Vanek Traded to NYI for Matt Moulson, 1st in 2014 (or 2015!), 2nd in 2015; 4 Months Later: Moulson to MN for 2014/2016 2nd Rounders

[Hoss]

 

 

Or maybe you communicate poorly.

 

Thanks.

[shrader]

I hope we get some prospects and 2015 picks as well. But I don't really care if we have picks in 14 or 15.

 

I'm not saying you're of this thinking, but a lot of people want picks in 2015 because they think it's a great draft. Really, McDavid is the only reason this line of thinking exists. And it doesn't matter if you have 10 first rounders (obviously slightly enhances your chances in the lottery, but history suggests you're not getting that pick unless you're in the top two lottery slots). There is no sense in building up picks in hopes of a trade up either because nobody is trading the first pick of McDavid for anything. Not even ten first rounders.

 

History means nothing here. The current lottery system has only been in place for one year now.

[That Aud Smell]

I can't tell you how much I hate this. Why do you care what happens to Vanek after he leaves? You sound like a jilted lover. Let it go already.

 

I follow with light interest what prominent former Sabres do in the league. With Vanek specifically, I wish him well but am also hoping that the Islanders stink this year (and next) -- so, to the extent that he can't play for them, that's probably good for the Sabres.

[Hoss]

History means nothing here. The current lottery system has only been in place for one year now.

 

It's still heavily weight that the top two picks will get the pick. It's been compared to the NBA system, but more than one team can move up in the NBA.

[dudacek]

 

 

History means nothing here. The current lottery system has only been in place for one year now.

 

Exactly. Now, there is a better chance that someone outside the top two will get to pick first than the worst team or the runner-up. 25 per cent for the last place team, 18.8 for the runner-up.

Knowing how the hockey gods work, McDavid will be going to a fan base that has barely suffered at all.

Edited November 11, 2013 by dudacek

[shrader]

It's still heavily weight that the top two picks will get the pick. It's been compared to the NBA system, but more than one team can move up in the NBA.

 

There is a 56.2% chance that someone outside of the top two will win the lottery. That's hardly heavily weighted towards those top two. Yes, individually they have much better odds than any other specific team, but if I'm betting, I'm choosing the field.

[qwksndmonster]

Exactly. Now, there is a better chance that someone outside the top two will get to pick first than the worst team or the runner-up. 25 per cent for the last place team, 18.8 for the runner-up.

Knowing how the hockey gods work, McDavid will be going to a fan base that has barely suffered at all.

Sucks that suffering is now taking place in the least fruitful time to do so. Just about everything sucks.

[Hoss]

There is a 56.2% chance that someone outside of the top two will win the lottery. That's hardly heavily weighted towards those top two. Yes, individually they have much better odds than any other specific team, but if I'm betting, I'm choosing the field.

 

If we're arguing details here, the odds of "winning the lottery" haven't changed at all. The odds have always been the same. The rules about how far you can move up have changed, though.

 

EDIT: Since freeman didn't understand what I said, I'll make it more clear: The odds of winning the lottery are the same, but what you "win" when you win the lottery is different. Before, winning the lottery entailed moving up four draft spots at most. Now, it means that you win the number one overall selection no matter where you started.

 

Since the current lottery winning odds system has been in place, a team outside of the top two has won it ten out of 18 times (55.6% which is right in line). So you're right, they definitely don't favor the top two.

 

 

Individually, the team slated first in the lottery has won it six of the 18 times (33%). The second place team had never won it before 2012, but has won it each of the last two years (two out of 18 is 11%). The third team has won it three times (16.7%). Fourth has won it once (5.6%). Fifth has won it twice (11%). Sixth has never won it. Seventh won it once (5.6%). Eighth has won it twice (11%). No team later than eighth has ever won it.

Edited November 12, 2013 by DStebb

[nfreeman]

If we're arguing details here, the odds of "winning the lottery" haven't changed at all. The odds have always been the same. The rules about how far you can move up have changed, though.

