Should the NHL change the Draft rules

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Seriously who is tanking? I really want to hear this.

St. Louis tanked the season from day 1.

 

[GaryU]

Shocking! A Detoilet fan who's tired of playing lousy teams like the Blues & Hawks!!! I too remember the dark days when when the Dead things were slugs...Keep it to yourself & enjoy your early exit from the playoffs.

 

[hbk]

Shocking! A Detoilet fan who's tired of playing lousy teams like the Blues & Hawks!!! I too remember the dark days when when the Dead things were slugs...Keep it to yourself & enjoy your early exit from the playoffs.

Yes, the 80's were not kind to Detroit. Then came Yzerman who helped start the turnaround of that franchise to respectability. Of course that was back in the day when a first round pick could step in and make an impact. This goes back to my earlier post where the players selected today in the first round for the most part aren't capabile of making an impact on a teams standings until 2-3 years at best. This is why you see the same teams at or around the same draft position for years.

 

[FoxysExpensiveNYDigs]

How about all 14 non-playoff teams get 1 ball in the lottery. Equal chance at picks 1 through 14 in the draft.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Shocking! A Detoilet fan who's tired of playing lousy teams like the Blues & Hawks!!! I too remember the dark days when when the Dead things were slugs...Keep it to yourself & enjoy your early exit from the playoffs.

Hey, I'm predicting the Oilers to upset the Wings, but that's an entirely different story.

I too remember the Detoilet days.
I'm not talking about it from a "detroit rules, st. Louis or Chicago sucks perspective"
I'm talking about it from a "How much entertainment value will there be in tonight's Detroit/St. Louis game."

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

How about all 14 non-playoff teams get 1 ball in the lottery. Equal chance at picks 1 through 14 in the draft.

I think the worst team should have the best chance and that the best team should have the worst changes
30 balls for the worst team
29 for the second worst
.....
1 ball for the Cup winner.

That hardly gives a great team a good shot at the #1 pick, does it?
If you were listening to the Irish Blues or Jaded, you'd think I was proposing that every team get an equal shot.
But I am not doing anything like that.

I'm simply making a rule that a) Makes GMs think twice about blowing up the roster and banking on a top 5 draft pick. b) Gives fans of every team a reason to be excited about the draft lottery (like last year).

Take Ottawa, for instance. They're a great team this year. Chances are, they're going to lose one of their stud defenseman and Hasek because of the cap.
Why not give them at least a shot at a top pick?
Almost certainly, the team won't be quite as strong next season.

Pittsburg, on the other hand, has ALL KINDS of cap space, they have Malkin waiting in the wings. They're almost surely going to be better next season, especially if they play their cards right on the UFA market.

I fail to see how they DESERVE another top 5 pick.

And I refer back to the capitals. They had a good nucleus of players. They chose to blow it up on their own accord. Now they've got Oveckin and a TON of cap space and the UFA age drops every year.
Their owner decided to blow up a good nucleus and ice a team that had virtually no chance to win.
They tanked the season before it even started. They refused to get active on the market despite a ton of cap room.
And people think they are ENTITLED to a high draft pick?
Nope. I don't think so.

 

[Evilo]

blah blah blah by Kvashinator

Why? According to your projections Crosby was another Daigle and wasn't going to put up more than 40 points. That was only 6 months ago.
I think the pens can pick 10 Daigle and not get better.

 

[FoxysExpensiveNYDigs]

I think the worst team should have the best chance and that the best team should have the worst changes
30 balls for the worst team
29 for the second worst
.....
1 ball for the Cup winner.

Not a terrible idea, I actually wouldn't mind a system like that. I was just proposing an alternate idea really. If all the non-playoff teams have equal shot at picks 1-14, it really doesn't give much incentive to tank for a pick because nothing would be gauranteed, while keeping the lottery exciting for the non-playoff teams and not allowing the Cup winner to get the #1 overall pick.

Could you even imagine the *****ing and moaning if say the Flyers won the cup, the Penguins/Rangers/Devils/Islanders all finished bottom 10, yet by some miracle, the Flyers 1 ball came up for the 1st overall? People would scream fix for years. Hell I'd be one of them.

 

[XX]

Im in favor of a weighted draft that takes playoff appearances and previous #1 overall pick into account.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Im in favor of a weighted draft that takes playoff appearances and previous #1 overall pick into account.

If you have a weighted draft, there's no need to penalize teams that have allready had a #1 pick.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

How would you feel if you found out a coach or a player threw a game because he made a bet on it?

