as well suck REAL bad so you can get the worst pick.
3. You say I'm whining about Detroit. But Detroit has benefited from these late season tank trades. If these moves were less prevelant, Detroit wouldn't be as strong as it is today.

So I'm not coming at this from a Detroit fan's perspective. I'm coming at it from a why-would-anyone-in-their-right-mind-want-to-pay-money-to-watch-a-team-that-went-out-and-traded-all-there-good-player perspective.

Like I said. Brian Burke threw a fricking fit when Detroit let their Swedes stay in Sweden and the Wings got bombed by San Jose. Teams ALWAYS complain about Detroit resting their stars in games that figure into the playoff situation.
Yet nobody raises their voice about Boston purposely becoming a weaker team for the last eight weeks of the season. If you're battling for that last playoff spot against Montreal, and they have three more games against Boston, and you have none, how is that fair?

 

[ChemiseBleuHonnete]

I agree that teams should not be rewarded for sucking

That's the point I think. BTW, I think that most people will agree, it starts to be really lame that all the superstars are drafted by low-end teams. They can't manage their team well yet they get rewarded with the most spectacular players in the game... In sports you get rewarded for your work, like getting two points for winning a game. Also, most of the team who get the marquee players don't even build their team properly afterwards, so it's not like having the first overall pick really does a difference.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

no.. it was more of a 'which team needs crosby the most to survive'

No, it was more of a 6.8% chance lottery.

 

[UnderratedBrooks44]

That's the point I think. BTW, I think that most people will agree, it starts to be really lame that all the superstars are drafted by low-end teams. They can't manage their team well yet they get rewarded with the most spectacular players in the game... In sports you get rewarded for your work, like getting two points for winning a game. Also, most of the team who get the marquee players don't even build their team properly afterwards, so it's not like having the first overall pick really does a difference.

You have go to be kidding me. So why don't we just pare down the league to the teams that are "capable" and therefore worthy of having a high draft pick. Unbelievable.

I love these threads because it's so easy to refute any new ideas you guys may have. You guys want a first overall pick? Fine, you can have your team go through a season like we've had to go through in Pittsburgh. Try it 4-5 times in a row then see how you feel. Meanwhile I'll take the Pens being in the playoffs for the same amount of time any day. For some reason you guys have more respect for franchises in perpetual mediocrity (Florida, Minnesota, LA, NYI) than teams that are smart and actually rebuild from the ground up.

As someone said before if the Pens didn't randomly get Crosby we wouldn't be having this conversation and make no mistake this IS about the Penguins. We got one of our #1 picks in a totally random lottery, traded up for the other and ended up with the #2 pick when we should've had #1, but that's okay.

You guys fail to understand that the draft is to EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD. The idea is not to have 5-10 teams dominate every year. That's not a good business model for sports. If the draft changed and playoff or barely non-playoff teams got the best picks you know what would happen? About 15-20 NHL teams would fold after ten years or so because who would care? My team has a budget that does not allow them to spend to the cap max and since the best teams would be getting the highest picks I'm basically screwed out of any chance to build up a competitive team. What fun.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

You have go to be kidding me. So why don't we just pare down the league to the teams that are "capable" and therefore worthy of having a high draft pick. Unbelievable.

I love these threads because it's so easy to refute any new ideas you guys may have. You guys want a first overall pick? Fine, you can have your team go through a season like we've had to go through in Pittsburgh. Try it 4-5 times in a row then see how you feel. Meanwhile I'll take the Pens being in the playoffs for the same amount of time any day. For some reason you guys have more respect for franchises in perpetual mediocrity (Florida, Minnesota, LA, NYI) than teams that are smart and actually rebuild from the ground up.

As someone said before if the Pens didn't randomly get Crosby we wouldn't be having this conversation and make no mistake this IS about the Penguins. We got one of our #1 picks in a totally random lottery, traded up for the other and ended up with the #2 pick when we should've had #1, but that's okay.

