Draft Lottery Thread

[Don]

Yeah. There were no important rule changes in the 60s or 70s.

Like setting the number of players at 16.

Like making penalty shots to be taken by the person the infraction was against.

Like not allowing body contact on face-offs.

Like requiring teams to have back-up goaltenders.

Limiting the curvature of the blade of the hockey stick and the width of the stick.

Substitution allowed on coincidental majors (play 5 on 5).

I can list many more if you want. That's just a sample.

The 4-on-4 and shootouts and the points that go with them are gimicks, but if the game is settled in 60 minutes we don't get to the gimmicks.

I, like Lou, am a traditionalist and would prefer to do away with the trapazoid behind the net and all of the OT gimmicks, But I, like Lou, am willing to look past the imperfections and see that this is still the best game on earth in the league with the best players on earth. I love the game and the league and it pisses me off to see so many willfully try their best to tear it down.

[bruins4777]

BLAH

this isn't on topic but meh.

01-02

We had such a solid lineup this year. Finishing first in the eastern conference was hardly a fluke. Thornton was a top 5 scorer most of the year till he got injured. Murray had 40 goals, Guerin had 40 goals. Samsonov was healthy and was on the verge of 30 goals at 29 and he had 70 points. Stumpel was great at center for us that year. Rolston had his best year in his entire career. 30 goals and 9 shorthanded goals was it? 60 points overall or something. Lapointe kinda did something he almost got 20 goals. Axelsson was doing his thing and so forth. Overall at forward we had an outstanding well rounded group. We had 2 solid lines and a great checking line.

Defensively it was nothing spectacular, but sufficient considering what we had.

In net we had dafoe, who had a so so year, but certainlly had more than enough ABILITY to play up to standards.

First in the east was no fluke bottom line.

What happened? We ran into this guy named jose theodore and outside of thornton, guerin, and rolston along with a few others. Offensively and defensively nobody came to play. The fact that dafoe was awful in crucial moments didn't help. We had the ability but choked.

02-03.

ya ok maybe i was a little off here. But we did have that 19-4-something run. Offensively we were juggernauts and thorntons dominant year was no fluke either. Defensively was were we didn't have a system.

03-04.

No year were we closer to the cup than this year. We had depth at offense, a great defensive system, for the first time in a while some outstanding offense, and our defense was playing great. We were among the top 5 i think 3rd actually in points.

What happened? An injured thornton, who probably shouldn't have played, was ill used and given way too much ice time. Gonchar, while he put up points, forgot how to play defense and keep the puck in at crucial times. Our defense got lost containing kovalev. Razor was left to dry in crucial times. And suprise suprise theodore stole the show.

Maybe not 03 but in 04 and 02 we had more than legit chances for the cup.

[Don]

Chill out, Don, you're getting a bit too extreme here.  You have to like every single thing Bettman's trotted out this week or else you hate hockey?  You think that since the NHL's back, it's all gravy?  Come on, you know better than that.  If this was any other year, you'd probably be bashing at least one of the rule changes as well.

What I said above to 'Dew. I have said earlier this afternoon, in this thread and in others that I think the trapazoid thingy behind the net is stupid. That doesn't mean that I hate the NHL. However, if I posted something that said that the league has decided to turn the sport into a mockery and that the league screwed us royally and that the league turned it's back on the fans, I think that would suggest a hatred for the league.

Edited July 22, 2005 by Don

[Triumph]

You're insane bruins. You're looking only at your own team. In 03-04 there were five teams better than the Bruins going into the playoffs: The Leafs, Lightning, Flyers, Devils, and Senators. Had the East not loaded up on big name players, you might've been right.

And 02, they had no one on defense. You're not going to win a Stanley Cup with a defense anchored by Sean O'Donnell and Kyle McLaren.

7's not coming back and we're going to hear all about it for the next few months. He's such a liar. He'll watch every game he can and like it.

[bruins4777]

The leafs...were better than the bruins? wow....

The lightning? We've beaten them previously in the season, theres no reason to see why they couldn't.

Flyers? same story

outside of the leafs, who were no way in hell better than the bruins, all those teams we had the ABILITY to beat.

None of those teams were in anyway so significantly better than the bruins that we had no chance in the playoffs against them. I'm not totally sure that even the devils were better than the bruins, that year.