When you have proof that someone is doing that right now (or has done it in the period since the NHL went to a lottery, much less ever), let me know and I'll comment. The last allegation along these lines (which was largely admitted to) of this happening was when Ottawa picked 1st overall in '93 and got Alexander Daigle; the Senators admitted they were tanking at the end to get Daigle.

I think that worked itself out pretty well. However, no one ever alleged that players or coaches anywhere in the NHL were betting on the Senators to lose.

You keep ragging on about how bad the Blues are this season topped off with the "maybe St. Louis shouldn't have an NHL team" comment, yet you also mentioned you thought Pittsburgh deserved an NHL team. (P.S. - they've been bad for 4 years now, not the decade you mentioned earlier. They were in the ECF in 2001.) Do you even understand what were the driving forces in both teams getting bad? $$$. Pittsburgh was lousy the last few years because they simply could not afford to put a decent product on the ice without losing $35 million, and (gasp!) they had an owner who didn't want to do that. (Actually, couldn't afford to do that - but that's splitting hairs.) Even this year, they were projected to lose money unless they went really deep into the playoffs.

St. Louis? They had an owner that voluntarily lost $30 million a year for 3 years in a "win now at all costs" drive to get to the Cup. When he pulled the plug on the team this season and capped payroll, forcing the team to trade Pronger and live with what they had while everyone else had the chance to go get better, everyone else here saw the writing on the wall and knew the Blues were in trouble. (Well, apparently everyone else but you - you think that's no excuse, and St. Louis should have its team yanked away because its owner was an *******. I'm thinking if you're going to yank the Blues because their owner has been an *** for 1 year, you better get yank the Blackhawks out of Chicago where they've been to the playoffs once in the last 8 years and their owner has been an *** and refusing to spend money on players to keep the team competitive for longer than that.)

You get tired of playing mediocre teams like Columbus, Chicago and St. Louis? Great! Let Pittsburgh move to Kansas City and Detroit can go to the Northeast with Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal and Buffalo, plus get 4 games a season with New Jersey, Philadelphia, the Rangers and Carolina. If those teams are still too mediocre, then I suggest we promote Detroit to the NHL-1 league where they can be the only team and not have to play anyone else mediocre.

I didn't say that the Blues shouldn't try to sign FA's this offseason. Please read what I said: the Blues are much farther away than "a couple of players" away from being in playoff contention, and with an owner that's intent on at least breaking even (you know, something that's an owner's right - to want to make money and not lose $15 million a season because you or anyone else thinks they should spend more) they're not going to add $15 million to the payroll. Post a poll here, I guarantee well more than half of the people here will agree with me. It's laughable that most people here think that we're a bad, bad team right now and our farm system is considered in the bottom third of the NHL, and then see you say we'reapparentlythisclose to the playoffs in reality.

And as mentioned before (by Jaded Fan, among others for their teams): you think Blues fans (myself included) want to suck for another 2-3 seasons? You think we enjoyed having our *** handed to us throughout the season? You think we had fun watching the team put up losing streaks of 11, 9 and 13 games? You think we threw a party when Pronger got traded and danced around saying, "Woo-hoo! The streak is dead, the streak is dead, we're gonna be picking top-3 for the next 5 years because we're gonna stink worse than a pig farm on a hot summer day in the middle of a drought, woo-hoo!" You really need to follow a team that's been bad for a while (suggestion: Chicago) and see how much fun it is to have a team that constantly struggles to be near playoff contention. Trust me - it isn't nearly the thrill ride you think it is.

When Washington was tanking in 2003 and you got Lang, did you stand up in protest and say, "Oh no - I know what the Caps are doing, they're trying to suck it up big time so they can get that high draft pick again - the league should invalidate that trade right now and make the Caps stay competitive!" Or, did you instead say, "Fantastic! Lang is a great addition to help us get back to the Cup, we hardly gave up anything for him - what a steal!" Somehow, I'm betting if I search the archives I won't see the former. Likewise, I'm sure you didn't complain about the Hawks going into the tank when they traded Chelios, or the Whalers staying in the tank when they shipped Shanahan, or Buffalo when they clearly went from "playoff contender" to "cellar dweller" when they traded Hasek.