You guys fail to understand that the draft is to EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD. The idea is not to have 5-10 teams dominate every year. That's not a good business model for sports. If the draft changed and playoff or barely non-playoff teams got the best picks you know what would happen? About 15-20 NHL teams would fold after ten years or so because who would care? My team has a budget that does not allow them to spend to the cap max and since the best teams would be getting the highest picks I'm basically screwed out of any chance to build up a competitive team. What fun.

You've got a salary cap that evens the playing field now, right?

So there's less need to give the worst teams the top player in the draft.
A team like St. Louis shouldn't have a huge claim on Kessel. They're just one season removed from being a good team in this league. They can go out and sign two/three guys and get back in the playoffs.
Meanwhile, teams at the top of the league tend to be in a situations where they're going to be losing guys because of the cap. So why should they be completely shut out of the draft sweepstakes.
I think the NHL should go to a full draft lottery. It ought to be weighted toward bottom feeders. But there ought to be more chance that a bottom team isn't going to get a top 5 pick
We need to eliminate the obvious benefit of tanking the season in February.
It's a blight on the sport, if you ask me.

Ask yourself this question.
What would you do to a player who purposely lost a game to win a bet with in a gambling ring?

Why do you not feel the same way about a GM (like with the Capitals, for example, prior to the OVechkin draft) that purposely dismantles a decent team and knows the team is going to suck but doesn't care because they've got a chance to get a great player in the draft?

 

[habsfansam]

I was thinking today as I was driving, about the 1st overall pick in the draft. I think the NHL should change the rule a little that no team can draft 1st twice in a row if they finish last overall 2 years in a row. Teams should not be constantly rewarded for sucking. Just my opinion. The lowest they should be allowed to draft is 5 but no higher than number 2.

This method could take a real bite out of the way that Pittsburg seems to want to grow... draft high for a few years while essentially keeping your top picks out of the lineup - send them to college or better yet Europe, orchestrate a labor dispute, add in extra years of military service... essentially anything to keep the team placing last. Then, when they move, they get to unleash all of their previous top 5 draft picks on the league at once.

I personally don't mind the rule... teams that finish last usually suck since parrity isn't all that present in the league as it stands. They need all the help they can get.

All that being said, I did and still do really like the free-for-all draft style of last year. If the 1st round was a lottery for all teams the excitement would be higher. That being said, I hated the snake draft so something else would need to be done there.

 

[guinness]

Bad teams are bad teams because of poor ownership/management/coaching, teams that continually do poorly get the high picks in hopes that someday, that team will improve. However, some teams like the NFL Cards or Lions will never improve because of ownership, but that's the rub.

I don't have a problem with the Pens; if they did poorly, they should draft high. However, they went out last summer and spent money they didn't have, on players they didn't need, and didn't improve in the slightest. I think that's what rubs people the wrong way about the Pens situation. I could put up with a team being financially stupid, if they have the money to burn, but whining about money, while pissing it away at the same time, that's what bugs me.

Get all the 1st overall picks they want, just be smarter with their money.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

If the salary cap was such a great equalizer, why is the NFL (which has had a salary cap system for nearly 20 years) using a draft system in which the worst team gets the 1st overall pick and the Super Bowl champions pick last? Because the salary cap is not the be-all, end-all equalizer that many of you seem to think it is. The reason the NFL got close to parity is because the tougher teams had tougher nondivisional schedules every year and the weaker teams had weaker nondivisional schedules in addition to the use of the salary cap to help spread talent. Of course, the NFL also doesn't have guaranteed contracts - should the NHL go to that as well so teams can sign players to huge 6-year deals, get a year or two of service at less than the actual payroll cost, then drop the player for nothing?

TCC - if you think the Blues are 2 or 3 players away from the playoffs, you have a much more optimistic view of the current state of the team than arguably 90% of the rest of the board. If we could afford to sign 2 or 3 elite free agents, you *might* have a point - the fact is, the Blues will hit the lower limit for next season and probably not much over. They simply can't afford to shell out $45 million or whatever the upper limit ends up being, and new ownership isn't going to change that. They shouldn't be as bad next season as they were this season, but they're much farther away from being a playoff team than 2 or 3 free agents.

