Realistically - where do the Sens end up on Draft Day?

add a pick to Ottawa too, 2nd rounder.

I'm pretty sure we have 2 second round picks and Toronto has at least one from the Antropov trade.

asq2 wrote:I'm pretty sure we have 2 second round picks and Toronto has at least one from the Antropov trade.

That NHL.com list predates the March 4 deadline I think...

Ah.

asq2 wrote:Yup. I think you're thinking of Hodgson.

IIRC, it then went:

8. Boedkker - gets a lot less press than he deserves
9. Bailey
10. Hodgson
11. Beach
12. Myers
13. Teubert
14. Boychuk
15. Karlsson

So 6 defencemen taken before Karlsson. Definitely a good draft for d-men.

Hmmm. Who would I rather have? Wilson or Hodgson. It's closer than it looks, but I still think Vancouver got the steal there. Boedkker was a steal.

asq2 wrote:

davetherave wrote:Realistically, with about a month to go, there won't be much change in the position of the bottom six or seven in the league overall.

So in terms of drafting, it's a crapshoot among the top seven picks. The assumption is Tavares and Hedman one/two...but you never know.

Who were picks two through seven last year?

From memory:

1. Stamkos
2. Doughty
3. Bogosian
4. Pietrangelo
5. Schenn
6. Filatov
7. Wilson, methinks.

This year's should be:
1. Tavares - As the Isles look to be picking first
2. Hedman
3. Duchene
4. Kane or MSP
5. Kane or MSP
6. Schenn
7. Cowen, although I'm not entirely sure of the extent of the damage of his injury. Otherwise, he'd debatably be in the top-4.

Let's see if I can do 2007 from memory :D

1. Kane
2. Van Riemsdyk
3. Turris
4. Hickey
5. Alzner
6. Gagner
7. Voracek

OK, let's see who's playing full time in the NHL right now...I've noted the ones I could remember as currently with their clubs in bold.

ASQ, do you have the 2006 list?

Here we go...top 7 from 2006.

1 - St. Louis Blues - Eric Johnson (defenseman)

2 - Pittsburg - Jordan Staal (center)

3 - Chicago - Jonathan Toews (center)

4 - Washington - Nicklas Backstrom (center)

5 - Boston - Phil Kessel (center)

6 - Columbus - Derick Brassard (center)

7 - New York Islanders - Kyle Okposo (right wing)



Read more: "NHL First-Round Draft Picks" - http://icehockey.suite101.com/article.cfm/nhl_firstround_draft_picks#ixzz09ZTsTM5G

davetherave wrote:Here we go...top 7 from 2006.

<LI>1 - St. Louis Blues - Eric Johnson (defenseman)
<LI>2 - Pittsburg - Jordan Staal (center)
<LI>3 - Chicago - Jonathan Toews (center)
<LI>4 - Washington - Nicklas Backstrom (center)
<LI>5 - Boston - Phil Kessel (center)
<LI>6 - Columbus - Derick Brassard (center)
<LI>7 - New York Islanders - Kyle Okposo (right wing)



Read more: "NHL First-Round Draft Picks" - http://icehockey.suite101.com/article.cfm/nhl_firstround_draft_picks#ixzz09ZTsTM5G</LI>

Sorry, I didnt see your question.

2005 went:

1. Crosby
2. Ryan
3. Johnson
4. Pouliot
5. Price
6. Brule
7. Skille

Definitely one of the less inspiring ones, although some nice names did go in '05 (some that are just establishing themselves now like Ryan and Setoguchi). A draft pick is never a guarantee, though.

4, 6 and 7 are not great top ten picks. Neither is number 9.

asq2 wrote:
Sorry, I didnt see your question.

2005 went:

1. Crosby
2. Ryan
3. Johnson
4. Pouliot
5. Price
6. Brule
7. Skille

Definitely one of the less inspiring ones, although some nice names did go in '05 (some that are just establishing themselves now like Ryan and Setoguchi). A draft pick is never a guarantee, though.

My point exactly...it's obviously attractive for a team to get the opportunity for the #1 pick, but chances are pretty good a team will get a starter if they pick--wisely of course--in the top 7, as these last four drafts demonstrate.

Agreed. It changes from year to year though. 2003 produced many, many stars that weren't picked in the top-7: Coburn, Phaneuf, A. Kostitsyn, Jeff Carter, Brown, Mike Richards, Seabrook, Getzlaf, Perry, Parise, Burns, Kesler, Loui Eriksson, Bergeron, Weber, Carle, O'Sullivan, Backes, Quincy, Pavelski, Enstrom etc.