 

Since the current lottery winning odds system has been in place, a team outside of the top two has won it ten out of 18 times (55.6% which is right in line). So you're right, they definitely don't favor the top two.

 

 

Individually, the team slated first in the lottery has won it six of the 18 times (33%). The second place team had never won it before 2012, but has won it each of the last two years (two out of 18 is 11%). The third team has won it three times (16.7%). Fourth has won it once (5.6%). Fifth has won it twice (11%). Sixth has never won it. Seventh won it once (5.6%). Eighth has won it twice (11%). No team later than eighth has ever won it.

 

Wrong, and not even close.

 

If you don't check your facts before you post, you're just wasting everyone's time.

[Hoss]

Wrong, and not even close.

 

If you don't check your facts before you post, you're just wasting everyone's time.

 

No, that's a fact. The odds didn't change. The only thing that changed is that when you win the lottery now you get the first pick. Before you could only move up a total of four spots.

[Weave]

Wrong, and not even close.

 

If you don't check your facts before you post, you're just wasting everyone's time.

No, that's a fact. The odds didn't change. The only thing that changed is that when you win the lottery now you get the first pick. Before you could only move up a total of four spots.

 

A quick trip around the intertubes gets me language like "Odds of winning the draft lottery remain the same as they were under the 1995-2012 system". But I don't see how that is possible as the number of teams that are lottery eligible have increased. By definition that should mean that the odds for at least some of the positions have to go down.

[nfreeman]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/how-the-nhls-draft-lottery-works/article4099253/

 

Prior system: worst team had a 48.2% chance of getting the #1 pick.

[Weave]

OK, I think the both of you are talking past each other. Yes, nfreeman, the odds of getting the 1st overall pick have changed (note the bold). But that is because now every non-playoff team has a shot at it. However, the odds of winning the draft lottery appear to have not changed (as best I can find on the internet anyway).

 

The difference is, in the past you could win and only move up a maximum of 4 spots. Now if you win the lottery it doesn't matter where you are in the standings, you get the 1st overall pick.

[Taro T]

OK, I think the both of you are talking past each other. Yes, nfreeman, the odds of getting the 1st overall pick have changed (note the bold). But that is because now every non-playoff team has a shot at it. However, the odds of winning the draft lottery appear to have not changed (as best I can find on the internet anyway).

 

The difference is, in the past you could win and only move up a maximum of 4 spots. Now if you win the lottery it doesn't matter where you are in the standings, you get the 1st overall pick.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

[Stoner]

nfreeman is just picking on a new brilliant, young skeptic.

[wonderbread]

nfreeman is just picking on a new brilliant, young skeptic.

stiffling even.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

nfreeman is just picking on a new brilliant, young skeptic.

 

I agree our newb does understand the game well and is a bit skeptical, but it is taking some time for him to learn the inner workings of this board.

 

It took me a while too. My early days were not the greatest and some will say that my latter days are not much better.

[Wyldnwoody44]

And me, well I just sit in the jungle and wait to pounce like a hungry ocelot searching out fresh prey..... Nearly 2000 posts and I don't recall many heated discussions with any here.... Maybe I need to ramp up my game...

 

 

Btw, this is Buffalo were talking about here..... We could have everything go wrong (which is basically true) and still won't win that top pick, we're like the nerdy kid picked last in gym class, and the first to break his glasses by getting pegged in the face with a dodgeball /wrench ;)

[Marvelo]

OK, I think the both of you are talking past each other. Yes, nfreeman, the odds of getting the 1st overall pick have changed (note the bold). But that is because now every non-playoff team has a shot at it. However, the odds of winning the draft lottery appear to have not changed (as best I can find on the internet anyway).

 

The difference is, in the past you could win and only move up a maximum of 4 spots. Now if you win the lottery it doesn't matter where you are in the standings, you get the 1st overall pick.

 

It just seems wrong that if a team finishes dead last in the NHL, 30 points behind everyone, that they should have to enter a lottery to get the overall #1 draft pick and only have a 40 percent chance of getting it. Does any other major league sport operate this way?