I don't see how we weren't contenders. 2 lines, great 3rd line, a strong defense and a great goaltender. But we choked big time.

We finished second spot in the conference, that doesn't come from having 5 teams better than you.

02, gill, mclaren, o'donnell, boynton, sweeney. Nothing spectacular but all solid defensively and capable.

First in the east, i'm sure that came from "no one on defense"

edit

people don't like to think of the bruins as contenders ever no matter where they get in the standings because they have a "cheap owner". Its simple fact, no matter what we have done in the regular season standings. Before the playoffs start, they are marked off right away. They SHOULD be marked off because they are chokers, not because they are simply not among the best out there. They have the ability, thats how they went on huge winning streaks and were a dominant regular season team. But those 2 key years 02 and 04 they didn't have the playoff heart.

Edited July 22, 2005 by bruins4777

[RowdyFan42]

What I said above to 'Dew. I have said earlier this afternoon, in this thread and in others that I think the trapazoid thingy behind the net is stupid. That doesn't mean that I hate the NHL. However, if I posted something that said that the league has decided to turn the sport into a mockery and that the league screwed us royally and that the league turned it's back on the fans, I think that would suggest a hatred for the league.

I can definitely see where one would think the shootout turns the sport into a mockery, etc. I might be able to see where one would get that from the goalie trap, too, though it's quite a stretch. Does that suggest a hatred for the league? I don't think so. I highly doubt Derek will let the shootout ruin his love of hockey. As for '7'... well, he's been a lost cause for years. If your sanity is helped by keeping him on ignore, go for it.

[Z-Man]

Yeah. There were no important rule changes in the 60s or 70s.

Like setting the number of players at 16.

Like making penalty shots to be taken by the person the infraction was against.

Like not allowing body contact on face-offs.

Like requiring teams to have back-up goaltenders.

Limiting the curvature of the blade of the hockey stick and the width of the stick.

Substitution allowed on coincidental majors (play 5 on 5).

I can list many more if you want. That's just a sample.

The 4-on-4 and shootouts and the points that go with them are gimicks, but if the game is settled in 60 minutes we don't get to the gimmicks.

I, like Lou, am a traditionalist and would prefer to do away with the trapazoid behind the net and all of the OT gimmicks, But I, like Lou, am willing to look past the imperfections and see that this is still the best game on earth in the league with the best players on earth. I love the game and the league and it pisses me off to see so many willfully try their best to tear it down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don, this gets my vote for post of the year.

Last time I checked, hockey was at best the 5th most popular sport. You can either do one of two things:

- Cater to the traditionalists, take no chances and keep the status quo, or

- Try some new wrinkles to help the sport grow

Shootouts are a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. Say someone goes to their first hockey game, and it ends up in a tie. How are they supposed to feel? "Well, it was fun, but they tied. Is that good?" Having a winner gives fans more for their enterainment dollar. And when it matters most (playoffs), they're sticking with the traditional format. So what's the problem?

Some people need to open their minds. ITS STILL HOCKEY!!!

[NJDevs4978]

I cannot believe there is fighting over teams getting shafted. It was a lottery get over it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Honest to god. If we're going to base the lottery odds entirely on what happened two years ago why not just give the Craps the top pick again? Or why not just base it on how bad teams have been over ten or twenty years? Where do you draw the line? As others have said, every team had to have a shot at the #1 pick after 'no' season, but it couldn't quite be the 'same' chance and it wasn't. If you want to say the system should have been more heavily weighted somehow, maybe give five balls to the 'bottom' teams and go from there fine, but you couldn't create a perfect system. There could have been some weight given to payroll for that matter (like say a team with over a $50 million payroll gets one ball subtracted ) but in the end a three-ball team won the lottery. Would there be this much bellyaching if the Rangers had finished second instead of fifteenth? Does anyone really care about second or fifteenth in this draft? Supposedly it's deep enough that it might not matter in the long run.

[NJDevs4978]

But LOTCB do you understand the point Don is making -- the sh!t finishers already had a good draft position based on record.

Edited July 23, 2005 by Hasan4978

[Triumph]

The leafs...were better than the bruins? wow....

The lightning? We've beaten them previously in the season, theres no reason to see why they couldn't.

