HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   30 team nhl lottery nyr (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=132186)

neg marron 02-28-2005 12:19 PM

30 team nhl lottery nyr
 
so where do the nyr pick based on this 30 team lottery

AG9NK35DT8* 02-28-2005 12:26 PM

Hopefully 1st, if not then realistically anywhere from #3 to #6 or 7, I mean thats most likely what I would assume would happen.

sickboy35 02-28-2005 12:55 PM

so washington would get a better shot at getting crosby? they might be a vastly improved hockey team. seems a bit unfair but who knows whats going on in this league anymore!

Levitate 02-28-2005 01:51 PM

i think it's already unfair that washington got ovechkin...they have one lousy season and sell everyone off and then get the top draft pick also.

sickboy35 02-28-2005 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitate
i think it's already unfair that washington got ovechkin...they have one lousy season and sell everyone off and then get the top draft pick also.


thats exactly what my thinking is? same with phoenix. i would say pittsburgh, but they are about the same boat the rangers are in, and thats we suck club! ;)

dedalus 02-28-2005 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitate
i think it's already unfair that washington got ovechkin...they have one lousy season and sell everyone off and then get the top draft pick also.

Washington still has a long way to go. They may have had one lousy season so far, but several more are on the horizon.

You raise an interesting point, though. Where would the Rangers stand if they'd been selling everyone off instead of acquiring Bures, Lindroses, and Jagrs?

A helluva lot further along in the rebuilding in any case, and maybe with a much better shot at the next lottery (if the league decides to use a system than averages the last couple of seasons).

Levitate 02-28-2005 02:17 PM

my point wasn't htat they don't have crap years ahead of them, but that this was really their first real bad season and they get rewarded for it. and it was a crap season despite having the top scoring defenseman in the NHL (gonchar) the top scoring forward through most of the season (lang) and jagr for most of the season averaging a point per game, not to mention other good players like bondra

and they still stunk...then sell off guys and get rewarded. they basically did the same kind of stuff the rangers had been doing (acquiring high priced superstars) but got lucky when they decided to dump them all. the rangers did basically the same thing as the caps last year except they didnt' suck quite as bad and therefor didn't get a chance at ovechkin, but their sucking in general has gone on a lot longer than the caps sucking.

dedalus 02-28-2005 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitate
my point wasn't htat they don't have crap years ahead of them, but that this was really their first real bad season and they get rewarded for it.

Yeah I know. IMO it's not "unfair," it's simply good luck on their part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitate
the rangers did basically the same thing as the caps last year except they didnt' suck quite as bad

One reason they didn't suck quite as bad was because they DIDN'T do basically the same things the Caps did. The Caps understood their situation and acted as soon as they recognized it. The Rangers did the reverse. They acquired exactly what the Caps dumped. Maybe if Sather had let Jagr stay in Washington, the Caps get a few more points, the Rangers get a few less and move into the top 5, having a shot at Ovechkin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitate
their sucking in general has gone on a lot longer than the caps sucking.

That's certainly true but I don't see it as related to the fairness or unfairness of the Caps' situation. That's monstrously poor management, and if Glen Sather needs the luck of winning the lottery to bail him out of his sh***y work as GM, then he should be fired.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 02-28-2005 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitate
i think it's already unfair that washington got ovechkin...they have one lousy season and sell everyone off and then get the top draft pick also.

Thank you Glen Sather. And to think the Caps gave up Jagr for Anson Carter. What were they thinking?

klingsor 02-28-2005 02:32 PM

I think it should be based on the population of the city in which the team's arena is located.

The higher the population, the higher the draft choice.

I would think that's a fair system.

dedalus 02-28-2005 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by klingsor
I think it should be based on the population of the city in which the team's arena is located.

The higher the population, the higher the draft choice.

I would think that's a fair system.

Given that you then have the chance to make the most people happy, I can't see an argument against you. Your plan serves the greatest good by serving the greatest potential base.

klingsor for Commish!