If the NHL thought it was such a bad thing to scrap the team as you suggest the Caps did to specifically get Ovechkin (note: the Caps finished 3rd to last in '03-04, they still had to win the lottery to get that #1 overall pick and had a better chance of picking 4th than they did 1st going into the lottery), they would have done something about it. They didn't - which either means (A) the league knew the Caps were retrenching due to finances, or (B) the league knew the Caps were intentionally tanking and didn't care.

Should the league have had a draft allowing the top teams to still pick 1st overall when Detroit was regularly somewhere around 22-47-11 and the Islanders and Oilers were ruling the NHL in the midst of winning 4 Cups each? Would it have been fair if in 1983, the Oilers got to pluck Steve Yzerman after going to the Finals, adding him to a lineup that already featured Gretzky, Kurri, Messier, Anderson, Coffey, and Fuhr while Detroit was coming off a 21-44-15 season that saw the Red Wings miss the playoffs for the 16th time in 18 seasons?

Seriously, some of who that think the concept of "let the worst teams pick first so they can get better" is so bad that it potentially ruins the integrity of the sport need to take a deep breath.

 

[EHCler]

I think bad teams should be rewarded with high draft picks, but a more balanced system would be better.

I would imagine a system like that of last year (for teams not making playoffs) for the first 3 pick and than the regular order.

So teams that have not made the playoffs for 3 years and not gotten one of the 3 lottery picks over that time has the best chances.

The worst team will still get a good pick picking 4th at worst, but at least they are guaranteed a number 2 pick with a high chance of picking first. At the end of the day a normal draft the benefits of drafting 1st or second are too much incentive too tank after that normally there is a bigger talent gap with team scouting and management becoming more important

 

[guinness]

If the salary cap was such a great equalizer, why is the NFL (which has had a salary cap system for nearly 20 years) using a draft system in which the worst team gets the 1st overall pick and the Super Bowl champions pick last? Because the salary cap is not the be-all, end-all equalizer that many of you seem to think it is. The reason the NFL got close to parity is because the tougher teams had tougher nondivisional schedules every year and the weaker teams had weaker nondivisional schedules in addition to the use of the salary cap to help spread talent. Of course, the NFL also doesn't have guaranteed contracts - should the NHL go to that as well so teams can sign players to huge 6-year deals, get a year or two of service at less than the actual payroll cost, then drop the player for nothing?

TCC - if you think the Blues are 2 or 3 players away from the playoffs, you have a much more optimistic view of the current state of the team than arguably 90% of the rest of the board. If we could afford to sign 2 or 3 elite free agents, you *might* have a point - the fact is, the Blues will hit the lower limit for next season and probably not much over. They simply can't afford to shell out $45 million or whatever the upper limit ends up being, and new ownership isn't going to change that. They shouldn't be as bad next season as they were this season, but they're much farther away from being a playoff team than 2 or 3 free agents.

If the NHL thought it was such a bad thing to scrap the team as you suggest the Caps did to specifically get Ovechkin (note: the Caps finished 3rd to last in '03-04, they still had to win the lottery to get that #1 overall pick and had a better chance of picking 4th than they did 1st going into the lottery), they would have done something about it. They didn't - which either means (A) the league knew the Caps were retrenching due to finances, or (B) the league knew the Caps were intentionally tanking and didn't care.

Should the league have had a draft allowing the top teams to still pick 1st overall when Detroit was regularly somewhere around 22-47-11 and the Islanders and Oilers were ruling the NHL in the midst of winning 4 Cups each? Would it have been fair if in 1983, the Oilers got to pluck Steve Yzerman after going to the Finals, adding him to a lineup that already featured Gretzky, Kurri, Messier, Anderson, Coffey, and Fuhr while Detroit was coming off a 21-44-15 season that saw the Red Wings miss the playoffs for the 16th time in 18 seasons?