Flyers? same story

outside of the leafs, who were no way in hell better than the bruins, all those teams we had the ABILITY to beat.

None of those teams were in anyway so significantly better than the bruins that we had no chance in the playoffs against them. I'm not totally sure that even the devils were better than the bruins, that year.

I don't see how we weren't contenders. 2 lines, great 3rd line, a strong defense and a great goaltender. But we choked big time.

We finished second spot in the conference, that doesn't come from having 5 teams better than you.

02, gill, mclaren, o'donnell, boynton, sweeney. Nothing spectacular but all solid defensively and capable.

First in the east, i'm sure that came from "no one on defense"

edit

people don't like to think of the bruins as contenders ever no matter where they get in the standings because they have a "cheap owner". Its simple fact, no matter what we have done in the regular season standings. Before the playoffs start, they are marked off right away. They SHOULD be marked off because they are chokers, not because they are simply not among the best out there. They have the ability, thats how they went on huge winning streaks and were a dominant regular season team. But those 2 key years 02 and 04 they didn't have the playoff heart.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As bruins4777 drags yet another thread off-topic with nitpicky, incorrect statements...

and I follow...

The Leafs were better than the Bruins. Yes. They did not have a rookie goaltender, they had a better defense, they had a better offense. My opinion: that makes them better. So what if they finished one point back in the standings. They don't rely on disappearing acts like Joe Thornton and Glen Murray to carry them in the playoffs.

You were contenders. It just so happened that there were several other contenders, who were better. Any other year, the 03-04 Bruins are probably the second best team in the Conference. But the Flyers and Leafs loaded up at the deadline too, as well as Ottawa.

02, how far did the Bruins make it in the playoffs, again? They weren't as good as their regular season record claims. That defense is solid, unspectacular, and will lose in the playoffs. You mentioned four pilons and a semi-pilon on D. The Devils had the same problem in the late 90s. Happens all the time in hockey. But there weren't many who considered the Bruins a serious playoff threat that year.

This has nothing to do with Jeremy Jacobs, it has nothing to do with my dislike of Boston. This is all very simple. In 02, the Bruins were an offense-first team, and offense-first teams don't succeed in the playoffs. In 04, the Bruins had grouped together a solid team, but several squads had built a better team. The Bruins were filling gaps with guys like Jiri Slegr.

And the fact that you cite the regular season as anything meaningful shows you've got a lot to learn. Regular season results against a specific team mean absolutely nothing in the playoffs.

Anyway, last off-topic post on this thread. From now on please PM someone when you have a nitpicky criticism of their post.

Edited July 23, 2005 by Triumph

[NJDevs4978]

But somehow, the Devils weren't included. Neither was the Avalanche. Neither were the Senators. Neither was the Flyers. The Leafs were included by a few posters. Now, correct me if I'm wrong. But if Crosby had wound up on one of these NHL successful franchises, how can the league call that fair? That would have been more of a FIX!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like the league REALLY wanted Crosby in New Jersey or Ottawa They would have crapped their pants Thanks for the laugh. And though Colorado's been a successful team, if you gave the NHL a choice of Colorado or Detroit, they'd put the kid in Detroit 10 out of 10 times.

[Darwindog]

Yeah. There were no important rule changes in the 60s or 70s.

Like setting the number of players at 16.

Like making penalty shots to be taken by the person the infraction was against.

Like not allowing body contact on face-offs.

Like requiring teams to have back-up goaltenders.

Limiting the curvature of the blade of the hockey stick and the width of the stick.

Substitution allowed on coincidental majors (play 5 on 5).

I can list many more if you want. That's just a sample.

The 4-on-4 and shootouts and the points that go with them are gimicks, but if the game is settled in 60 minutes we don't get to the gimmicks.

