2023 NHL Entry Draft Discussion

[SelltheTeamFrancesco]

Man, this thread. Multiple posters have said hey I am not going to derail the thread any more five posts later goes off on another tangent. You can't make this shit up.

 

[Frostage]

Does the potato have any favourites?

 

[Hammman]

I said it in another thread and I will say it here. There should be a second tournament for all the non playoff teams to decide draft position. More revenue, for the NHL to split, more interest, and no more tanking.

I hate this idea and always have. Pittsburgh has been a top team for nearly 20 years. Now that they've finally dropped out of the playoffs, your system would essentially give them the best odds of picking up Bedard and doing it all over again.

 

[MS]

I hate this idea and always have. Pittsburgh has been a top team for nearly 20 years. Now that they've finally dropped out of the playoffs, your system would essentially give them the best odds of picking up Bedard and doing it all over again.

NHLPA would never agree to half the league losing an extra month of their offseason anyway, if it's a playoff-style tournament.

If it's just the post-deadline record, that creates a different set of issues. We'd never be giving a chance to NCAA free agents, as an example, if we were trying to win games.

Just go to an unweighted lottery for non-playoff teams. Everyone gets the same chance. Problem solved.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

It's awful.

It's something that really didn't exist except for the odd once-a-decade team until about 10 or 12 years ago. And now it's just taken over everything like a bad fungus. When we missed the playoffs in 2008 it wasn't like this. People actually had constructive, interesting discussions about how to get good players and get better. Nobody talked about tanking. It wasn't even an option. Now it's just a generation of fans whose only opinion is that every team should lose on purpose until they win a lottery and get a McDavid or Bedard. And it sucks. It's awful fandom, and it's awful discussion. And it's negative, and it's stupid. Like you say, half the fans of this sport are cheering for their team to lose. People literally more about a lottery than the actual players on their team and the actual players on the ice.

The entire sport has become populated by the same mentality as the losers in Edmonton that everyone was laughing at 10 years ago.

I hate that the NHL was going in the right direction, but then went back. Having 3 Lotteries with the highest odds being less than 20% and any no can only move up 10 spots bullshit.

I think something like every team in the bottom 10 gets 7%, while the other teams that miss the playoffs get 5% would be a good balance between giving teams in a down cycle a chance to improve without teams obviously tanking like this year.

 

[Hammman]

NHLPA would never agree to half the league losing an extra month of their offseason anyway, if it's a playoff-style tournament.

If it's just the post-deadline record, that creates a different set of issues. We'd never be giving a chance to NCAA free agents, as an example, if we were trying to win games.

Just go to an unweighted lottery for non-playoff teams. Everyone gets the same chance. Problem solved.

Something like that could sink a franchise though. Imagine being a team that's bad enough to finish at the bottom of the league - legitimately bad, not tanking - but has a string of bad luck in the lottery. A team that's at the bottom the the league but drafting in the mushy middle has very little recourse to escape; they're unlikely to get high-end elite talent and a team like that would have trouble attracting much in free agency. They'd also likely be unable to retain their own players. How is a team like that legitimately supposed to improve on any reasonable timescale?

 

[MS]

Something like that could sink a franchise though. Imagine being a team that's bad enough to finish at the bottom of the league - legitimately bad, not tanking - but has a string of bad luck in the lottery. A team that's at the bottom the the league but drafting in the mushy middle has very little recourse to escape; they're unlikely to get high-end elite talent and a team like that would have trouble attracting much in free agency. They'd also likely be unable to retain their own players. How is a team like that legitimately supposed to improve on any reasonable timescale?

Tough luck. Hire better management.

It already happens, in any case. Arizona has been terrible for basically 15 years but haven't drafted higher than 3rd.

If you're bad for 5-8 years, it would be incredibly unlucky to not get a top-5 pick or two, though.

 

[I Hart Conor Garland]

I'm a big shrug at this position. I'd prefer if they went D or C.

Take one of Reinbacher, ASP, or that new guy Button is high on. Make sure they are your top development priority and do not screw it up. Otherwise, trade it in service of the cap, or take a Michkov if he falls.

 

[Ernie]

A couple of ideas I like:

1. Once teams are mathematically eliminated, they then start to accrue points towards the first overall. Get eliminated early and you have more time to rack up points, but you better have enough talent to get some wins in.
2. Teams are paired with playoff teams based on their standings, for instance, 32nd team is paired with presidents trophy winner, etc. If your paired team wins the Stanley Cup, you get the first overall pick. Your paired team makes the finals but doesn't win? 2nd overall pick. Etc etc.

Both these options would be super chaotic and entertaining. I like the 2nd one because it would keep the entire NHL fanbase engaged with the playoffs.

 

[Hammman]

Tough luck. Hire better management.

It already happens, in any case. Arizona has been terrible for basically 15 years but haven't drafted higher than 3rd.

If you're bad for 5-8 years, it would be incredibly unlucky to not get a top-5 pick or two, though.

Ehhh. Depends on what you consider incredibly unlucky. In 5 years under this system, the odds of not getting a top-5 pick would be ~15% (5% by year 8).