You're not going to "get it" though, so I'm not even going to try anymore. You're convinced you're right, and you refuse to look at reality because that would undermine most of the comments you've made about who's sucked for 77 years and why. The draft is designed to help level the playing field and help the teams who've been bad get back to being good. If it was the feeding trough you make it out to be, Chicago should win 2 Cups in the next 5 years, Florida should be well on their way to the playoffs, and the Isles ... well, the Isles should be perennial Finalists for the next 10 years.

If you want to give everyone a shot at that #1 overall pick, go ahead. If you want to see franchises dry up around North America so that there's maybe 12-14 teams left and interest wane in the sport, that's a perfect way to do it - because as soon as a Cup winner gets the #1 overall pick and gets even better, there will be droves of fans who walk away in disgust. But hey - you'll have gotten what you wanted, and you'll have properly punished those teams who stunk year after year.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

Pittsburg, on the other hand, has ALL KINDS of cap space...

Pittsburgh has ALL KINDS of cap space only because of retirements and the season falling apart. We went into the season with around a 33 million payroll, almost a 50% jump over the last time the NHL played.


Don't even start with the "Pittsburgh(or Pittsburg...) wasn't trying to win" argument.

 

[ShadowFax]

When you have proof that someone is doing that right now (or has done it in the period since the NHL went to a lottery, much less ever), let me know and I'll comment. The last allegation along these lines (which was largely admitted to) of this happening was when Ottawa picked 1st overall in '93 and got Alexander Daigle; the Senators admitted they were tanking at the end to get Daigle.

I think that worked itself out pretty well. However, no one ever alleged that players or coaches anywhere in the NHL were betting on the Senators to lose.

You keep ragging on about how bad the Blues are this season topped off with the "maybe St. Louis shouldn't have an NHL team" comment, yet you also mentioned you thought Pittsburgh deserved an NHL team. (P.S. - they've been bad for 4 years now, not the decade you mentioned earlier. They were in the ECF in 2001.) Do you even understand what were the driving forces in both teams getting bad? $$$. Pittsburgh was lousy the last few years because they simply could not afford to put a decent product on the ice without losing $35 million, and (gasp!) they had an owner who didn't want to do that. (Actually, couldn't afford to do that - but that's splitting hairs.) Even this year, they were projected to lose money unless they went really deep into the playoffs.

St. Louis? They had an owner that voluntarily lost $30 million a year for 3 years in a "win now at all costs" drive to get to the Cup. When he pulled the plug on the team this season and capped payroll, forcing the team to trade Pronger and live with what they had while everyone else had the chance to go get better, everyone else here saw the writing on the wall and knew the Blues were in trouble. (Well, apparently everyone else but you - you think that's no excuse, and St. Louis should have its team yanked away because its owner was an *******. I'm thinking if you're going to yank the Blues because their owner has been an *** for 1 year, you better get yank the Blackhawks out of Chicago where they've been to the playoffs once in the last 8 years and their owner has been an *** and refusing to spend money on players to keep the team competitive for longer than that.)

You get tired of playing mediocre teams like Columbus, Chicago and St. Louis? Great! Let Pittsburgh move to Kansas City and Detroit can go to the Northeast with Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal and Buffalo, plus get 4 games a season with New Jersey, Philadelphia, the Rangers and Carolina. If those teams are still too mediocre, then I suggest we promote Detroit to the NHL-1 league where they can be the only team and not have to play anyone else mediocre.

I didn't say that the Blues shouldn't try to sign FA's this offseason. Please read what I said: the Blues are much farther away than "a couple of players" away from being in playoff contention, and with an owner that's intent on at least breaking even (you know, something that's an owner's right - to want to make money and not lose $15 million a season because you or anyone else thinks they should spend more) they're not going to add $15 million to the payroll. Post a poll here, I guarantee well more than half of the people here will agree with me. It's laughable that most people here think that we're a bad, bad team right now and our farm system is considered in the bottom third of the NHL, and then see you say we'reapparentlythisclose to the playoffs in reality.

And as mentioned before (by Jaded Fan, among others for their teams): you think Blues fans (myself included) want to suck for another 2-3 seasons? You think we enjoyed having our *** handed to us throughout the season? You think we had fun watching the team put up losing streaks of 11, 9 and 13 games? You think we threw a party when Pronger got traded and danced around saying, "Woo-hoo! The streak is dead, the streak is dead, we're gonna be picking top-3 for the next 5 years because we're gonna stink worse than a pig farm on a hot summer day in the middle of a drought, woo-hoo!" You really need to follow a team that's been bad for a while (suggestion: Chicago) and see how much fun it is to have a team that constantly struggles to be near playoff contention. Trust me - it isn't nearly the thrill ride you think it is.

