Irish Blues said:
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.