I, like Lou, am a traditionalist and would prefer to do away with the trapazoid behind the net and all of the OT gimmicks, But I, like Lou, am willing to look past the imperfections and see that this is still the best game on earth in the league with the best players on earth. I love the game and the league and it pisses me off to see so many willfully try their best to tear it down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ahhh thank you Don! I was read Dews post and thinking ... welll...I'm not an old chestnut or anything but it seems to me my earliest memories of hockey were the fall out from expansion...(I should add this was 1971 (I think -- I wasn't sure what year was what back then heeheehee) I didn't quite get what the hubbubb was about -- and then just all the adults whining... but honest all their whining combined didn't reach the fever pitch of this thread -- ever think it was fan tolerance that's changed for the worse guys? and players being all outspoken and self righteous and

wow am I just glad the nHL is back I... I just had no idea how very much I missed having something CONCRETE and real and active to talk about --- I'm so happy! and I love you all and I love how Don keeps dinging people off his lordly tree! Keep up the good work my Virgo friend

have another Carona why dont you Jane...

Edited July 23, 2005 by Darwindog

[NJDevs4978]

BTW all this talk about tradition is all well and good...but sports change. They can't remain static forever no matter how much we may want it.

Baseball - I still think the DH is silly, particularly in only one league. But it hasn't killed the sport, in a way it's helped the two leagues keep seperate identities. Cookie-cutter ballparks, expansion, juiced balls, juiced players, all of these have cheapened baseball records in recent years. Traditionalists hated the Wild Card which I thought was silly and I'm as much a baseball historian as anyone I know. But I still like to watch the game when there's something compelling on (though I've never been a watch 162 games fan) and those changes haven't really hurt baseball.

Basketball - The three-point line was once looked on as a radical change, now it's an accepted part of basketball. Hell the NBA didn't even have a shot clock once upon a time.

Football - Their changes have been more subtle in recent years at least to my knowledge, though the Thursday opener was a bit of a radical change (one I still don't like). And expansion's been just as much a part of football as it has been every other sport, though the NFL's best equipped of all the sports to handle it.

I'm not saying I like all the changes, some have made my stomach turn. But they're coming so either give them a chance and try to accept it or just walk away and don't watch.

And not for nothing but these changes aren't neccesarily set in stone, Bettman said of one of the changes (I think it was taking the red line out) that there's been a long debate about whether it would open up offense, the only way to know is to do it.

Edited July 23, 2005 by Hasan4978

[Darwindog]

Ok -- I was disappointed when guys HAD to wear helmets --

how insane -- I just thought goalies needed face masks but that was about it --- what was I thinking????

[Darwindog]

I still think substitution is BS btw

[Devils731]

No forward pass in the offensive zone! That idea ruined hockey!

[Don]

Football - Their changes have been more subtle in recent years at least to my knowledge, though the Thursday opener was a bit of a radical change (one I still don't like).  And expansion's been just as much a part of football as it has been every other sport, though the NFL's best equipped of all the sports to handle it. 

There have been quite a few.... especially pushing off. Micheal Irvin made a career out of something that would certainly get called a penalty today.

Instant replay is actually relatively new to the NFL (2000 or therabouts)

Let's see what I can find. Okay between 1999 and 2003:

- Instant replay with a challange system.

- Clipping is now illegal around the line of scrimmage just as it is on the rest of the field.

- Celebrations limited to one player. Fines will be assessed for celebrations by two or more players.

-Anyone wearing an eligible number (1-49 and 80-89) can play at quarterback without having to check in with the referee.

-umble recoveries will be awarded at the spot of the recovery, not where the player's momentum carries him.

- Taunting rules will be tightened, with 15-yard unsportsmanlike-conduct penalties flagged.

- Bandannas and stocking caps are out, but skullcaps with the team colors and logos are OK.

- player who touches a pylon remains in-bounds until any part of his body touches the ground out-of-bounds

- continuing-action fouls now become dead-ball fouls and will result in the loss of down and distance;

- any dead-ball penalties by the offense after they have made the line to gain will result in a loss of 15 yards and a new first-and-10 series;

- the act of batting and stripping the ball from player possession is legalized;

-the chop-block technique is illegal on kicking plays;

-it is illegal to hit a quarterback helmet-to-helmet anytime after a change of possession;

- after a kickoff, the game clock will start when the ball is touched legally in the field of play;

- the two-minute exception is eliminated;

- inside of two minutes, the game clock will not stop when the player who originally takes the snap is tackled behind the line of scrimmage.

Edited July 23, 2005 by Don

[Don]

and I love how Don keeps dinging people off his lordly tree!  Keep up the good work my Virgo friend

Funny though. I'll put up the righties disparage my country, my lifestyle choices, my view and beliefs without putting anyone on ignore, but insult the NHL and YER GONE!!! I'm not so sure I have my priorities straight.

