Caboose Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 This isn't even a question. Potential superstar or a season of hockey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Hmmm...I'm not sure I like our chances in a lottery.... Heck, we couldn't even win the one where it was just us and the Sabres... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 with the 2005 lottery rules in effect this is how it would go: Each team begins with three balls in the lottery barrel. For every playoff appearance in the last three years or No. 1 overall pick over the last four years, a team loses one ball. 3 ball teams CALGARY DALLAS TORONTO COLUMBUS WINNIPEG CAROLINA MINNESOTA 2 ball teams NY ISLANDERS ANAHEIM COLORADO ST. LOUIS TAMPA BAY FLORIDA 1 ball teams EDMONTON PITTSBURGH PHILADELPHIA BOSTON WASHINGTON NY RANGERS VANCOUVER SAN JOSE DETROIT NASHVILLE PHOENIX LOS ANGELES CHICAGO NEW JERSEY BUFFALO OTTAWA MONTRÉAL That means we'd have a 1 in 50 (2%) chance to get 1st overall... I'd rather have the season. Edit, missed the 4 year lookback for 1st overall picks, meaning the iles should have 2, not 3 balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 .... That means we'd have a 1 in 51 (1.96%) chance to get 1st overall... I'd rather have the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TACIC Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Well it is Nathan Mackinnon...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I agree. I'd add to that the Canucks have a better than 1.96% chance to win the cup next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangerines Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Odds are slim. I go with playing the NHL season. I am getting older and so are the Sedins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alchemy Time Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Let's put it this way... In 2010-11, would you have traded that season for RNH, Landeskog, Huberdeau or Larsson? I'm not sure I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizott Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 its a win-win in my opinion. If there is a season, that's great, if not a legitimate chance a 1st overall pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 its a win-win in my opinion. If there is a season, that's great, if not a legitimate chance a 1st overall pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoShowWilly Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 give up a year of entertainment with a team near its height for a less than 2% chance at a star...... no thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Bo7 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Luc Bourdon was the 10th overall pick FYI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 There's no way we would be so lucky at to "win" the #1 overall pick. The league wouldn't have it! As with the Crosby draft, it would be pre determined who would pick #1 before all the shenanigans on TV. The Penguins were a struggling franchise on their way out of Pitts so the league took it in to their own hands to save them by giving them Crosby. You better believe the same thing would happen next year and some team on the outs would get the 1st pick, not some team from Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangelos Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Well a lockout would be absolutely devastating for a Canucks team that already belongs in a retirement home as it stands. It's basically reducing the number of chances we have of getting a cup before we start the re-build. Obviously Nathan would be a huge acquisition as he would probably become the new face of the franchise and the player we build around; however, the chances of drafting him are extremely slim. If we were guaranteed Nathan, I would be all for a lockout, but knowing the Canucks often get shafted by the league and refs I wouldn't hold my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsflash Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Well a lockout would be absolutely devastating for a Canucks team that already belongs in a retirement home as it stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter.S-Kerouac Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 No flat out. We will remain competitive without him and I like watching hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangelos Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Since when did the Canucks become a bunch of old farts? They don't seem all that old when they are on the ice. Actually, a lot of them could be considered to be in their prime. Hammer, Sedins (I know they were 80 point players, but they lead the harder-to-score-in West in scoring), Kesler (when he's healthy and not diving), Bieksa. I don't think Edler has even hit his prime yet! But this is the internet. You can only appreciate a players prime ten years from now. All anybody wants on their team is prospects and 22 year olds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day one Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 The question is If we got MacKinnon. Not a "chance to get" MacKinnon. Would you look back and say the lockout was worth it? Ofcourse no one would want to throw away the season for a marginal chance, that would be non sensical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max-a-Million Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Foolishness! Hockey is entertainment, pure and simple. Time these billionaires and millionaires realize that and get back to what they do best--entertain us. As for the greedy billionaire owners, if you want a bigger piece of the pie, stop handing out such ridiculous contracts. What d'ya expect? No NHL season! OMG, now that's a horrid thought. For 1/50th of a chance to get a good player? Hardly. Why propose such a stupid thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 is the risk worth it? hell no but if i knew a phsycic that i had asked at least 100 questions before and she was right 98% of the time all the time? then maybe i could miss a season if this kid is supposed to be the next canadian phenom imagine this one lol... we trade luongo before the 15th and snag a first in the deal. then somehow miraculously end up with the top 2 picks haha. how hated would we be then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.