View Single Post
Old
07-16-2012, 10:17 AM
  #34
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 13,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FANonymous View Post
What they need to do is have weighted percentages based on how much worse the teams were. A team that finishes last place 30 points below the next lowest team should have a much higher percentage of winning the lottery than a team that finishes last only 1 point behind the next worse team.

I've felt this way for a while and I'm pretty sure one of our own posters went to the trouble of devising a system that worked this way [mayor bee maybe?]

If the team that gets 1st overall 2 years in a row [or 3] is really THAT much worse than everybody else then I have no problem with them getting it. Maybe have a small deduction to next year's percentage for the team that wins the 1st overall pick and/or the lottery?
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1089523

I strongly disagree with the idea of punishing or penalizing the team that has the first overall pick down the road. I remember the Nordiques teams that ended up with three straight first overall picks, and they were atrocious. I remember Ottawa being the worst team in the league four straight years, and they were even worse.

The thing is, neither of those teams saw immediate short-term benefits from their drafting. Quebec had Sundin, Nolan, and Lindros...all of them were traded before the team really began to contend and win. And even with the return on those players, it wasn't until the Patrick Roy deal (largely unrelated to those three players) that they began to actually shape into a contender. They had good teams in 1992-93 and 1994-95, but they weren't really serious contenders.

And with Ottawa, they picked Daigle, Bonk, Berard (traded for Redden), and Phillips.

Penalizing a team for "picking too high" is a long-term problem to a short-term issue.

Mayor Bee is online now