Draft, Muckler says BOG favour 30 balls in a bin

[Jaded-Fan]

ps . . . still no links at all to this story. I highly doubt that this will be an issue anyways. More and more I am becoming pretty sure that it will be a weighted draft as had been reported. Good for the NHL.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Where in the hell do you get those numbers from?

That is the big market myth that keeps popping up on these boards with no substantiation at all ever given for those wild numbers thrown around. A twenty four percent roll back and 42 million cap means that no one loses a player. This is a crap argument.

Well, not really, though thanks for thinking it through.

Lets take Colorado. They had a $63 million payroll, according to USA Today, at the end of 2004. So you roll that back by 24%, and you get $47 million, more or less. So they would indeed have to cut back some salary. But that doesn't take into account the raises they have, or would need to give to certain players. Like Alex Tanguay, for example, who saw his salary jump from $1.5 million, to (I think) $4.25 million, signed just before the lockout began. Even if you roll that back by 24%, you still have him making over $3 million, or twice what his salary was when the Avs had a $63 million payroll. David Aebeisher also got a raise, as did Steve Konowalchuk. If you add up the salaries of players under contract for 2004-05, even taking into consideration the rollback, and then add-in raises for some deserving players, and/or minimum wage contracts to fill out the roster, and you'd still have teams way over.

Do the math.

 

[Munchausen]

As I said in my post, the whole point of the lockout was/is to ensure parity, and on-ice competitive balance. Teams will not be able to outspend each other, and all teams will be within a rather narrow salary range.

Since that's the case, how can anyone say that teams that did well in the past would have done well in the last season, and thus don't deserve a chance at the number one pick? If Detroit has a $40 million payroll, and Atlanta has a $35 million payroll, which team do you think would have done better?

Essentially the NHL wants to start over. Remember all that talk about dispersal drafts, and such? If you were starting a league, would you weight your draft in favor of one team or another?

3 problems I have with this. 1st, a draft order cannot be based on speculation. This is ridiculous. Of course there will always be teams that go up or down from year to year, but the draft has to be based on a known quantity, and the only known quantity we have now to determine who suck and who doesn't, to put it bluntly, is the past records.

2nd, Nobody has seen the final CBA yet. Who's to say the gap between teams will be virtually non-existent? What if the payroll range is set to 20M? What if the cap number is too high for half the teams to get to? Then you still have a competitive advantage for the big markets, even if this time it's (hopefully) a reasonable one. But even a small advantage in the end can mean the difference between acquiring a star player who will greatly impact your team or not to.

3rd, you cannot start over unless you have a dispersal draft. Lots of fans make it out to be as this is doom and gloom for the league as we knew it, but the fact remains, lots of teams stil have their best assets close to them and will hold on to them post CBA. We will see lots of movement with role players and 3rd line type guys, but that doesn't mean all teams will be drastically changed. The odd one will, especially the big UFA spenders obviously, but what else is new for them?

If the argument is that parity is now artificially introduced via the new (again, unknown yet) CBA, then have a bit of consistency in the idea, and either do an unweighted lottery every subsequent year, or be done with the draft altogether. If parity is now entirely controlled through the CBA, who needs a draft anymore?

 

[HockeyCritter]

I believe that someone must have mentioned that there is no season to base draft rankings on.

Then no season = no draft . . . . seems the most "fair" way to settle it to me.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Well, not really, though thanks for thinking it through.

Lets take Colorado. They had a $63 million payroll, according to USA Today, at the end of 2004. So you roll that back by 24%, and you get $47 million, more or less. So they would indeed have to cut back some salary. But that doesn't take into account the raises they have, or would need to give to certain players. Like Alex Tanguay, for example, who saw his salary jump from $1.5 million, to (I think) $4.25 million, signed just before the lockout began. Even if you roll that back by 24%, you still have him making over $3 million, or twice what his salary was when the Avs had a $63 million payroll. David Aebeisher also got a raise, as did Steve Konowalchuk. If you add up the salaries of players under contract for 2004-05, even taking into consideration the rollback, and then add-in raises for some deserving players, and/or minimum wage contracts to fill out the roster, and you'd still have teams way over.

