Official 2015 NHL Draft Thread

[bunomatic]

There's certainly nothing wrong with trading ufas who let it be known they won't resign. This is essentially what the Sabres have done which is well within the rules. There's also nothing wrong with trading aging vets whether they produce or not for picks or prospects. Thats also within the rules. Compliance buyouts last I heard were within the rules. Retooling, resetting, rebuilding are all terms that explain a method of getting better and eventually giving the fans a better product to follow. I really don't see a problem here. Nobodies losing on purpose. We're following a formula that works and playing within the rules. Can't wait for draft day. Lets hope Murray hits it out of the park.

[That Aud Smell]

In the light of a new day, I re-read LeBrun's 2 tweets (sorry, I am mobile-impaired now) and see more clearly that the plan approved is said to be 2-stepped: 2015, the odds of getting the #1 pick are 'smoothed' among however many clubs, but, inferentially, it's only the #1 pick that is up for grabs. And then 2016: the smoothed odds apply *and* more spots are up for grabs (maybe as many as the top 5).

 

So, yeah: 2015's plan for McDavid or Eichel or bust seems intact.

[X. Benedict]

In the light of a new day, I re-read LeBrun's 2 tweets (sorry, I am mobile-impaired now) and see more clearly that the plan approved is said to be 2-stepped: 2015, the odds of getting the #1 pick are 'smoothed' among however many clubs, but, inferentially, it's only the #1 pick that is up for grabs. And then 2016: the smoothed odds apply *and* more spots are up for grabs (maybe as many as the top 5).

 

So, yeah: 2015's plan for McDavid or Eichel or bust seems intact.

 

Let's say with we get comfortable with the idea of Eichel.

[Weave]

There's certainly nothing wrong with trading ufas who let it be known they won't resign. This is essentially what the Sabres have done which is well within the rules. There's also nothing wrong with trading aging vets whether they produce or not for picks or prospects. Thats also within the rules. Compliance buyouts last I heard were within the rules. Retooling, resetting, rebuilding are all terms that explain a method of getting better and eventually giving the fans a better product to follow. I really don't see a problem here. Nobodies losing on purpose. We're following a formula that works and playing within the rules. Can't wait for draft day. Lets hope Murray hits it out of the park.

 

Noone is suggesting that what the Sabres have embarked upon is outside the rules. But no previous team has ever so blatantly gone about losing. FFS Ted Black has come right out and admitted on radio that losing is the plan, so yes, someone is losing on purpose.

 

I support any NHL decision the de-incentivizes (is that a word?) losing on purpose. I understand that sometimes you have to tear down to rebuild. But when was the last time the Sabres made a real hockey trade? You know, moving a guy for a different guy to address a need. I think Roy for Ott was the last one. Everything since has been, empty the closet, we're storing future considerations in there now. Not a single hockey trade in over two seasons. It's so blatant that the league had to do something.

 

I just hope hockey karma doesn't exist.

[Trettioåtta]

 

 

Noone is suggesting that what the Sabres have embarked upon is outside the rules. But no previous team has ever so blatantly gone about losing. FFS Ted Black has come right out and admitted on radio that losing is the plan, so yes, someone is losing on purpose.

 

I support any NHL decision the de-incentivizes (is that a word?) losing on purpose. I understand that sometimes you have to tear down to rebuild. But when was the last time the Sabres made a real hockey trade? You know, moving a guy for a different guy to address a need. I think Roy for Ott was the last one. Everything since has been, empty the closet, we're storing future considerations in there now. Not a single hockey trade in over two seasons. It's so blatant that the league had to do something.

 

I just hope hockey karma doesn't exist.

 

Hodgson for Kassian is the last one I believe

[Hoss]

I dont know where it was mentioned, but somebody said that the "smoothing" would make the worst team have a 12.5% chance and the best lottery team have a 6% chance. That's pretty... Smooth.

[North Buffalo]

Noone is suggesting that what the Sabres have embarked upon is outside the rules. But no previous team has ever so blatantly gone about losing. FFS Ted Black has come right out and admitted on radio that losing is the plan, so yes, someone is losing on purpose.

 

I support any NHL decision the de-incentivizes (is that a word?) losing on purpose. I understand that sometimes you have to tear down to rebuild. But when was the last time the Sabres made a real hockey trade? You know, moving a guy for a different guy to address a need. I think Roy for Ott was the last one. Everything since has been, empty the closet, we're storing future considerations in there now. Not a single hockey trade in over two seasons. It's so blatant that the league had to do something.