Seriously, some of who that think the concept of "let the worst teams pick first so they can get better" is so bad that it potentially ruins the integrity of the sport need to take a deep breath.

Weren't the Blues and Caps the biggest money losers for the past few seasons? I know the Blues tried to keep up with the Wings and were successful (to a point), but I don't think Illitch made when money when the Wings didn't get past the 2nd round in 2003. This year, he's probably making tons, almost makes up for that sinkhole known as the Tigers.

 

[EHCler]

I think NHL and NFL do not make a good comparison.

First in the NFL every team can economically pay salaries up to the CAP, in the NHL this is different.

Drafted players in the NFL outside QB have an immeadiate impact on their team. In the NHL drafted players do not help the teams immediatly, outside certain exceptions. So teams are dispite high picks likely to continue to stink.

In the NFL teams draft after positional needs (given the tons of positions), compared to NHL were teams draft after best player available.

In the NFL tactiks and team management are more important. Its all about using schemes and having the right mixture.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

No idea on the Caps - I know the Blues lost almost $30 million in '03-04, and supposedly that much the year before.

Yes, Detroit lost money (about $8 million or so) in '03. They may have also lost money in '04, but not nearly as much.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

If the salary cap was such a great equalizer, why is the NFL (which has had a salary cap system for nearly 20 years) using a draft system in which the worst team gets the 1st overall pick and the Super Bowl champions pick last? Because the salary cap is not the be-all, end-all equalizer that many of you seem to think it is. The reason the NFL got close to parity is because the tougher teams had tougher nondivisional schedules every year and the weaker teams had weaker nondivisional schedules in addition to the use of the salary cap to help spread talent. Of course, the NFL also doesn't have guaranteed contracts - should the NHL go to that as well so teams can sign players to huge 6-year deals, get a year or two of service at less than the actual payroll cost, then drop the player for nothing?

So what? Who says the NFL is the best model?

TCC - if you think the Blues are 2 or 3 players away from the playoffs, you have a much more optimistic view of the current state of the team than arguably 90% of the rest of the board. If we could afford to sign 2 or 3 elite free agents, you *might* have a point - the fact is, the Blues will hit the lower limit for next season and probably not much over. They simply can't afford to shell out $45 million or whatever the upper limit ends up being, and new ownership isn't going to change that. They shouldn't be as bad next season as they were this season, but they're much farther away from being a playoff team than 2 or 3 free agents.

That's their choice, then isn't it. Maybe St. Louis shouldn't have an NHL team. As bad as the Blues were, it was their choice to trade Pronger. It was their choice to let Demitra go. it was their choice to trade Weight. it was their choice to keep loading up on forwards five years ago when all the needed was a goalie. A good coach, a couple free agents, and you're back in contention. Seriously, you've got Tkachuck. Jackman. Brewer and some decent role players. Get a number one center, a goalie, and get back in contention. Your team was bad this year because your ownership GUTTED the freakin' team. I fail to see why you should get Eric Johnson or Phil Kessel because your ownership decided it wasn't a good idea to ice a good team this year.

If the NHL thought it was such a bad thing to scrap the team as you suggest the Caps did to specifically get Ovechkin (note: the Caps finished 3rd to last in '03-04, they still had to win the lottery to get that #1 overall pick and had a better chance of picking 4th than they did 1st going into the lottery), they would have done something about it. They didn't - which either means (A) the league knew the Caps were retrenching due to finances, or (B) the league knew the Caps were intentionally tanking and didn't care.

Retrenching due to finances?
Every freaking year, teams rip apart their teams and tell their fans "We know you bought those season tickets expecting to watch those stars we had at the beginning of the season, but we've decided that we don't care if the team you watch for the last 2 months is a pile of garbage."
How in the hell is that any good for the NHL?