Do the math.

Let's take Colorado. Peter Forsberg is not returning. That's $11 million off the budget. Do the math.

 

[JohnnyReb]

3 problems I have with this. 1st, a draft order cannot be based on speculation. This is ridiculous. Of course there will always be teams that go up or down from year to year, but the draft has to be based on a known quantity, and the only known quantity we have now to determine who suck and who doesn't, to put it bluntly, is the past records.

That in itself is speculation though, isn't it? "Drafts exist to improve teams who sucked. We assume that these teams would have sucked last year, even though there was no season."

2nd, Nobody has seen the final CBA yet. Who's to say the gap between teams will be virtually non-existent? What if the payroll range is set to 20M? What if the cap number is too high for half the teams to get to? Then you still have a competitive advantage for the big markets, even if this time it's (hopefully) a reasonable one. But even a small advantage in the end can mean the difference between acquiring a star player who will greatly impact your team or not to.

Indeed, nobody knows what the new CBA is going to look like. If the cap number is too high for half the teams to get to, then the lockout will have been a dismal failure, and draft order will be the least of the NHL's problems. If the big markets still have a competitive advantage, then again, the lockout will have been a failure. The assumption is that no team will have an unfair advantage over another, merely because they have more money. If we don't assume this, then again, the lockout was pointless.

3rd, you cannot start over unless you have a dispersal draft. Lots of fans make it out to be as this is doom and gloom for the league as we knew it, but the fact remains, lots of teams stil have their best assets close to them and will hold on to them post CBA. We will see lots of movement with role players and 3rd line type guys, but that doesn't mean all teams will be drastically changed. The odd one will, especially the big UFA spenders obviously, but what else is new for them?

For many of the big-market teams simply dumping 3rd and 4th line guys in a dispersal draft wouldn't be nearly enough to get them down to any cap level. Take Colorado, or Detroit, and show me how it can be done. It can't. At some point they are going to have to let a player go that they would have otherwise kept. And who knows what impact that would have on their team?

If the argument is that parity is now artificially introduced via the new (again, unknown yet) CBA, then have a bit of consistency in the idea, and either do an unweighted lottery every subsequent year, or be done with the draft altogether. If parity is now entirely controlled through the CBA, who needs a draft anymore?

You answer the question in your first paragraph - draft order cannot be based on speculation. Once a new CBA is in place, in theory bringing about parity, we can play a season and KNOW, without a doubt, which team finished first, and which team finished last. Right now, everything is speculation. A weighted lottery speculates that the new CBA would have had no affect on the bad teams, nor on the good teams. This would seem to be counter-intuitive to precisely what the NHL is trying to accomplish.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Let's take Colorado. Peter Forsberg is not returning. That's $11 million off the budget. Do the math.

A twenty four percent roll back and 42 million cap means that no one loses a player.

I guess in your world losing Peter Forsberg would have no affect on the Colorado Avalanche?

 

[ACC1224]

3 problems I have with this. 1st, a draft order cannot be based on speculation. This is ridiculous. Of course there will always be teams that go up or down from year to year, but the draft has to be based on a known quantity, and the only known quantity we have now to determine who suck and who doesn't, to put it bluntly, is the past records.

According to most here the Leafs suck, doesn't mean they should get the first pick.

 

[HF2002]

So, how about somebody actually dish out this so called logical argument for a "30 team with identical chances" draft?

Because we sure as hell haven't seen one yet on this board.

It has been stated. You just don't like the reasoning so you've decided it isn't logical.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Then no season = no draft . . . . seems the most "fair" way to settle it to me.

I'm for that. Every player in the 2005 draft just opted in for the 2006 draft. End of discussion!

 

[JohnnyReb]

I'm for that. Every player in the 2005 draft just opted in for the 2006 draft. End of discussion!

Works for me too.

Might have to compensate them though, for lost wages. A guy like Sydney Crosby, for example, might sue, saying he would have made $850,000 in 2005-06...

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I guess in your world losing Peter Forsberg would have no affect on the Colorado Avalanche?