 

I just hope hockey karma doesn't exist.

 

Really, the Sabres the only ones. What do you call what Edmonton has done the last couple of years. They admitted as such and their actions are even louder. Calgary has done it too though not as cleanly. I am sorry, this is disingenuous. That being said, the Sabres are obviously building a stronger team and unlike Edmonton won't be mired in the basement for too long. So this may effect Edmonton more than anyone else... one of those be careful what you wish for. Sabres could go back to 10th place team and do really well in the draft lottery now that Darcy is gone.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Icehole

[sabre snipe]

I dont know where it was mentioned, but somebody said that the "smoothing" would make the worst team have a 12.5% chance and the best lottery team have a 6% chance. That's pretty... Smooth.

 

It works out that way if u decrease by .5% for every non-playoff team. Not sure if that's how they'll do it tho. Cutting the last place teams chances in half? If was already just a 1/4 chance it's such garbage. I swear if Boston misses the playoffs this year barely and lands mcdavid I will absolutely lose my ######. Something else that would piss me off would be if Detroit misses the playoffs for the first time in 20 something years and lands mcdavid. Will be exactly like the colts and andrew luck

[That Aud Smell]

I dont know where it was mentioned, but somebody said that the "smoothing" would make the worst team have a 12.5% chance and the best lottery team have a 6% chance. That's pretty... Smooth.

 

Eichel! 'Murica!

 

 

[z-man]

One silver lining in the proposed change for 2015 is that while it presumably will lower the odds on our pick if we are in last place, it will raise the odds on the Islanders' pick, assuming they miss the playoffs. May not be enough to make up the lost percentage points, but may ease the blow.

[LGR4GM]

Noone is suggesting that what the Sabres have embarked upon is outside the rules. But no previous team has ever so blatantly gone about losing. FFS Ted Black has come right out and admitted on radio that losing is the plan, so yes, someone is losing on purpose.

 

I support any NHL decision the de-incentivizes (is that a word?) losing on purpose. I understand that sometimes you have to tear down to rebuild. But when was the last time the Sabres made a real hockey trade? You know, moving a guy for a different guy to address a need. I think Roy for Ott was the last one. Everything since has been, empty the closet, we're storing future considerations in there now. Not a single hockey trade in over two seasons. It's so blatant that the league had to do something.

 

I just hope hockey karma doesn't exist.

McNabb for Deslaurier and Fasching was. Outside of that, Halak for Neuvirth. Timmy has been actually working to make hockey trades but no one trades the top line guys unless its for 1st rounder, Girgensons, and Stafford. And for us that is worthless. The league should recognize the point of the draft is team building and some teams will have to suck.

 

Also Vanek for Moulson and a 1st was a good trade under Regier.

[Claude_Verret]

Tank on.

[That Aud Smell]

One silver lining in the proposed change for 2015 is that while it presumably will lower the odds on our pick if we are in last place, it will raise the odds on the Islanders' pick, assuming they miss the playoffs. May not be enough to make up the lost percentage points, but may ease the blow.

 

This is true. God willing, the Islanders will stink again.

 

I'd heard the 12.5% being thrown around for the league's worst team, with the best lottery team getting a 6% chance. In that event, we might end up with something close to the 25% chance we expected to have.

[Stoner]

I'm all for discouraging tanking, but the league continues to befuddle with its decision-making process. This change should be enacted two or three years down the road. How can you just pull the rug out from under teams that are operating under league rules and preparing accordingly? It's bush/garage league, and they'll never live down the speculation that they're trying to rig the McDavid draft to get him to a better team/better market.

[darksabre]

I'm all for discouraging tanking, but the league continues to befuddle with its decision-making process. This change should be enacted two or three years down the road. How can you just pull the rug out from under teams that are operating under league rules and preparing accordingly? It's bush/garage league, and they'll never live down the speculation that they're trying to rig the McDavid draft to get him to a better team/better market.

 

I don't understand punishing bad teams by killing their chances of getting the best players. Imagine being a team that is in the running for several years at a time and never getting a top two pick?

 

How do you rebuild now? How do you start over?

[Claude_Verret]

I don't understand punishing bad teams by killing their chances of getting the best players. Imagine being a team that is in the running for several years at a time and never getting a top two pick?

 

How do you rebuild now? How do you start over?

 

Yep, sometimes teams aren't purposely tanking. They just plain suck.

[darksabre]

Yep, sometimes teams aren't purposely tanking. They just plain suck.