Should the league have had a draft allowing the top teams to still pick 1st overall when Detroit was regularly somewhere around 22-47-11 and the Islanders and Oilers were ruling the NHL in the midst of winning 4 Cups each? Would it have been fair if in 1983, the Oilers got to pluck Steve Yzerman after going to the Finals, adding him to a lineup that already featured Gretzky, Kurri, Messier, Anderson, Coffey, and Fuhr while Detroit was coming off a 21-44-15 season that saw the Red Wings miss the playoffs for the 16th time in 18 seasons?

Thems the breaks, isn't it.
For what it's worth, I don't recall Detroit gutting their roster in those days to get that pick. The season started with a gutted roster.

Seriously, some of who that think the concept of "let the worst teams pick first so they can get better" is so bad that it potentially ruins the integrity of the sport need to take a deep breath.

Why don't you answer the question I posed?
Does it damage the integrity of the game when a player or coach bets against his team and loses on purpose?

What is the fundamental difference between that and a GM/Owner who decides it's not worth it to field a competitive team?

And look, I'm not saying the draft shou;dn't help bad teams.
I'm saying it shouldn't be an EXPECTED REWARD for INTENTIONAL MEDIOCRITY.

I'm saying the worst team gets 30 balls in the lottery, the best gets one.
That way, a GM has to think twice about gutting his team and looking forward to the draft.
The Stanley Cup winning team would have a 1/450 chance or so of getting the #1 pick.
The worst team would have a 1/15 chance of having the number one pick.
Or something like that.

It's way to bloody easy to rip your team apart these days. And there are too many rewards for it.
The Penguins have been doing it for a decade, and what good has it done for them, their fanbase, and the NHL in general?

Moreover, it presents more opportunities for the league to market itself.
How many people in playoff cities give a flying fluke abouy the draft lottery? None.

But remember last year? Fans from every team cared.

 

[hbk]

The issue is really one of timing. The NHL draft is not one where players typically step in and make a difference. The ideal solution would be to raise the draft age to allow for a clearer picture in terms of potential NHL impact. Scouting would become less of a guessing game in terms of assessing abilities. That being said, this alternative is not likely to happen as there still are players like Crosby who would legally challenge the legality of a age limit above the age of 18 that would inhibit their ability to make an income. I believe it was a legal challenge that reduced the draft age to 18 in the first place.

A better alternative is the weighted average lottery. Remember the excitement of last year's Crosby lottery? I took the bloody day off of work to watch it unfold and it was awesome. The problem is the ability to properly weight the lottery given the changing dynamic of this new collective bargaining agreement. I believe the NHL will allow for a couple of seasons to pass before they implement such a solution.

 

[ChemiseBleuHonnete]

You have go to be kidding me. So why don't we just pare down the league to the teams that are "capable" and therefore worthy of having a high draft pick. Unbelievable.

I love these threads because it's so easy to refute any new ideas you guys may have. You guys want a first overall pick? Fine, you can have your team go through a season like we've had to go through in Pittsburgh. Try it 4-5 times in a row then see how you feel. Meanwhile I'll take the Pens being in the playoffs for the same amount of time any day. For some reason you guys have more respect for franchises in perpetual mediocrity (Florida, Minnesota, LA, NYI) than teams that are smart and actually rebuild from the ground up.

As someone said before if the Pens didn't randomly get Crosby we wouldn't be having this conversation and make no mistake this IS about the Penguins. We got one of our #1 picks in a totally random lottery, traded up for the other and ended up with the #2 pick when we should've had #1, but that's okay.

You guys fail to understand that the draft is to EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD. The idea is not to have 5-10 teams dominate every year. That's not a good business model for sports. If the draft changed and playoff or barely non-playoff teams got the best picks you know what would happen? About 15-20 NHL teams would fold after ten years or so because who would care? My team has a budget that does not allow them to spend to the cap max and since the best teams would be getting the highest picks I'm basically screwed out of any chance to build up a competitive team. What fun.

you didn't get my point...

btw, the pens will still suck with their new 100 point scorer. that's what I call evening the field... lmao

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

You guys fail to understand that the draft is to EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD. The idea is not to have 5-10 teams dominate every year. That's not a good business model for sports. If the draft changed and playoff or barely non-playoff teams got the best picks you know what would happen? About 15-20 NHL teams would fold after ten years or so because who would care? My team has a budget that does not allow them to spend to the cap max and since the best teams would be getting the highest picks I'm basically screwed out of any chance to build up a competitive team. What fun.