With the talent Colorado has and the amount Forsberg spends on the sidelines nursing his boo-boos the impact will be marginalized. As well, the money that Colorado has left over they can spend on another 20 goal scoring high dive specialist that should cost them a quarter of what Forsberg was making.

 

[ACC1224]

Works for me too.

Might have to compensate them though, for lost wages. A guy like Sydney Crosby, for example, might sue, saying he would have made $850,000 in 2005-06...

He would have been sent back to Jr. for another year!

 

[JohnnyReb]

With the talent Colorado has and the amount Forsberg spends on the sidelines nursing his boo-boos the impact will be marginalized. As well, the money that Colorado has left over they can spend on another 20 goal scoring high dive specialist that should cost them a quarter of what Forsberg was making.

Speculation! Speculation!!!

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Works for me too.

Might have to compensate them though, for lost wages. A guy like Sydney Crosby, for example, might sue, saying he would have made $850,000 in 2005-06...

Yeah, like that would hold up in any court that doesn't include a tall hopping marsupial.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Speculation! Speculation!!!

Yet that same speculation is the basis for all the hyperbole in regards to giving the top teams from the last season a "fair chance" at drafting first over all. Double edged sword that really slices the whole "fair play" argument to shreds isn't it.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Yet that same speculation is the basis for all the hyperbole in regards to giving the top teams from the last season a "fair chance" at drafting first over all. Double edged sword that really slices the whole "fair play" argument to shreds isn't it.

Not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you mean "double-edged" in that a team that finished poorly the year before, could also have finished well the next year?

 

[mooseOAK*]

Then no season = no draft . . . . seems the most "fair" way to settle it to me.

Who is it fair to? I think that hurts the players, other than the top prospects anyway, worse than anyone. Those that aren't immediately signed won't have a good idea of what their career direction will be.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you mean "double-edged" in that a team that finished poorly the year before, could also have finished well the next year?

No, double edged in the fact that those who speculate that "my team is taking this hit because of the new cap", and use that as their basis for arguing that their team would not be as good, don't take into consideration the unknown impact of losing the players in question and the dollars they free up for other players that will come much cheaper in the new NHL. We have no idea what the impacts will be and can use only the historical trend for player signings and team performance. The one edge of the sword is that the team is going to lose some players. The other edge is that those same teams will have the money to spend on cheaper players and will improve their team because of the likelihood that players will still go to the large markets first because of their historical performance advantage. Some teams have some big salaries that are going to hurt (ie. Lidstrom in Detroit) them, but they are also losing salaries that will help them (ie. Yzerman, Hull, etc.).

 

[Munchausen]

That in itself is speculation though, isn't it? "Drafts exist to improve teams who sucked. We assume that these teams would have sucked last year, even though there was no season."

No it's not. You go by who sucked in the past. Who cares if there wasn't a season? How is that relevant? We still know who was a bottom feeder pre-lockout. If you feel a season down the drains means there is just no possible way anymore to know who's good and who's bad (which is overly dramatic, since as I've mentioned, the vast majority of teams will hold on to their best assets post-lockout), then just cancel the draft for this year and put back the draft eligible age to 19yo like it should have been in the 1st place.

BTW, teams that are over and will need to shed some salaries have only themselves to blame. They've been warned for years there was going to be a low cap once the league renews the CBA. They chose to ignore the warning. Then deal with the consequences. They shouldn't be rewarded with a top draft pick for that sole reason.

Indeed, nobody knows what the new CBA is going to look like. If the cap number is too high for half the teams to get to, then the lockout will have been a dismal failure, and draft order will be the least of the NHL's problems. If the big markets still have a competitive advantage, then again, the lockout will have been a failure. The assumption is that no team will have an unfair advantage over another, merely because they have more money. If we don't assume this, then again, the lockout was pointless.

Absolutely not. There will always be teams that won't be able to afford more than the floor while others can afford up to the cap. That's a reality no CBA will correct unless you decide all teams must spend within 2-3M of each other. The advantage will be greatly reduced, but not enough so that big markets can't overbid small markets for any given star player's services.

For many of the big-market teams simply dumping 3rd and 4th line guys in a dispersal draft wouldn't be nearly enough to get them down to any cap level. Take Colorado, or Detroit, and show me how it can be done. It can't. At some point they are going to have to let a player go that they would have otherwise kept. And who knows what impact that would have on their team?