 

And now we're going to take away the better odds that came with sucking. Might as well just make the whole league eligible for the draft lottery.

[Hoss]

 

 

Noone is suggesting that what the Sabres have embarked upon is outside the rules. But no previous team has ever so blatantly gone about losing.

 

This is completely false. There was just a documentary on how the Penguins did it...

[TrueBlueGED]

I don't understand punishing bad teams by killing their chances of getting the best players. Imagine being a team that is in the running for several years at a time and never getting a top two pick?

 

How do you rebuild now? How do you start over?

 

Right. The league is making a huge system change based on a very rare event (the complete and total intentional drive to finish last). That's insane. Systems should be changed to address chronic problems...what the Sabres are doing isn't chronic. And to top it all off, this can very well have a real impact on league parity. Just dumb.

 

With that said, I can't remember who it was who originally suggested this (CV or tom webster, I believe) but all this is is a bunch of GMs from mediocre teams want a better shot at a generational talent. This whole "anti-tanking" rhetoric is a transparent farce.

Edited June 27, 2014 by TrueBluePhD

[darksabre]

Right. The league is making a huge system change based on a very rare event (the complete and total intentional drive to finish last). That's insane. Systems should be changed to address chronic problems...what the Sabres are doing isn't chronic. And to top it all off, this can very well have a real impact on league parity. Just dumb.

 

With that said, I can't remember who it was who originally suggested this (CV or tom webster, I believe) but all this is is a bunch of GMs from mediocre teams want a better shot at a generational talent. This whole "anti-tanking" rhetoric is a transparent farce.

 

It's exactly the kind of thing Darcy Regier would have wanted.

 

"You mean I can finish in 9th place and still have a chance at the number 1 pick? Brilliant!"

[LGR4GM]

I am convinced this was forced through so McDavid has a better chance of going either to a Canadian market or a large media market. Whatever. If we finish last we can draft Eichel and BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF WHO EVER GETS MCDAVID.

[That Aud Smell]

I'm all for discouraging tanking, but the league continues to befuddle with its decision-making process. This change should be enacted two or three years down the road. How can you just pull the rug out from under teams that are operating under league rules and preparing accordingly? It's bush/garage league, and they'll never live down the speculation that they're trying to rig the McDavid draft to get him to a better team/better market.

 

Mickey ######-ing Mouse league.

[DHawerchuk10]

Right. The league is making a huge system change based on a very rare event (the complete and total intentional drive to finish last). That's insane. Systems should be changed to address chronic problems...what the Sabres are doing isn't chronic. And to top it all off, this can very well have a real impact on league parity. Just dumb.

 

With that said, I can't remember who it was who originally suggested this (CV or tom webster, I believe) but all this is is a bunch of GMs from mediocre teams want a better shot at a generational talent. This whole "anti-tanking" rhetoric is a transparent farce.

 

What irritates me about this is, that there are clearly markets free agents don't want to go to...whether it be misperceptions of the area, contender status, or whatever. A team like the NY Rangers will never have an issue attracting free agents, while teams like Buffalo, Columbus, Winnipeg will always have some sort of issue. The draft process helped level this out to a certain extent. If small markets are underperforming while this is rolled out (and they are), you can create a situation where teams just stay bad and have no way of improving.

[Sabre Dance]

I'm all for discouraging tanking, but the league continues to befuddle with its decision-making process. This change should be enacted two or three years down the road. How can you just pull the rug out from under teams that are operating under league rules and preparing accordingly? It's bush/garage league, and they'll never live down the speculation that they're trying to rig the McDavid draft to get him to a better team/better market.

 

Wait, it's OK for the Sabres to purposely be bad so they can get a higher draft pick, but it's not OK for the league to try to encourage teams playing to win instead of lose? Of course, if the league changes its rules to better the chance of the Sabres getting a #1 pick, I'm sure everyone would be fine with that?

 

By the way, you realize that today is the 2014 Draft and that this 2015 thread is more active? Wow.

[inkman]

I am convinced this was forced through so McDavid has a better chance of going either to a Canadian market or a large media market. Whatever. If we finish last we can draft Eichel and BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF WHO EVER GETS MCDAVID.

I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist but the lottery change stinks like fresh doo doo. Either they are rigging this draft like the NBA did for Ewing to the Knicks or a couple of good ol' boys are thoroughly annoyed at how well the Sabres are working the system and decided to do what the NHL does. Make ###### up on the fly!!