When Washington was tanking in 2003 and you got Lang, did you stand up in protest and say, "Oh no - I know what the Caps are doing, they're trying to suck it up big time so they can get that high draft pick again - the league should invalidate that trade right now and make the Caps stay competitive!" Or, did you instead say, "Fantastic! Lang is a great addition to help us get back to the Cup, we hardly gave up anything for him - what a steal!" Somehow, I'm betting if I search the archives I won't see the former. Likewise, I'm sure you didn't complain about the Hawks going into the tank when they traded Chelios, or the Whalers staying in the tank when they shipped Shanahan, or Buffalo when they clearly went from "playoff contender" to "cellar dweller" when they traded Hasek.

You're not going to "get it" though, so I'm not even going to try anymore. You're convinced you're right, and you refuse to look at reality because that would undermine most of the comments you've made about who's sucked for 77 years and why. The draft is designed to help level the playing field and help the teams who've been bad get back to being good. If it was the feeding trough you make it out to be, Chicago should win 2 Cups in the next 5 years, Florida should be well on their way to the playoffs, and the Isles ... well, the Isles should be perennial Finalists for the next 10 years.

If you want to give everyone a shot at that #1 overall pick, go ahead. If you want to see franchises dry up around North America so that there's maybe 12-14 teams left and interest wane in the sport, that's a perfect way to do it - because as soon as a Cup winner gets the #1 overall pick and gets even better, there will be droves of fans who walk away in disgust. But hey - you'll have gotten what you wanted, and you'll have properly punished those teams who stunk year after year.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

One final thought. Much of these threads . . . and I say threads because there have been quite a few of them with exactly the same theme . . . have sprouted up because the Pens got Crosby. Do not even try to deny it. The Pens before that had Fleury, Malkin and Whitney, and some second tier nice prospect depth, a very good core for the future but hardly enough to upset anyone. Crosby added to that put that prospect pool over the top. It needs to be pointed out that we were lucky as hell to get him. 6% chance and we overcame it. The rebuild also is taking a year more than we had hoped but no one can say that the Pens did not try to end up better than they did this year.

The point is, I would be absolutely shocked if we ended up in the lottery again any time soon. If Malkin had come over we still may have not made the playoffs but we sure as hell would not be second from the bottom either. Our rookies have something like 250 points this year, something good to build on next year. All in all if this is aimed at us because we got lucky you are shooting your gun after the horse has left the barn. Funny thing is that if you could get your way chances are with out luck of late we would win that lottery right when we were competing for Cups. In any event I do not think that you need to worry about the Pens getting a lottery pick again any time soon. Nor do you need to worry about 'it happening again' as it really took a series of events and luck unlikely to be repeated. Three generational players in two drafts. Sucking just at that time. Ovecoming a 6% chance lottery AFTER a season shut down. One of those generational type players not coming over for a year depressing your totals putting you in another lottery. I highly doubt that we need to worry about that situation happening again enough to totally screw up a system that is working fine and DOES take into account and address 'tanking.'

 

[HockeyCritter]

But Washington should be able to drop 4 NHL superstars in one season and EXPECT to get Ovechkin or Malkin, see?
But it's

But it’s …………… what?

You do realize, don’t you, that even with the talented misters Jagr, Gonchar, Bondra, and Lang the Caps managed to be a last (or next to last place team).

 

[HockeyCritter]

St. Louis tanked the season from day 1.

Really? You mean the GM went out and injured Sanford just to ensure a dead last finish? Wow, that's hard core.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Really? You mean the GM went out and injured Sanford just to ensure a dead last finish? Wow, that's hard core.

Pleau was in cahoots with the Predators, Blackhawks and Blue Jackets all season long to make sure the Blues tanked.

He knew Lalime was going to stink worse than like the Staten Island Landfill on a hot summer day when he traded for him at the 2004 Entry Draft, then when Lalime came back paid off and started showing signs of playing better Pleau paid the Predators to run him over and finish him off before the Blues started winning. He suspended Tkachuk before training camp knowing Walt was likely headed for a 45-goal, 95-point season, then had Vokoun get Tkachuk to fall on his stick and crack ribs; when Tkachuk still came back, he put the hit out on someone to break Tkachuk's hand during a game (I hear it was supposed to be Ruutu, but he was on the DL at the time). He also had Trotz order Hordichuk to break Jackman's jaw the first chance he got.

