carpandean

They could, in theory, finish as low as 2nd in the lottery draft order, too. Most likely, though, they will be 4 or 5. It would take a pretty big move to get down to 3 or up to 6. They do play Florida tonight, so that could be a double win for the Sabres, if the Panthers were to win.

So, he played the puck with a broken stick? Dirty bastard! (Edit: it occurred to me that he didn't actually need to play the puck; simply continuing to play with a broken stick is a penalty.)

The separation that Boston and Buffalo are producing is just unreal. I may have to extend my range again in both directions!

6th-worst would only give the top team a 1.6% bump. Even 5th-best or 4th-best would just be a 2.2% or 3.0% bump.

Note: NJ is currently around the 10th/11th spot, so they would have a 2.1% or 1.5% chance of winning. In my case (1), which re-distributes their probability, that would give the top pick a 25.54% or 25.38% chance of winning. In my case (2), which basically gives the top team their probability, that would give the top pick a 27.10% or 26.50% chance of winning. Not a huge bump either way, but it's something.

Good question. Assuming that they miss the playoffs, I could see one of two things happening: 1) The remaining thirteen non-playoff teams would have their probabilities adjusted by (original probabilit)/(1-(NJ probability)), which alternatively could be done by simply re-picking if NJ were to win. 2) If NJ is picked, then nobody moves and the first overall pick stays with the 30th-place team. Either one would likely (barring a huge run in the last 9 games) help the Sabres, though obviously the latter would be significantly better if we were to finish last. I'm guessing it would be (1).

Even in some weird, hypothetical world where they could trade down and then still opt for this year, logic would dictate that they Sabres would get all parts of that trade, not just the lower first-round pick. There would be no benefit the Islanders, so it would only be about screwing the Sabres. Fortunately, as you (SwampD) and others have pointed out, they cannot give us anything other than their original (based on their final position and the results of the draft lottery) first-round pick from this year or next year.

But, assuming Snow goes too, this would be bad news for us (assuming they pick this year and give us next year's first.)

2013-14 Buffalo Sabres: leading the league in losing goaltenders who are named one of the three stars off the game.

This will show if TM is truly different than DR. For years, it was: Instead, he was always #1 (or 2A with Connolly as 2B.)

Not that it would help much, but to be fair, I would make three changes: 1) Exclude picks used to take goalies, since they aren't expected to score any goals. Enroth has done enough to be on-par with a 10g scorer. 2) Exclude the most recent draft(s), because not making it to the NHL or not scoring 10g is not a big deal for someone drafted last year. 3) Include those that have 10g seasons elsewhere. For example, Kassian was traded straight-up for Hodgson. Both have had 10g seasons (Kassian in Vancouver and Hodgson in both), but that pick doesn't qualify for your criteria. Again, doesn't improve things much. There has been a lot of suck over those years. I aslo agree with TW that it's hard to judge without some context. How have other teams done? Actually, I might exclude top-10 (or so) picks, since some teams have had lots of picks there, while others have not.

I'm some combination of these. I DVR most games. When I do play them, they're usually on in the background, but I do fast-forward through intermissions and commercials. I haven't actively watched a whole game since partway through last season.

Just to summarize: Everyone knows that we ... 1) can't build exclusively through the draft. 2) will have to give up young assets in trade for veterans and established talent (at some point.) 3) will need to sign some free agents to augment the young talent. 4) will draft high this year (possibly twice.) 5) have some decent talent (especially on D) in the pipeline. The only real disagreement seems to be what to do next year, starting with this offseason. There seem to be two option: 1) start making some of these non-draft moves now, putting up a better, but likely not truly competitive team next year, or 2) do little to help the team in the short-run, suffer through another bad season, draft high in a deep draft with a couple of elite-level prospects, and then start making those other moves the following off-season. The question is whether there is enough real benefit (including having a better product on the ice for ticket-holders) to trying to make trades/FA signings this summer versus next summer to offset the likely decrease in draft position, including a not-so-insignificant shot at one of those two elite prospects, next summer. Personally, since I (a) don't feel that delaying those trades/signings will significantly impact this team beyond next year, and (b) don't believe that we will be close to competing for the Cup next year regardless of the moves that TM makes, I'd opt for the wait a year and potentially add a lot to the prospect talent pool over the next year. In June/July of 2015, TM can start working those trades and signing those FAs.

That's ~46 shots per game. They're closer to 36, but have certainly been around 46 in some games. Not too far off, eh?

