Ottawa Senators (present and past) TIDBITS & QUICK HITS!

Hypothetically if Ottawa were to finish dead last, they would have the highest odds at getting a 1st overall pick. But if their ball was the first to be picked, how many spots would they drop down?

DefenceWinsChampionships wrote:Hypothetically if Ottawa were to finish dead last, they would have the highest odds at getting a 1st overall pick. But if their ball was the first to be picked, how many spots would they drop down?

You can only drop 3 spots.

I hate even thinking about the draft lottery. A team that finishes dead last gets...what...a 20-25% chance of the first overall pick?

tim1_2 wrote:I hate even thinking about the draft lottery.  A team that finishes dead last gets...what...a 20-25% chance of the first overall pick?

Yeah there’s so much talk in TSN 1200 about the sens winning the draft or the lottery. I mean stfu. If that’s what is driving this franchise and it’s fans or to hold out some sort of hope over possibly loosing karlsson then we’re in some deep Dung. I don’t mind being hopeful of gaining a top 5 pick but don’t go leveraging all the negatives by saying “hey we could get Dahlin!”

I’d rather we face the reality

Flo The Action wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:I hate even thinking about the draft lottery.  A team that finishes dead last gets...what...a 20-25% chance of the first overall pick?

Yeah there’s so much talk in TSN 1200 about the sens winning the draft or the lottery. I mean stfu. If that’s what is driving this franchise and it’s fans or to hold out some sort of hope over possibly loosing karlsson then we’re in some deep Dung. I don’t mind being hopeful of gaining a top 5 pick but don’t go leveraging all the negatives by saying “hey we could get Dahlin!”

I’d rather we face the reality

Man, they were going on this morning about ways to revamp the draft lottery with some truly terrible ideas...I think the way they have it now with the sliding scale of probability is pretty good. I think it should be a little more even, but the current system makes sense. The worst team only gets a 18% chance of 1st overall and statistically their most likely draft position is 4th.

http://www.tankathon.com/nhl/pick_odds

The draft lottery has accomplished one of Bettmans admitted goals, to stop tanking. It has flaws because that was priority. It has worked. It is also the reason trade deadlines are boring now unless you get caught up in media propoganda.

Put everyone in a hat with no weighting.

Oglethorpe wrote:Put everyone in a hat with no weighting.

Agreed. If you want parity in the league this is the best way to go. If the #1 team gets the #1 pick it will force other teams to be competitive via free agency or acquisition. That and the #1 team could potentially trade someone off their roster to a struggling team.

DefenceWinsChampionships wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:Put everyone in a hat with no weighting.

Agreed. If you want parity in the league this is the best way to go. If the #1 team gets the #1 pick it will force other teams to be competitive via free agency or acquisition. That and the #1 team could potentially trade someone off their roster to a struggling team.

I dunno, you do need weaker teams to get better odds at getting better.

The way it’s set up now is ok I find.

Flo The Action wrote:

DefenceWinsChampionships wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:Put everyone in a hat with no weighting.

Agreed. If you want parity in the league this is the best way to go. If the #1 team gets the #1 pick it will force other teams to be competitive via free agency or acquisition. That and the #1 team could potentially trade someone off their roster to a struggling team.

I dunno, you do need weaker teams to get better odds at getting better.

The way it’s set up now is ok I find.

Why should a team like Pittsburgh be penalized every year for having good player management. Teams in the 'basement' are there for a reason. They've invested in the wrong players, are not attracting free agents, or don't have the funding to be competitive. A team like Arizona does not spend the money to be good. IMO they don't deserve high draft picks because of that.

I meant all non playoff teams in a hat

DefenceWinsChampionships wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

DefenceWinsChampionships wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:Put everyone in a hat with no weighting.

Agreed. If you want parity in the league this is the best way to go. If the #1 team gets the #1 pick it will force other teams to be competitive via free agency or acquisition. That and the #1 team could potentially trade someone off their roster to a struggling team.

I dunno, you do need weaker teams to get better odds at getting better.

The way it’s set up now is ok I find.

Why should a team like Pittsburgh be penalized every year for having good player management. Teams in the 'basement' are there for a reason. They've invested in the wrong players, are not attracting free agents, or don't have the funding to be competitive. A team like Arizona does not spend the money to be good. IMO they don't deserve high draft picks because of that.

But then you might actually spread the gap between teams. If anything I think there should be some rules in place to avoid situations like Edmonton big no way should you have cup contenders aka playoff teams able to draft in the top 3 with their picks.

Yeah, the only change I'd like to see is that a team can't have a top 3 pick in consecutive years or something along those lines.

tim1_2 wrote:Yeah, the only change I'd like to see is that a team can't have a top 3 pick in consecutive years or something along those lines.

You can’t have a weighted system in that scenario.

Oglethorpe wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:Yeah, the only change I'd like to see is that a team can't have a top 3 pick in consecutive years or something along those lines.

You can’t have a weighted system in that scenario.

Of course you can...the teams that had the top 3 picks the previous year can still win the lottery, but the highest they can pick is 4. There's always a way to do it.

tim1_2 wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:Yeah, the only change I'd like to see is that a team can't have a top 3 pick in consecutive years or something along those lines.

You can’t have a weighted system in that scenario.

Of course you can...the teams that had the top 3 picks the previous year can still win the lottery, but the highest they can pick is 4.  There's always a way to do it.

It’s unfair.  A team moves up from picking 16 to 3 in a bad draft. Next year through defections and injuries the team blows and finishes dead last.  Now they can’t get the top pick even though the haven’t finished near the bottom in years.

Oglethorpe wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:Yeah, the only change I'd like to see is that a team can't have a top 3 pick in consecutive years or something along those lines.

You can’t have a weighted system in that scenario.

Of course you can...the teams that had the top 3 picks the previous year can still win the lottery, but the highest they can pick is 4.  There's always a way to do it.

It’s unfair.  A team moves up from picking 16 to 3 in a bad draft. Next year through defections and injuries the team blows and finishes dead last.  Now they can’t get the top pick even though the haven’t finished near the bottom in years.

Well, there should be some way to stop a team like Edmonton from getting three consecutive first overall picks like they did from 2010-2012.

Weight the lottery like it is now but pick all 16 teams not just the 1st 3.  That way you can fall more than 3 spots it removes the benefits of tanking.