Of course, the top 7 wasn't so shabby either that year:

1. Fleury (meh)
2. Eric Staal
3. Nathan Horton
4. Nikolai Zherdev
5. Tomas Vanek
6. Milan Michalek
7. Ryan Suter

Personally, though, I think there's a drop-off after the top-7. Invariably, there'll be some steal found later on, but I think the top-7 is separated from the rest.

If they like a player that will probably be available where they're picking, that's where they will pick. If not, they'll trade up to a spot that will get them the player they want.

That's where the Sens will end up on draft day.

asq2 wrote:Agreed. It changes from year to year though. 2003 produced many, many stars that weren't picked in the top-7: Coburn, Phaneuf, A. Kostitsyn, Jeff Carter, Brown, Mike Richards, Seabrook, Getzlaf, Perry, Parise, Burns, Kesler, Loui Eriksson, Bergeron, Weber, Carle, O'Sullivan, Backes, Quincy, Pavelski, Enstrom etc.

Of course, the top 7 wasn't so shabby either that year:

1. Fleury (meh)
2. Eric Staal
3. Nathan Horton
4. Nikolai Zherdev
5. Tomas Vanek
6. Milan Michalek
7. Ryan Suter

Personally, though, I think there's a drop-off after the top-7. Invariably, there'll be some steal found later on, but I think the top-7 is separated from the rest.

Murray snagged 2 of those guys as well.

Would you all not agree everything we are discussing here explains why teams don't 'tank'?

'Tanking'--if a team attempted to do that--guarantees only that the fans become cynical about the product on the ice. That leads to a dropoff in fan support, and ultimately hurts a team at the box office.

An NHL team HAS to show its fans it is ready to play entertaining hockey, no matter where they are in the standings. Otherwise fans won't show up.

The other idea, though, is that you can win fans back with an exciting, marketable guy which one usually finds at the top of the draft. Such has been the case with the Blackhawks, benefitting enormously on the ice and off from their top selections in the 2006 and 2007 drafts.

Winning draws fans.

Let's say the Washington Capitals didn't deal away some of their older players and tried to finish their season on a high note at the end of 2003-2004, finished third and drafted Cam Barker rather than you-know-who.

Granted they put a lot of money into you-know-who in re-signing him, but don't you think they're benefitting a lot more than if they would with Barker, or Andrew Ladd?

asq2 wrote:The other idea, though, is that you can win fans back with an exciting, marketable guy which one usually finds at the top of the draft. Such has been the case with the Blackhawks, benefitting enormously on the ice and off from their top selections in the 2006 and 2007 drafts.

Winning draws fans.

Let's say the Washington Capitals didn't deal away some of their older players and tried to finish their season on a high note at the end of 2003-2004, finished third and drafted Cam Barker rather than you-know-who.

Granted they put a lot of money into you-know-who in re-signing him, but don't you think they're benefitting a lot more than if they would with Barker, or Andrew Ladd?

You bring up two very interesting stories about franchises that have rebuilt themselves.

Relaunching the Chicago Blackhawks was a combined effort on a number of fronts by Rocky Wirtz, John McDonough and Dale Tallon. The entire relationship of the franchise to the fan base had to be restored, so 'marketable' players were a priority. Toews and Kane have turned out to be both marketable and successful on the ice. At the same time, Tallon needed three full years (he was named GM in June 2005, and had been assistant GM since November 2003) and a lot of roster juggling to find the right mix. It has all come together this season.

In Washington, you have a very engaged owner in Ted Leonsis who understood he needed a 'franchise player' who could be distinctive to the Caps. Leonsis also made a conscious decision to scrap the roster of expensive, aging veterans and go on a 'youth movement'. He and George McPhee spent the 2003-04 season implementing that strategy. Of course, they would have been aware that one of the consequences of such a decision would probably be a fall in the standings. As in any business, these factors were most likely evaluated and a variety of scenarios were examined. One of them would have been the possibility of landing the number one draft pick.

The simplistic characterizations that the hacks who call themselves sports writers propagate include this notion of 'tanking'. Basically, that expression is complete BS. The very successful men who own NHL teams--like Rocky Wirtz and Ted Leonsis--are exceptional business minds. They don't need to BS anyone.

I predict the Sens end up picking 6th.

Looking at the math, and adjusting for their play, I'd suggest 7th, unless they manage to get the lottery ball(s).