See above. Those teams are the exception, not the rule. And again, only have themselves to blame.

You answer the question in your first paragraph - draft order cannot be based on speculation. Once a new CBA is in place, in theory bringing about parity, we can play a season and KNOW, without a doubt, which team finished first, and which team finished last. Right now, everything is speculation. A weighted lottery speculates that the new CBA would have had no affect on the bad teams, nor on the good teams. This would seem to be counter-intuitive to precisely what the NHL is trying to accomplish.

You're twisting things here. A weighted lottery speculates what now? First, the effect of a new CBA won't be immediate, so no matter if we play an other year or not to determine the draft winner, things will change slowly, once teams with no assets in their development systems dry out in talent. What's more, you're giving way too much weight to the effect this CBA will have on the league. We're not talking good teams becoming bad overnight and vice versa just because their spending power has been reduced. All it gives is a possibility for smaller markets to compete with them. But it isn't a guarentee of success, and certainly not a projection of things to come in the immediate future.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Who is it fair to? I think that hurts the players, other than the top prospects anyway, worse than anyone. Those that aren't immediately signed won't have a good idea of what their career direction will be.

Which players?

The draftees?

I think it hurts exactly ONE draftee (since he won't make the jump to the NHL this season) and my understanding is that he has one year of overage eligibility left on his junior contract.

The majority of the class would have stayed with their juinor/European/college team for the 05/06 season.

 

[Munchausen]

According to most here the Leafs suck, doesn't mean they should get the first pick.

Leafs don't suck, they just choke.

 

[ACC1224]

Leafs don't suck, they just choke.

I think you have them confused with the other Ontario team.

 

[JohnnyReb]

No, double edged in the fact that those who speculate that "my team is taking this hit because of the new cap", and use that as their basis for arguing that their team would not be as good, don't take into consideration the unknown impact of losing the players in question and the dollars they free up for other players that will come much cheaper in the new NHL. We have no idea what the impacts will be and can use only the historical trend for player signings and team performance. The one edge of the sword is that the team is going to lose some players. The other edge is that those same teams will have the money to spend on cheaper players and will improve their team because of the likelihood that players will still go to the large markets first because of their historical performance advantage. Some teams have some big salaries that are going to hurt (ie. Lidstrom in Detroit) them, but they are also losing salaries that will help them (ie. Yzerman, Hull, etc.).

First of all, my team is Montreal. We're pretty middle-of-the pack, no matter how you look at it. Depending on how they weight the lottery, we might end up with a better chance at Crosby under that system, than we would under a 1 in 30 system. So I don't make any arguments based on my team's ability or inability to get that pick.

Second of all, you are still dealing in the realm of pure speculation. How do you know what affect losing Yzerman, Hull and Lidstrom will have on Detroit, or what players they will be able to sign to replace to them? You don't. You can only guess, or perhaps hope, depending on where your allegiances are.

You said it yourself - the unknown impact losing players will have. It could be good, it could be bad. Who knows?

All that is known, is that the NHL, through this lockout, wants to re-write the rules of the game, both financially and on the ice itself, to allow all teams to be more competitive with the big markets. Not in ten years, or five years, or three years. But in the very next season played.

Trying to use historical precedent then, is useless, because there really is no historical precedent upon which to rely on. No one can say with any certainty that Atlanta would have been worse than Toronto. If anything, looking at the history of the NFL, would suggest otherwise. If last season had of been played by the NHL's new rules, Detroit, Colorado, Toronto et all would have been on equal footing with Atlanta, Nashville, Columbus and so on. Equal footing means 1 in 30 chance.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Which players?

The draftees?

I think it hurts exactly ONE draftee (since he won't make the jump to the NHL this season) and my understanding is that he has one year of overage eligibility left on his junior contract.

The majority of the class would have stayed with their juinor/European/college team for the 05/06 season.

Every player born in '87 has worked his way to this draft and if it doesn't happen then no, it isn't fair to them. If they get thrown into the mix in the next draft with the '88's then a lot of them won't get drafted that normally would have.