He sent someone to break Backman's foot and run Brewer to dislocate his shoulder twice to get him out for the season, had a spell cast on Salvador to cause a pinched nerve in his shoulder to put him on the sideline, and paid a sizeable sum to get Bill Wirtz himself to give the order for one of the Blackhawks to take out Drake by any means (Drake broke ribs in a Hawks game and is out for the year).

Not only that, Pleau paid off Columbus to jump on top of Sanford and Bacashihua and get them both injured. I hear he's got an order standing right now for one of the Chicago players to "waste him [Stempniak] before he gets to 15 goals".

 

[boredmale]

No matter how they do the draft lottery, i think the NHL is missing the ball of making a spectacle out of it by having it on a thursday at noon.

I would have had it during a playoff game on NBC. How many viewers from teams that don't make the playoffs would tune into see what happens?

 

[digitalmonkey*]

Why not have all non-playoff teams play a mini 20-game season while the other teams are fighting for the Stanley Cup. The reward for finishing in first in the mini 20-game season can be the 1st pick overall.

 

[hbk]

Why not have all non-playoff teams play a mini 20-game season while the other teams are fighting for the Stanley Cup. The reward for finishing in first in the mini 20-game season can be the 1st pick overall.

I think the NHLPA would be looking for a 25% raise if that were the case. Would also take away from the showcase that is the NHL Playoffs.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

When you have proof that someone is doing that right now (or has done it in the period since the NHL went to a lottery, much less ever), let me know and I'll comment. The last allegation along these lines (which was largely admitted to) of this happening was when Ottawa picked 1st overall in '93 and got Alexander Daigle; the Senators admitted they were tanking at the end to get Daigle.

I think that worked itself out pretty well. However, no one ever alleged that players or coaches anywhere in the NHL were betting on the Senators to lose..

Can the melodrama.
You get defensive rather than engaging.

It's pretty obvious that most teams that cut their salary and replace proven veterans with suspect younger talent are doing so to save money.
The Blues owner, smart guy that he is, lost millions and millions of dollars during the old CBA, and then decide it would increase the value of his franchise if he returned from a terribly damaging lockout by being one of the only teams in the NHL that made almost no effort to improve.

I'd say that owner KNEW he was going to be worse this year. Oh, there's a chance a bunch of no-name guys could come up and the team might be better. But he knew it. Just like we all knew it.
Just like the Blues beat writers knew it when hockey first resumed.
The Blues were going to suck and because the team had no interest in putting a competitive team on the ice.

Granted, we all know the Blues were in a special situation because of their owner was bailing.
But really, if you think about it. What that owner did was TANTAMOUNT to a player betting on a game. Except he basically bet against his team for the entire season.

Look, I know it's not the exact same thing. But there are some fundamental similarities.
Deny them if you must.

But the fact that there is a lottery at all speaks volumes. Why even have one. Why not give the worst team the best pick every year if that's really what is ABSOLUTELY needed, as you claim.

I am not tallking about giving the cup winner, whether it is the 16th best team in the regular season or the best team in the regular season, an equal shot at the first round pick.

I am using the same logic the NHL has used with the bottom five teams in the league, but applying it to the entire league.

I mean, if the NHL is doing it for a reason, then why is that so hard to accept.
Why do you act like what I propose is blashpemy.

If the NHL applied the draft to prevent a team from gunning for the last pick, why not prevent a marginally bad team from attempting to move from the 12th overall pick to the 5th overall pick?

Maybe the NHL also employed the lottery as a marketing tool as well.
Again, my platform only enhances the marketing possibilities.

But you don't want to talk about the knitty gritty ideas behind the current policies.

As for the "move the team" remark, I thought I already explained that I was wrong.
If I hurt your feelings and caused your melodramatic response, I am sorry.

I think (I don't know) but I think St. Louis is a good hockey city. I happen to know Pittsburg is a good hockey city because I've personally experienced it, and I'm not just talking about arena crowds, I'm talking about a general passion for the sport I witnessed.

As for Wirtz, that ******* should have been exiled a long time ago.

As a Wings fan, I don't mean to disparage your hockey city. But I've got to say that it sucks being in the Central Division. St. Louis was the one good hockey city (I thought) besides Detroit. We've also got Wirtz's disaster, and two expansion cities that are going to take a long time to fully embrace the sport, if they ever do.

