Jump to content

NHL Winter Classic update


Top Shelf

Recommended Posts

The NHL may be a shady buisness, but fixing a draft (kind of ridiculous enough) that, as far as we know, would require every teams participation to fix (and with crosby, who would want to cover a fix so detrimental to your team as sending the best player to a diffeent team) when its obvious just about all the pieces except him came from before the lockout, even...just seems ridiculous.

Would you stop repeating this ridiculous notion that every team would have to be involved for a fix to take place? If you don't believe it to be so fine, but your opinion is completely uneducated and follows absolutely no logic. A fix was certainly possible and some think probable. Enough already.

Alright, I hate when things get off topic and this will be my final post on the subject, but you've got to stop telling people their opinion is uneducated and illogical when you haven't stated a single fact to back up your theory. As it's been noted more than once in this thread, every single team would have to be involved for a fix to take place. If you don't believe that, then you're telling me that you think one or two men fixed the lottery without the knowledge of the other teams, and the team's representatives who THEY SEND TO WITNESS THE LOTTERY TO ENSURE THAT IT IS FAIR didn't notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 314
  • Created
  • Last Reply
If anyone wants to "own" the game, iTunes has it available for $1.99. It is the full NBC broadcast.

It is not, however, in HD. It also doesn't have the teams coming out of the locker rooms with the pyro, which was one of my favorite parts.

Despite those two oversights, definitely worth a purchase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL may be a shady buisness, but fixing a draft (kind of ridiculous enough) that, as far as we know, would require every teams participation to fix (and with crosby, who would want to cover a fix so detrimental to your team as sending the best player to a diffeent team) when its obvious just about all the pieces except him came from before the lockout, even...just seems ridiculous.

Would you stop repeating this ridiculous notion that every team would have to be involved for a fix to take place? If you don't believe it to be so fine, but your opinion is completely uneducated and follows absolutely no logic. A fix was certainly possible and some think probable. Enough already.

uneducated, yes....i'll admit i dont pick the best arguments, but.......

no logic?

Is it logical that if there was a fix involving the best player in the game today that nobody noticed and nobody said anything about it?

# 2002: Ryan Whitney (5th overall)

# 2003: Marc-Andre Fleury (1st overall) (originally pitsburgh had the 3rd pick)

# 2004: Evgeni Malkin (2nd overall)

Those are some low draft poistions. The Penguins should have been in the same position as the Caps (and the Panthers for that matter) and both should have been in the same boat with one draft ball each. But the NHL fixed it so that the Penguins would have three thereby giving Pitssburgh a better chance of drafting Crosby. In that way the NHL did fix the draft.

I put together a big, long post building off of this and then realized that I don't want to keep going so off-topic with this thread. If anyone's interested, I blogged it instead.

I read this blog and couldt figure out how to comment it there, so heres what i have to say about it:

So what youre saying is a team that sucks and doesnt draft someone good enough to help them immediately should draft lower?

No. One man is not going to save a team. If a team is told to depend on one person to make them good enough to at least get a decent draft spot than thats actually more unfair, in my opinion.

Also, Pittsburgh, at the time, could not afford anybody...thats why we sold talent like Jagr, Kasparitis, Kovalev, Hedberg, etc. in the first place...that and bad performance drew down attendance...

its not so much the draftees couldnt play right away...malkin was drafted before the lockout, fleury couldve played...but didnt...whitney couldve also...but the pens saw it better for them and some of the other picks to spend some time in wilkes barre first...to my knowledge, the only picks that couldnt come to the NHL right away were Malkin (due to the lockout), Letang (becasue we kept Staal), and Fleury(near-bankruptcy sucks).

correct me if im wrong, but if im not, it seems that a draft system that bumps teams who already had a high pick bak down would not only be unfair in the first place, but also make it more unfair for teams in the situation the penguins were in.

oBIgzrL.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't rebuild a team with only first round picks, either.

I'll go back to the Penguins. Fleury and Whitney weren't ready for the NHL. The Penguins knew that when they picked them and went with them anyway, deciding to take players that would be better for them later rather than better for them immediately. When they continued to suck because they did nothing to change the status quo, why should they have gotten another shot?

They didn't draft anyone in the later rounds that could help them, either. You're telling me that a team that can't find a single player to help improve the team should just keep getting to pick high until they get it right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says a team has to get good right away? Whats wrong with building for the future? Nothings stopping any other team from doing it. Its a strategy. A strategy taht works well, as is being demonstrated by the pens now. If anything, the pens are a good example of how good drafting and scouting pays out better in the long run - despite the few crappy seasons.

it also helps out teams low on cash like the pens were....dont have to pay alot for talent, just grow it at home

Washington, Phoenix, LA, etc...they can do the same

Is it any more unfair than how other teams can constantly buy talent?