Levitate 02-28-2005 02:40 PM

Quote:

One reason they didn't suck quite as bad was because they DIDN'T do basically the same things the Caps did. The Caps understood their situation and acted as soon as they recognized it. The Rangers did the reverse. They acquired exactly what the Caps dumped. Maybe if Sather had let Jagr stay in Washington, the Caps get a few more points, the Rangers get a few less and move into the top 5, having a shot at Ovechkin.
i think that's overstating it just a bit...either way the caps still would have been lower than the rangers in the standings come the end of the year. the rangers only picked up jagr (and didn't "pay" for him with any prospects, just an underachieving carter) and dumped everyone else they could, just like the caps. i'm not saying overall it was smart to trade for jagr but i don't think it hurt anything in the end except the pocketbook. i believe the rangers record with jagr was actually worse than it was before jagr as well. hard to say definitively that they would have gotten into the bottom 5 if they hadn't traded for jagr

Tawnos 02-28-2005 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by klingsor
I think it should be based on the population of the city in which the team's arena is located.

The higher the population, the higher the draft choice.

I would think that's a fair system.

Guess Crosby goes to Los Angeles then :)

Levitate 02-28-2005 02:46 PM

depends if you're talking about the city of LA or the LA area

new york city has more people than the city of LA

klingsor 02-28-2005 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitate
depends if you're talking about the city of LA or the LA area

new york city has more people than the city of LA

Yeah, that's why I said city:

Los Angeles (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
Address:http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0644000.html Changed:2:45 PM on Monday, February 28, 2005

Tawnos 02-28-2005 03:02 PM

Ah... but is that really fair? I mean, Los Angeles city only covers a small area... as opposed to NYC which comprises of 5 boroughs which could all easily be considered cities in their own right.

The population of Manhattan is 1.5 million.

bcrt2000 02-28-2005 03:30 PM

the rangers dumped a lot at the end of the season. if you take into account jagr's contract is paid partially by the caps, and ignore the holik contract because he being paid about 3 to 4 times what he should be paid, the rangers' payroll isn't that bad, and by the time the nhl comes back they will probably be a young team-- as well a lot of other NHL teams.. I don't see a lot of mediocre 30+ year olds staying in the league after the lockout, and most of the 35+ year old superstars will probably retire as well

klingsor 02-28-2005 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tawnos
Ah... but is that really fair? I mean, Los Angeles city only covers a small area... as opposed to NYC which comprises of 5 boroughs which could all easily be considered cities in their own right.

The population of Manhattan is 1.5 million.

No problemo.

The Kings get the 1st choice for teams in the Pacific Time Zone.

With the draft starting at Noon Eastern time, it would be an undue hardship to make their fans get up at 9AM on a Saturday.

Tawnos 02-28-2005 04:28 PM

:)

So not only do the Devils (what's the population of East Rutherford anyway) and Panthers (Sunrise, FL can't even compete with the other small cities that have teams) get screwed, but all Western teams. I like your plan.

dedalus 02-28-2005 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitate
i think that's overstating it just a bit...either way the caps still would have been lower than the rangers in the standings come the end of the year.

I'm not so sure about that. I don't think the Rangers leapfrog the Caps either, but neither do I entirely rule out the possibility. In any case, the Rangers with Jagr are a better team than the Rangers without, and even if their record with him was worse (assuming that it was, and neither of us have the facts on that), there's no saying the record wouldn't have been still worse had they never acquired Jagr.

The plain fact of the matter is that Sather should have realized 4 years ago that a rebuilding was past due and that trades for Jagr, Bure, and Lindros were counter-productive. Had he done that, the team's standing with regard to youth would almost certainly have been better than where it now stands.

dedalus 02-28-2005 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tawnos
Ah... but is that really fair? I mean, Los Angeles city only covers a small area... as opposed to NYC which comprises of 5 boroughs which could all easily be considered cities in their own right.

As my dear sainted mother used to say, "Tough titty!"

AG9NK35DT8* 03-01-2005 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sickboy35
thats exactly what my thinking is? same with phoenix. i would say pittsburgh, but they are about the same boat the rangers are in, and thats we suck club! ;)

Nice avatar man, my bro is at a Danzig concert in Manhattan tonight. I know dimebag dan is not danzig just figured i would mention it. I liked Pantera but always like Slayer more.

Mr. Lack 03-04-2005 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sickboy35
so washington would get a better shot at getting crosby? they might be a vastly improved hockey team. seems a bit unfair but who knows whats going on in this league anymore!


Washington jumped over 2 teams I think to win that pick in the Lottery.

I would think based on last year Pitt would have the best chance.

I think they should base the lottery weighting on the last 3 years of point totals.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:22 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.