 

[MS]

A couple of ideas I like:

1. Once teams are mathematically eliminated, they then start to accrue points towards the first overall. Get eliminated early and you have more time to rack up points, but you better have enough talent to get some wins in.
2. Teams are paired with playoff teams based on their standings, for instance, 32nd team is paired with presidents trophy winner, etc. If your paired team wins the Stanley Cup, you get the first overall pick. Your paired team makes the finals but doesn't win? 2nd overall pick. Etc etc.

Both these options would be super chaotic and entertaining. I like the 2nd one because it would keep the entire NHL fanbase engaged with the playoffs.

The first suggestion does nothing to stop the central problem, which is incentivized losing. It just shifts the timeframe and moves the problem to a different part of the season.

The second suggestion is just a bizarre gimmick that makes zero sense. If I want chaos, I'll watch monster trucks. I don't think anyone wants our team's draft pick tied to whether Toronto or whoever manages to win in the playoffs. It's absurd.

Ehhh. Depends on what you consider incredibly unlucky. In 5 years under this system, the odds of not getting a top-5 pick would be ~15% (5% by year 8).

That would be pretty unlucky.

But again, I'm totally fine with that. Winnipeg is the smallest market in the NHL and have been consistently competitive despite one top-7 pick in their history that they didn't even get great value for in the end. Do better.

 

[Ernie]

The first suggestion does nothing to stop the central problem, which is incentivized losing. It just shifts the timeframe and moves the problem to a different part of the season.

The second suggestion is just a bizarre gimmick that makes zero sense. If I want chaos, I'll watch monster trucks. I don't think anyone wants our team's draft pick tied to whether Toronto or whoever manages to win in the playoffs. It's absurd.

I think you took this all a bit too seriously.

Also the first one would incentivize losing.. but then winning! At least the season would be entertaining right until the end.

 

[sting101]

The accrue pts from elimination game every game matters rule. This would be your draft order. Ducks and Canadiens lol

i love this option (tie breakers would be less pts overall)

Columbus 4-8-2 = 10pts
San Jose 3-9-3 = 9pts
Canucks 4-2 =8pts
Hawks 2-10-1 = 5pts
Ottawa 2-0-1 = 5pts
Coyotes 1-6-2 = 4pts
Flyers 2-5 = 4pts
Blues 2-3 = 4pts
Buffalo 2-0 = 4pts
Capitals 1-3-1 =3pts
Montreal 1-6 = 2pts
Flames 1-0 = 2pts
Pittsburgh 0-0-1 = 1 pt
Anaheim 0-12 = 0 pts
Detroit 0-4 = 0 pts
Nashville 0-1 = 0 pts

 

[racerjoe]

NHLPA would never agree to half the league losing an extra month of their offseason anyway, if it's a playoff-style tournament.

If it's just the post-deadline record, that creates a different set of issues. We'd never be giving a chance to NCAA free agents, as an example, if we were trying to win games.

Just go to an unweighted lottery for non-playoff teams. Everyone gets the same chance. Problem solved.

I don't know how it would work exactly, but my idea, is to tie playoffs for both into revenue that would count for the cap. That is why the NHLPA would go for it.

 

[604]

A jump from 1/30 to 1/15 is huge when you’re performing 100 distinct draws. With 2 draws, you can safely plan for the eventuality that you won’t hit on either.

But it’s not just one year:

There’s a draft lottery for losing teams every year. We always complain about not moving up (mostly moving down)…our reduced odds after winning late probably don’t help.

Also, we moved up 3 spots in the last two games. A late 1st would be a reasonable ask to move up 3 spots that early in the draft. So we gave up real world value.

I do not have the time to fit any sort of competitive poker into my life. In another reality, I would have loved to. In any case, I play once a week and I'm pretty decent.

Again, the potential of going from a 97% chance of not happening to a 94% chance of not happening is not something you change major decision-making processes of an organization over, and it's absolutely ludicrous to think that it could be.

The modification that needs to happen to the lottery is to go to a fully unweighted lottery to remove any/all incentive for teams to lose and fans to cheer for losing. It goes against the fundamental concept of sports and it's nauseating. It would be like watching the Olympics and having a Canadian figure skater sitting in 4th after the short program who then goes out and falls on purpose through the long program to get a bigger IOC grant because he thinks he can't catch 3rd. It sucks. And the endless discussions around it here suck, and aren't interesting.

Why not just lock the draft odds at the trade deadline? Seems a lot of the tanking happened late.

People forget that the lottery was brought in to reduce the benefit of tanking, so its not a new thing despite what people say.

Also, for the guy who said the Oilers only got McDavid and Drai, how are you ignoring a certain 104 point two-way centre from Burnaby.

It sucks we’re likely not drafting higher but it sucks more that we have to care about the lottery because our team sucks.

I hope we get Bedard or Michkov out of this draft. Otherwise, best RHD.

Worst case, they trade the pick to dump a contract.

 

[DFAC]

I would take Sale given that distribution. Edit: Cristall otherwise (despite Shinkaruk trauma).