The pens needed all the money they could get at the time...sacrificing seasons was the last thing they wanted to do...so its not like they threw seasons on purpose.

also, Talbot was an 8th round choice, Malone 4th, Scuderi 5th..all major contributers to the team...not nessicarily very late round choices, but definately not some of the first guys picked either...so a good part of what they have doesnt come from very early rounds

oBIgzrL.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't complaining about the Penguins purposely losing in order to get good draft picks. (though I think they did, but that is a arguement for later)

I was saying that the way the NHL conducted the lotery for who got what pick in the 2005 NHL draft was weighed twords Pistburgh though it should not have been. They shouldn't have had such a high chance of picking Crosby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if my memory serves me correctly, that draft had all teams with equal odds to win the first pick as they decided not to go off the previous seasons results. I will have to double check this but thats what I remember, to make it more "fair" and to give every team which did not have the chance to play the season a shot at getting number 1.

Your memory does not serve correctly. Because there was no previous season to go off of, the four (I think that's right) previous seasons were used.

Edit: Three years, not four. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NHL_Entry_Draft

Sorry, I meant to say "previous played season" but that does not make much of a difference.

I also read your blog and have a question. If you believe an established team who needs to under go a major rebuilding process, especially teams who have fans which will follow them no matter how much they suck, what would it matter if they rebuild the on ice product? They are still making money, their brand still sells well, why would the NHL spend time worrying about them when other teams who are bleeding fans and can't win games. It would make more sense to focus on those who are weaker than those who are stronger, such as an established team. Hell, Ballard proved in the 80's that a stinker could still fill the Gardens on a nightly basis.

neonmatrix_leafs2.gif

Because Korbyn Is Colour Blind, My Signature Is Now Idiot Proof - Thanks Again Braden!!

Go Leafs Go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're an idiot if you think that a hockey team would purposely lose to get a higher draft pick. This isn't the NFL or NBA. Hockey players and other people involved in the game like coaches and GMs have way to much pride to lose on purpose. Anybody that has played hockey at high level would know this. Also, the lottery came after an entire season was lost. Yes, the balls were weighted towards the teams that hadn't performed well in the most recent season. Well...the Penguins sucked ass so of course it was weighted towards them! But they weren't the only ones, another team had just as many balls as the Pens. idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says a team has to get good right away? Whats wrong with building for the future? Nothings stopping any other team from doing it. Its a strategy. A strategy taht works well, as is being demonstrated by the pens now. If anything, the pens are a good example of how good drafting and scouting pays out better in the long run - despite the few crappy seasons.

it also helps out teams low on cash like the pens were....dont have to pay alot for talent, just grow it at home

Washington, Phoenix, LA, etc...they can do the same

Is it any more unfair than how other teams can constantly buy talent?

The pens needed all the money they could get at the time...sacrificing seasons was the last thing they wanted to do...so its not like they threw seasons on purpose.

also, Talbot was an 8th round choice, Malone 4th, Scuderi 5th..all major contributers to the team...not nessicarily very late round choices, but definately not some of the first guys picked either...so a good part of what they have doesnt come from very early rounds

Just to clarify, I never said that the Pens threw seasons on purpose. That's why I needed the hypothetical to show how it could have been worse.

As far as teams buying talent goes, we're in a capped world now, that's not supposed to be possible. Yeah, the Penguins draft examples are all from pre-cap but I'm also not complaining about them getting Crosby, I'm complaining about the possibility of that kind of thing happening again.

What you're saying is that if a team needs to rebuild, they should be able to get a first overall pick. With that pick, they can select a player that will help them three years down the road. The next season they still suck and get a high pick again, selecting another player that won't help them right away. The next year they get the #1 pick again. That seems like double-dipping to me. The team gets to pick at the top over and over again because they chose to take players who would help them later.

I specifically didn't say an exact solution to this because I don't know what it would be. Do you draw the line at three years? Say "You've had the worst team in the league for three years in a row. You've had your chance. Your pick drops down to the end of the lottery-eligible picks, time for everyone else to get a shot."? I don't know. I just don't think failure should be infinitely rewarded, no matter what the circumstances were.

If you believe an established team who needs to under go a major rebuilding process, especially teams who have fans which will follow them no matter how much they suck, what would it matter if they rebuild the on ice product?

Good point. Since that was theoretical anyway, lets say that the team knows they can get away with a few years of tanking but after that their fans are going to want to see some results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says a team has to get good right away? Whats wrong with building for the future? Nothings stopping any other team from doing it. Its a strategy. A strategy taht works well, as is being demonstrated by the pens now. If anything, the pens are a good example of how good drafting and scouting pays out better in the long run - despite the few crappy seasons.

it also helps out teams low on cash like the pens were....dont have to pay alot for talent, just grow it at home

Washington, Phoenix, LA, etc...they can do the same

Is it any more unfair than how other teams can constantly buy talent?