So what is a good business model?
A model that encourages 8-12 teams each year to trade away their best players for the final two months?
Don't think so.

I'm glad to be a Detroit fan. I'd hate to be a fan of a team that trades away its best players, year after year after year.
Why would I even want to watch them on television, let alone pony up the big bucks for a ticket to a half empty arena to watch minor leaguers in NHL jerseys?

 

[Big McLargehuge]

After the Baldwin regime...we're just happy to have a franchise. He killed the franchise and it gave us a small chance to survive and no chance to be a viable team for years.


It's hard to spend money when you don't have any. And when your payroll is continuously near the bottom of the league keeping superstars is out of the question.


Don't think for a second that any of us Penguins fans enjoyed seeing our favorite and best players get traded off for nothing just so we could watch an inferior product stink up the joint for 5 years and have no guarantee that we'll even have a franchise when the team has any chance of getting good.


We may end up with a list of studs to show for it...but these last 5 years have been pure hell for Penguins fans and the team itself and there are few of us who would wish that upon anyone. Even with the potential return.


I'm sick of watching losing hockey. I'm sick of watching rookie mistakes and AHL-quality players trying to compete with the big boys. I'm sick and tired of 50-60 point seasons. But this is my team, and I'll be behind them as long as they call Pittsburgh home. Even when I stop doing that myself.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

After the Baldwin regime...we're just happy to have a franchise. He killed the franchise and it gave us a small chance to survive and no chance to be a viable team for years.


It's hard to spend money when you don't have any. And when your payroll is continuously near the bottom of the league keeping superstars is out of the question.


Don't think for a second that any of us Penguins fans enjoyed seeing our favorite and best players get traded off for nothing just so we could watch an inferior product stink up the joint for 5 years and have no guarantee that we'll even have a franchise when the team has any chance of getting good.


We may end up with a list of studs to show for it...but these last 5 years have been pure hell for Penguins fans and the team itself and there are few of us who would wish that upon anyone. Even with the potential return.

I hear ya dude.
It can't be fun.
And personally, I hope hockey thrives again in Pittsburg. I play ball hockey/dek hockey and I know that Pittsburg is one of the best hockey cities in the USA despite the way the Pens have been mismanaged.
And I was happy to see Pittsburg get Crosby (especially when the runner up was Brian Burke and Anaheim).
Still, you've got a good young defenseman. A great young goalie. You've got Malkin. And Crosby.
That has to be one of the most talented under-21 cores the NHL has seen in the last 20 years.

Enough is enough.
We've got a salary cap. Let's change the draft rules a bit.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Maybe St. Louis shouldn't have an NHL team.

That comment right there makes everything else you have to say pretty much irrelevant, no matter what value it might have. (I looked ... not much.) For you to suggest that St. Louis doesn't deserve a hockey team because its owner threw a tantrum over losing $30 million dollars a year because of his own actions, and his knee-jerk "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude caused the team to suck for one whole season for the first time in 25 years speaks volumes.

What next, we fold a franchise if they have a below .500 season regardless of the reason(s) why? We fold a franchise if in your opinion they didn't try hard enough? We fold a franchise if they trade a player that in anyone's view makes the team worse and thus is a sign they're obviously tanking it?

Like I said, the rest of your comments aren't even worth responding to if that's the simple-minded approach you're going to take. We'll see how long you're on the Detroit bandwagon when it's their turn to struggle and need to reload through the draft and they start doing some of these things you're complaining about other teams doing. It's not a question of "if" it will happen, it's only a matter of "when".

 

[hfboardsuser]

Just make the draft lottery completely random among all teams. Then you won't see teams like Pittsburgh or Washington thro... 'working really hard despite talent' to get the first overall pick.