I added a little something for you. If I get inspired (and find some free time), I'll try to add more.

The intent of the original reverse ordering was to enocurage parity and to give the fans of a team with a bad year something to look forward to at the end. However, as with any system to provides benefit to being at the bottom, that also encourages some to abuse the system by not putting forth an honest effort. So, the lottery was added and then strengthened (no more "can't move up more than four spots" rule) in order to counter-act this side effect by reducing the possibility that a team could tank for a top player. The league does not want to get rid of the primary effect (shootouts are still here, afterall), but they want to ward off some of the side effect. Any of your systems negates the primary effect to fight the side effect, so they will likely not choose any of them. They are simply looking for the right balance between helping teams get back to a competitive level, while discouraging purposeful tanking. Perhaps, tweaking the percentages will do it. Perhaps, including more than just the #1 pick in the lottery selection will do it. By the way, the guys on WGR550 (like 'em or not) had an interesting point yesterday. Let's say that they switch to one of the systems that you suggested; what will happen? Most bubble team next year will be sellers at the trade deadline, since the now larger chance of getting one of the two possible franchise players will be more valuable than a moderate chance of making the playoffs and very small chance at winning the Cup. You might actually see more teams not competing as they should. Personally, I would just include a couple more spots in the lottery and then let it run for a while. See if it needs any more tweaking than that.

9G 7A 16P in his last 18GP. Right now, he is valuable (if you value scoring.) Might as well give him the 'C'. If it helps TM trade him, then all the better.

Knapp: So, where are they sending you? Girgs: Buffalo. You? Knapp: Alaska. Girgs: Hmm, Gus likes cold ... but not that cold.

Thanks. I have a feeling that it will be back next year, but I hope it can be retired after that.

If the Sabres and Bruins keep it up, I'll have to adjust both limits again. It will tough to tell the middle 10 teams apart.

Actually, that's not the way that the law of averages works. The distribution, itself, doesn't change. It's just that the further you are below the mean, the more possible outcomes (in the same distribution) exist above you that would pull you toward it.

Amerks get veteran AHL defensemen Nick Petrecki on loan from San Jose.

You missed (or did not address) my point (and skipped the part where I said it wasn't 100% sure - i.e., not a guarantee.) My point is that the hit rate among former "can't miss" (franchise-wise, not just "will definitely be good") prospects is likely much higher than the average of 25% amongst the top rated prospects each year. Let's say, just for the sake of having numbers, that on 1 in 5 prospects is "can't miss". If the chance is 12.5% of a non "can't miss" top rated (for a given year) prospect becoming a franchise-level players, then the hit rate for "can't miss" prospects could be 75% to get your 25% overall hit rate (0.8*0.125+0.2*0.75 = 0.25). So, is another year worth a 75% chance of a franchise changing player? Keep in mind that the "bust" rate amongst those prospects is most likely not the remaining 25%, since there is some chance that they become just a very good (but not franchise) player. We've got a lot of other assets in the pipeline, to which it would be really nice (but not necessary) to add the next great player. It's not a requirement to make a great team, but it certainly makes the job easier. Just to be clear, if this year's crop of top prospects were coming out next year instead (in place of McDavid, etc.), then nobody would be calling for another year of tanking.

Well, personally, I thought: 1) Connolly was a very talented player and I liked having him until the injuries started piling up. They needed to move (not re-sign) him or, at the very least, not have him slotted in as a top-two center (with Hecht as the backup plan), long before they did. 2) Stafford was overpaid in his contract. However, I did point out that he wasn't paid based solely on his ludicrous scoring rate over 35 games (or whatever it was) as you liked to point out, because that rate would have made him more than a $4M a year player. (I'd also point out that he has been worse since that contract than he was before that contract year. Had he returned to at least that pace, his contract wouldn't have been as bad.) 3) Leino was overpaid, especially after 10 minutes of investigation revealed that he hadn't been a center since his second-to-last year in Finland and that his scoring went up significantly after he was converted to the wing. Didn't like the signing. So, I didn't disagree with you too much on those contracts. However, I think Hodgson will be a very good second-line center (or second-line winger who provides depth at the scoring-line center position) once this team actually has some more talent. I would argue that he is a very calm presence, but I certainly have seen urgency. For example, another player was stripped of the puck in the neutral-zone last game and Cody turned back, skated hard and dove to knock the puck off the opponent's stick as they entered the Sabres' zone on a 2-on-1. The play then went the other way for a Sabres' scoring chance. Just one example that I remember in detail, but there have been others.