Others I like are Perrault, ASP and I think Honzek has underrated value. Dvorsky not to be overlooked as well.

I could see Honzek and Dvorsky being taken earlier than expected like Nazar last year. Teams love big, reliable two ways centers. Could see them both sneak into the top 10

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

yeah... it wouldn't shock me to see Reinbacher available at 11.

 

[JohnHodgson]

yeah... it wouldn't shock me to see Reinbacher available at 11.

Would be funny to see that happen when all the "fans" crying for 8th place gets their guy anyway at 11.

This draft is going to be a completely crapshoot after the top 4 talents are off the board.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

It's going from a 97% chance of not happening to a 94% chance of not happening. That's not a 'crazy jump'. The general metrics that should frame your decision making are exactly the same.

I'd love to play poker against you.

Would you now ? I would happily meet you in person or online to play poker anytime. The fact that you think doubling your odds for zero cost isn't the move suggests you don't have a remote clue wtf you're talking about, especially poker wise. People make their living off of 3.5% at the poker table.

Doubling your odds, with no cost is something you just do if you can. 1% or 20%. This horse has been beaten to death, but this winning to prove something was stupid. It was done for the fair weather fans to keep buying tickets. That's it.

(Don't bother with the notion we need to win now for Pettersson and Hughes to stay here. It's nonsense. You know what would do a lot more than winning bs games at the end of a bs season? Actually having the players to consistently compete.)

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

Would be funny to see that happen when all the "fans" crying for 8th place gets their guy anyway at 11.

This draft is going to be a completely crapshoot after the top 4 talents are off the board.

I think ppl are crying more about the higher lotto odds, with the 8th as the consolidation. I mean, 1 and 2 are both absurd talents.

With these new rankings coming up, it wouldn't surprise me to see Reinbacher gone as early as 5th to Montreal, which I think would be an awful pick there.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

I could see Honzek and Dvorsky being taken earlier than expected like Nazar last year. Teams love big, reliable two ways centers. Could see them both sneak into the top 10

One of these are my hopes of being available for Van. I can't see them both going top 10. There's just too much talent everywhere. Unless everyone dodges the wingers (which I think would a mistake in Sale and Cristal)

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

A jump from 1/30 to 1/15 is huge when you’re performing 100 distinct draws. With 2 draws, you can safely plan for the eventuality that you won’t hit on either.

This is true, and maybe I'm using my years of playing competitive poker, but haven't we gone through this 7 out of the last 8 years ? Your odds are still doubled. It doesn't matter if the odds are low or not. It's at zero cost. If there was *any*, it would make sense, but there isn't, so it doesn't. This isn't a hard concept, and it's hilarious to see smart people dance around it.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Would be funny to see that happen when all the "fans" crying for 8th place gets their guy anyway at 11.

This draft is going to be a completely crapshoot after the top 4 talents are off the board.

You are a true fan. I can tell.

 

[pitseleh]

I don’t think framing the issue as going from. 97% chance of something not happening versus a 94% chance of not happening is the right way of thinking about it, because you also have to consider the expected value of hitting.

Teams routinely trade a bunch of futures at the deadline to improve their single shot odds of winning the Cup by less than that. And rightfully so, since that should be the only goal.

Adding Bedard to this team instead of whoever they will get at 11 probably increases the teams chances of winning the Cup by an order of magnitude. A 3% chance of having that happen is huge for a team that needs to hit on long shots to even be in the conversation.

Especially weighed against things like a couple extra starts for Demko, a few more minutes for the top players, etc. While nice, that incremental value isn’t going to move the needle for winning the Cup.

I agree the drop from 8 to 11 is immaterial - a difference in value of a pick around ~75. But the loss of opportunity to get Bedard certainly is.

 

[Ernie]

I don’t think framing the issue as going from. 97% chance of something not happening versus a 94% chance of not happening is the right way of thinking about it, because you also have to consider the expected value of hitting.

Teams routinely trade a bunch of futures at the deadline to improve their single shot odds of winning the Cup by less than that. And rightfully so, since that should be the only goal.

Adding Bedard to this team instead of whoever they will get at 11 probably increases the teams chances of winning the Cup by an order of magnitude. A 3% chance of having that happen is huge for a team that needs to hit on long shots to even be in the conversation.

Especially weighed against things like a couple extra starts for Demko, a few more minutes for the top players, etc. While nice, that incremental value isn’t going to move the needle for winning the Cup.

I agree the drop from 8 to 11 is immaterial - a difference in value of a pick around ~75. But the loss of opportunity to get Bedard certainly is.

But did the couple of extra starts for Demko and an extra 3 minutes a game for Hughes and Pettersson really push them from 8 to 11? It's hard to see how that would be adding up to 4 points unless you're really counting on Delia crapping the bed, but ultimately he went 3-2 in the starts he did have.

I see those as relatively symbolic moves that were intended to send the team a signal for the next season. I think it was as a reasonable tactic to meet their short term goals, even if I think the overall strategy of trying to compete with this roster is going to fail long term.