[sammyk]

What's the point in putting anyone on ignore anyway? If you don't are you forced to read their post?

[bruins4777]

tri, your post shows me nothing except how little you really know about the bruins and how little you follow them.

i'm tired and i don't feel like continuing it, but just like in a bunch of other situations, your lack of knowledge of the team your criticizing makes you wrong.

btw, your ability to completely miss points and drag them off poorly and think you understand what a person is saying, helps you miss what i'm trying to say constantly. everything does not have to be to the extreme. There are such things as in the middle comments.

Edited July 23, 2005 by bruins4777

[RowdyFan42]

Hockey hasn't been the same since they took out the rover.

[Devils731]

and lets take the masks off goalies, I'm a traditionalist

[Derek21]

Jeez I guess you were ready to go off either way, though if the Rangers had won the lottery you would have had to pipe down when people said it was fixed.  I thought you'd be happy that the lottery proved there was no fix.  And why is it just a Ranger argument anyway?  They're hardly the only team that drafted below where people thought they would and the Rangers deserved it less than the other crappy teams because of their mismanagement

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh come off it already! I am so sick of this garbage about how the Rangers didn't deserve it. What the hell did they do last time there was hockey? Did you deliberately rid that out of your memory banks because of your insane hatred for them? Of course ya did. They sold off a ton of their players and basically were losing more games by the end of the year than any other team outside Washington. And you just want to focus on all the spending they did in the past.

I never said the Rangers deserved to win. God. Some of you go read one site and basically label an entire fanbase as thinking that way. Nice to see such generalizations. Imagine if I made the same about this board. There would be so much backlash. Why don't you go read OTG and see what the reaction was? P.S. Did you really think the reaction was going to be positive when our team somehow dropped out of the top 10? I could just see if the situation was reversed. You'd be crying robbery.

I don't think the fighting is over who got Crosby. But more so about how weak the lottery system NHL brass selected was. There really wasn't a significant percentage that would have protected teams from dropping. When a team like Ottawa winds up ninth (who you later scoffed at what I said when somehow they wound up where they did), Montreal winds up 5th and Vancouver winds up 10th while Edmonton, the worst off Canadian franchise somehow is 25th, there's something wrong.

And you have the nerve to say that the NHL would never want Crosby in New Jersey or Ottawa? Why not? They're bigger markets than Pittsburgh! I know a levelheaded poster who would agree with me. Cause that's what a SMALL MARKET is.

In one post, you say thank god the Rangers didn't get the kid cause it would have been fixed but in the next collective breath, you say they were one of the four teams with the highest percentage. Which is it?

And how could it be a fix if they were one of the favorites? The NHL's system was setup in a way where the lower level teams did not have much of an advantage over the elite teams.

Hey Don... you're the same fan who thinks everything is rosy now that the NHL is back up and is on board with every change. But I bet you loathe the idea of goalies being restricted and you probably can't stand shootouts. So, which is it bud? Is everything the new NHL did gospel or did they not disrespect fans by altering some rules that a vast majority were against? And you call yourself a traditionalist.

I just want to say thank you to Dew, Rowdy, bruins and 7' for having my back and understanding what I meant and not ripping me apart and dismissing me as an NHL fan like I was beneath them. I'm every bit a fan. I just felt a little disheartened after a long day. Doesn't mean I'm jumping ship. There are others who feel the exact same way.

[LizDevil30]

I haven't read this entire thread but geez guys, it was a lottery. Slightly weighted, but a lottery with luck being the deciding factor. Does it really matter? As for the rule tweaks/changes, I don't like them all esp the puckhandling one and shootouts, but we have to see how they all shake out before we decide.

It's okay Derek, I'm sure it gets tough after awhile to be a rag fan on a Devils board. But soon the puck will drop on a new long awaited season where anything can happen and any team can win!

LETS GO DEVILS! :clap:

[NJDevs4978]

Instant replay's a good one Don, people thought the world was going to end when the NFL adopted it, particularly when it came back with the challenges linked to timeouts And the two-point conversion I can't believe I forgot that one I don't exactly have football on the brain now though.

Edited July 23, 2005 by Hasan4978