The pens needed all the money they could get at the time...sacrificing seasons was the last thing they wanted to do...so its not like they threw seasons on purpose.

also, Talbot was an 8th round choice, Malone 4th, Scuderi 5th..all major contributers to the team...not nessicarily very late round choices, but definately not some of the first guys picked either...so a good part of what they have doesnt come from very early rounds

Just to clarify, I never said that the Pens threw seasons on purpose. That's why I needed the hypothetical to show how it could have been worse.

As far as teams buying talent goes, we're in a capped world now, that's not supposed to be possible. Yeah, the Penguins draft examples are all from pre-cap but I'm also not complaining about them getting Crosby, I'm complaining about the possibility of that kind of thing happening again.

What you're saying is that if a team needs to rebuild, they should be able to get a first overall pick. With that pick, they can select a player that will help them three years down the road. The next season they still suck and get a high pick again, selecting another player that won't help them right away. The next year they get the #1 pick again. That seems like double-dipping to me. The team gets to pick at the top over and over again because they chose to take players who would help them later.

I specifically didn't say an exact solution to this because I don't know what it would be. Do you draw the line at three years? Say "You've had the worst team in the league for three years in a row. You've had your chance. Your pick drops down to the end of the lottery-eligible picks, time for everyone else to get a shot."? I don't know. I just don't think failure should be infinitely rewarded, no matter what the circumstances were.

I never said you said they threw seasons, just saying why they wouldnt.

The way I see it its perfectly fair. Teams in a cap era still can buy talent somehow, so why cant teams that cant do that take their time and draft players who cant play right away?

I understand that if teams did abuse it, it wouldnt be a good idea to let it go....but, say, a team is really down on money (like the pens were) and/or drafted some people who unexpectedly bust?

I dont think its unfair, you think it is, and neither way is completely fair anyways...perhaps we should just agree to disagree

I wasn't complaining about the Penguins purposely losing in order to get good draft picks. (though I think they did, but that is a arguement for later)

like i said before...

The team went bankrupt in 1998. Lemieux bought them out of it, and made it clear from the get-go they needed a new arena because the size it is now will not pay enough, even if they sellout every night - they didnt get it until a few months ago. As a result, by 2001, the year after Lemieux came back and the team made its latest playoff run before last year, the team had to get rid of high-salary players like Jagr, Kasparitis, Kovalev, Hedberg, Straka, etc. etc....as a result, the team sucked because they couldnt buy enough talent to help them win...and, in turn, attendance dropped....one thing piled on each other and created a catch 22 of sorts...they needed to win to get attendance and money, but needed the attendance to get the money to win......

Needless to say, the last thing the penguins wanted to do was throw a few seasons...those losing seasons only made it more and more possible for them to either fold or move to another city - the thing they were trying to hopefully avoid by drafting those players...they were drafted in desperation - not dishonesty.

oBIgzrL.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

They auctioned off Crosby's Winter Classic (second period only) jersey and some lunatic paid $45,000 for it!

http://auction.nhl.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/...;aunbr=90479194

Now, you all know I love jerseys, but I'd have to say I'd rather have the infinitely sexy Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class instead.

_25_040.jpg

The shocking thing about that price to me is it means there were actually two people willing to pay that much. An auction price doesn't get that high without competition.

It's not a jersey that he actually scored a goal in. It's not like it's beat up with cool repairs or stick and puck marks. It's one of three he wore that day. There's no denying it's a great jersey from a unique event but I just cannot see it being worth half that much.

HansonsSig.jpg

Click here to read Third String Goalie - The Hockey Jersey of the Day Blog

Click here to see my hockey and baseball jersey collection online

?You don?t like to see 20 kids punching 20 other kids. But it?s not a disgrace, It?s hockey.? - Michael Farber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They auctioned off Crosby's Winter Classic (second period only) jersey and some lunatic paid $45,000 for it!

http://auction.nhl.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/...;aunbr=90479194

Now, you all know I love jerseys, but I'd have to say I'd rather have the infinitely sexy Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class instead.

_25_040.jpg

The shocking thing about that price to me is it means there were actually two people willing to pay that much. An auction price doesn't get that high without competition.

It's not a jersey that he actually scored a goal in. It's not like it's beat up with cool repairs or stick and puck marks. It's one of three he wore that day. There's no denying it's a great jersey from a unique event but I just cannot see it being worth half that much.

One of FOUR.

Each player had one each for warmups, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd periods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$45,000 + $20.00 shipping and handling. I think they could have thrown in the free shipping, but if you're fanatical (or dumb) enough to buy it for $45K, then another $20 shouldn't be too bad.

Did the 3rd pd/OT/SO go for more then?

KISSwall09.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

$45,000 + $20.00 shipping and handling. I think they could have thrown in the free shipping, but if you're fanatical (or dumb) enough to buy it for $45K, then another $20 shouldn't be too bad.

Did the 3rd pd/OT/SO go for more then?

AFAIK, the 2nd period jerseys were the only ones up for bidding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.