My desire is to have good competitive hockey all year round.,
Sometimes teams suck and that's what happens.
But with the salary cap and an intelligent GM and committed owner, there is no reason why teams should be sucking for years on end. Which is why I reacted when you said St. Louis couldn't compete next year.

To me, that's a cop out. St. Louis has a decent core signed at reasonable prices and there is plenty of help on the UFA market next year. They could easily be battling for a playoff spot this time next season.

There isn't a team in the league that is more than three shrewd signings away from competing for the playoffs in the new NHL.

Which, again, leads me back to the draft. The draft may provide one or two players each year who make an impact within the first year. Maybe 10 who make an impact by year two.

So it isn't like the draft is the quick fix anyway. Two years of shrewd UFA signings is probably more beneficial than a 7th overall pick.

I mean, if you wann talk about this, talk about this.

If you wanna rant and employ rolley-eyes smileys to impress the fanboys, well, this discussion doesn have to go any further than it already has.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

But it’s …………… what?

You do realize, don’t you, that even with the talented misters Jagr, Gonchar, Bondra, and Lang the Caps managed to be a last (or next to last place team).

'
Right. For a year. They could have easily turned it around with that core, no?
Having one really bad year doesn mean its time to bust it up and head to the basement of the league for five years, does it?

The year before, didn't Washington have 92 points? The year before that, 85 points?
So they have a bad start to the year, and they trade off Jagr, Bondra, Lang, Gonchar, Nylander, Anson Carter, Steve Konowalchuck ...

I mean, that's not just dumping Jagr. That's a complete freakin' fire sale.
That is blatant tanking.
Maybe it was completely about salary dumping.
Maybe it was in part to finish way down low and get a shot at Malkin/Ovechkin.
Either way, it is an example of an owner/GM who purposely flushed his season, and perhaps immediate future seasons, down the drain.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

One final thought. Much of these threads . . . and I say threads because there have been quite a few of them with exactly the same theme . . . have sprouted up because the Pens got Crosby. Do not even try to deny it. The Pens before that had Fleury, Malkin and Whitney, and some second tier nice prospect depth, a very good core for the future but hardly enough to upset anyone. Crosby added to that put that prospect pool over the top. It needs to be pointed out that we were lucky as hell to get him. 6% chance and we overcame it. The rebuild also is taking a year more than we had hoped but no one can say that the Pens did not try to end up better than they did this year.

The point is, I would be absolutely shocked if we ended up in the lottery again any time soon. If Malkin had come over we still may have not made the playoffs but we sure as hell would not be second from the bottom either. Our rookies have something like 250 points this year, something good to build on next year. All in all if this is aimed at us because we got lucky you are shooting your gun after the horse has left the barn. Funny thing is that if you could get your way chances are with out luck of late we would win that lottery right when we were competing for Cups. In any event I do not think that you need to worry about the Pens getting a lottery pick again any time soon. Nor do you need to worry about 'it happening again' as it really took a series of events and luck unlikely to be repeated. Three generational players in two drafts. Sucking just at that time. Ovecoming a 6% chance lottery AFTER a season shut down. One of those generational type players not coming over for a year depressing your totals putting you in another lottery. I highly doubt that we need to worry about that situation happening again enough to totally screw up a system that is working fine and DOES take into account and address 'tanking.'

Wow. You're pretty arrogant for a guy who's a fan of a team that's sucked eggs for five years now.

You also seem to think that Pittsburg is the center of the hockey universe.
My feelings have no more to do with Pittsburg than they do with Washington or any other team that sells off assets and drops to the bottom of the standings.

"Don't try to deny it"

Honestly, what is all that about?

 

[Big McLargehuge]

Spell the ****ing name right, for the love of God.


Is it that hard to spell Pittsburgh? Jesus, look at a damn map.

 

[ShadowFax]

Wow. You're pretty arrogant for a guy who's a fan of a team that's sucked eggs for five years now.

You also seem to think that Pittsburg is the center of the hockey universe.
My feelings have no more to do with Pittsburg than they do with Washington or any other team that sells off assets and drops to the bottom of the standings.

"Don't try to deny it"

Honestly, what is all that about?

Actually Pittsburgh is the center of the hockey universe when it comes to complaining about the draft and prospects. There were like 5 other threads in the last 3 months complaining about how the penguins drafted top 5 4 years in a row and shouldn't be allowed to do it again. This thread has a lot of mentioning of Pittsburgh also. Its not as far fetched as it sounds.