View Single Post
Old
07-11-2005, 11:35 AM
  #20
ChrisKreider20
Oh Hai Guise
 
ChrisKreider20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army
Simple because teams that sucked already have recieved their rewards for sucking. Ie Washington already got Ovechkin.

Basing a lottery on what happened in the past is faulty because there's no guarantee that's how last season would have played out.

For example, let's pretend the lockout wiped out the 03-04 season instead.

In 02-03, San Jose and Calgary had among the worst records in the league. They were then "rewarded" with Milan Michalek and Dion Phaneuf respectively. In 03-04, both teams then had successful seasons and both made the Conference Finals.

But if that 03-04 season hadn't of been played, you can be sure that people would have been saying San Jose and Calgary should have high draft picks again. Why though? So they can be rewarded twice for one bad season?

Or reverse the situation. In 02-03, Anaheim and Washington had 95 and 92 points respectively and obviously had a big drop off in 03-04.

We don't know how this season would have played out so an even chance for everyone is only fair. Assuming that the standings would have remained the same is obviously not based on logical thinking.

And I'm not saying this just because I want the Leafs to have a shot at Crosby. The fact is a 30 ball lottery would worry me. Teams like Philly and Ottawa would have just as good of a chance at the number one pick and that isn't exactly a comforting thought.
There are some exceptions but generally these 5 teams have made the playoffs consistantly since 2000 with their star-studded teams- Colorado, Detroit, Philadelphia, Toronto, Ottawa. The bottom have consistantly been Pittsburgh, Florida, Columbus, Atlanta, New York and Chicago. Can you honestly say that 2004/2005 would have been any different. The only team here that I could have seen changing is Florida but still not likely. A somewhat fairway would be meshing the 2000-2005 standings and maybe to make things even more fair add the final payrolls at the end of the 2003/2004 season. Then hold a lottery. And because of the factor that there wasn't actually a season, the lottery should be slightly favoured with a 6% chance going to the worst and about 1% chance going to the strongest. Just my opinion...

ChrisKreider20 is offline