I guess it hasn't worked out so well for the Oilers but on the other hand it sure worked out well for the Penguins.

[shrader]

If we're arguing details here, the odds of "winning the lottery" haven't changed at all. The odds have always been the same. The rules about how far you can move up have changed, though.

 

EDIT: Since freeman didn't understand what I said, I'll make it more clear: The odds of winning the lottery are the same, but what you "win" when you win the lottery is different. Before, winning the lottery entailed moving up four draft spots at most. Now, it means that you win the number one overall selection no matter where you started.

 

Since the current lottery winning odds system has been in place, a team outside of the top two has won it ten out of 18 times (55.6% which is right in line). So you're right, they definitely don't favor the top two.

 

 

Individually, the team slated first in the lottery has won it six of the 18 times (33%). The second place team had never won it before 2012, but has won it each of the last two years (two out of 18 is 11%). The third team has won it three times (16.7%). Fourth has won it once (5.6%). Fifth has won it twice (11%). Sixth has never won it. Seventh won it once (5.6%). Eighth has won it twice (11%). No team later than eighth has ever won it.

 

Again you are proving my point instead of yours. History (I have no reason not to trust your numbers) shows that the bottom two teams have won the lottery 44.4% of the time. It's actually impressive how close that is to the actual 43.8% chance the bottom two have of winning the lottery. That's hardly heavily weighted towards the bottom two teams as you stated earlier:

 

It's still heavily weight that the top two picks will get the pick. It's been compared to the NBA system, but more than one team can move up in the NBA.

 

 

Just admit you made a couple BS statements earlier and let the thread move back on topic.

[TrueBlueGED]

I agree our newb does understand the game well and is a bit skeptical, but it is taking some time for him to learn the inner workings of this board.

 

It took me a while too. My early days were not the greatest and some will say that my latter days are not much better.

 

Your later days are, in fact, worse :P

[That Aud Smell]

It just seems wrong that if a team finishes dead last in the NHL, 30 points behind everyone, that they should have to enter a lottery to get the overall #1 draft pick and only have a 40 percent chance of getting it.

It also seems wrong for a team to intentionally tank a season in order to secure the #1 overall pick -- hence, the lottery system.

[Eleven]

It also seems wrong for a team to intentionally tank a season in order to secure the #1 overall pick -- hence, the lottery system.

 

Thank you, Pittsburgh.

[nfreeman]

Let's go back for a second here.

 

There was a conversation about getting the #1 overall pick, and specifically McDavid next year.

 

Mr. Stebb himself said:

 

I'm not saying you're of this thinking, but a lot of people want picks in 2015 because they think it's a great draft. Really, McDavid is the only reason this line of thinking exists. And it doesn't matter if you have 10 first rounders (obviously slightly enhances your chances in the lottery, but history suggests you're not getting that pick unless you're in the top two lottery slots). There is no sense in building up picks in hopes of a trade up either because nobody is trading the first pick of McDavid for anything. Not even ten first rounders.

 

To which shrader correctly responded:

 

History means nothing here. The current lottery system has only been in place for one year now.

 

This response was correct because under the prior system, teams #6-14 in the lottery -- i.e. 64.3% of the lottery participants -- weren't eligible to win the #1 pick -- so Stebb's statement that "history suggests..." was neither here nor there.

 

Stebb, presumably flummoxed but not wanting to admit defeat, responded with:

 

It's still heavily weight that the top two picks will get the pick. It's been compared to the NBA system, but more than one team can move up in the NBA.

 

...which was also neither here nor there.

 

We then migrated to a discussion of what "winning the lottery" really means -- which doesn't jibe with the prior discussion about getting McDavid.

 

Just admit you made a couple BS statements earlier and let the thread move back on topic.

 

This would be nice but I ain't holding my breath.

[beerme1]

Just admit you made a couple BS statements earlier and let the thread move back on topic.

 

Well that should make this particular pissing contest a little more fun.