Prospect Info: Senators Prospect Talk 2014-2015 Part I

[God Says No]

They also have Grigorenko. They will be stacked in a couple years.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

They also have Grigorenko. They will be stacked in a couple years.

I think grigorenko will be deemed expendable sooner rather than later. Traded for a winger to play for one of those centers.

 

[Savitar]

Nick Paul scores his 15th goal of the season! 1-0 NorthBay

 

[Savitar]

Francios Perton has 1 goal and 2 assists so far tonight

 

[Savitar]

Nick Paul now has his 2nd of the night and 16th of the season

 

[KnuckChuckinTkachuk]

2 Goals for Paul tonight, thats 16 in 18 so far.

 

[Carrie Underwood]

Paul is an interesting prospect. Great defensively, can clearly score, and is 6'3 and 220 at this point...

 

[Xspyrit]

Some think any team that is bad and drafts really good players first overall are going to be just like Edmonton. I don't think buffalo Will.
My other point is it's good to be bad in the short term so that you can be great in the long term.

Hopefully, NHL will stop rewarding sucking in the near future. The draft lottery seems to be heading in the right direction.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Hopefully, NHL will stop rewarding sucking in the near future. The draft lottery seems to be heading in the right direction.

Agreed. I like the new distribution of percentages.

 

[Ice-Tray]

The NHL hardly rewards "Sucking". It's hard enough to tank and get the top pick. As hard as it should be. There are no guarantees, and crap team should get the best picks as a general philosophy in the league. It's not like Buffalo has a decent team that has buried talent and is planing possum to get McD.

Get real

 

[Micklebot]

The NHL hardly rewards "Sucking". It's hard enough to tank and get the top pick. As hard as it should be. There are no guarantees, and crap team should get the best picks as a general philosophy in the league. It's not like Buffalo has a decent team that has buried talent and is planing possum to get McD.

Get real

I get that we need to help bad teams get better, and that giving them the high draft pick does that, but in an ideal world, the incentive to finish 9th in the conference should be greater than the incentive to finish last in the conference; do you agree?

The solution isn't as simple as just raffling off the draft picks to make it less desirable to finish last, but at the same time Pittsburgh (Lemieux) and Ottawa (Daigle) have proven that intentional tanking exists. They were both bad teams to begin with, but rather than try and get better, they made themselves worse to get a windfall. I don't see how that is a good thing. Rules have changed since then, but it still seems like you are better off being Buffalo bad than Toronto bad.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

Francios Perton has 1 goal and 2 assists so far tonight

Really nice to see him doing so well.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I get that we need to help bad teams get better, and that giving them the high draft pick does that, but in an ideal world, the incentive to finish 9th in the conference should be greater than the incentive to finish last in the conference; do you agree?

The solution isn't as simple as just raffling off the draft picks to make it less desirable to finish last, but at the same time Pittsburgh (Lemieux) and Ottawa (Daigle) have proven that intentional tanking exists. They were both bad teams to begin with, but rather than try and get better, they made themselves worse to get a windfall. I don't see how that is a good thing. Rules have changed since then, but it still seems like you are better off being Buffalo bad than Toronto bad.

I do agree, though I think the system that is in place right now might be the best way. That way the crappy teams get high picks, but not a guarantee to get #1

 

[Minister of Offence]

I get that we need to help bad teams get better, and that giving them the high draft pick does that, but in an ideal world, the incentive to finish 9th in the conference should be greater than the incentive to finish last in the conference; do you agree?

The solution isn't as simple as just raffling off the draft picks to make it less desirable to finish last, but at the same time Pittsburgh (Lemieux) and Ottawa (Daigle) have proven that intentional tanking exists. They were both bad teams to begin with, but rather than try and get better, they made themselves worse to get a windfall. I don't see how that is a good thing. Rules have changed since then, but it still seems like you are better off being Buffalo bad than Toronto bad.

The incentive to finish 9th was the incentive to finish 8th (playoffs) before the season finished.

Congratulations, you just missed
The playoffs and here's your prize: a young star player.

I understand your logic but it's kinda silly when you understand that every gm with a decent team is looking for playoff revenues. Any team bad enough has no chance.

It's fine the way it is.

 

[Benjamin]

Its not a reward. Its an attempt at balance.

"I hate this team for sucking. Better make it harder for them to get better."

Buffalo fans seem to be enjoying their rebuild more than there mediocre attempt to get the last playoff spot.

 

[Micklebot]

The incentive to finish 9th was the incentive to finish 8th (playoffs) before the season finished.

Congratulations, you just missed
The playoffs and here's your prize: a young star player.

I understand your logic but it's kinda silly when you understand that every gm with a decent team is looking for playoff revenues. Any team bad enough has no chance.

It's fine the way it is.

I think you're missing the point; if you're one of those bad teams that really doesn't stand much of a shot, what is the incentive to add to your team at the deadline or even hold pat and be as good a team as you can be to finish off the season? I'm not saying give the teams that just missed better picks, I really don't see an answer to be honest (relegation simply wouldn't work in the NHL, but at least that provides incentive not to finish last).

We've got two different carrots for team to go after, one of them is rewarding the wrong thing, but has to be there in order to promote parity. I wouldn't mind if we made that second carrot less appealing.

 

[Ice-Tray]

There is no incentive, and nor should there be.

It's the ebb and flow of the game. The punishment for sucking is a decrease in fanbase, less revenue for the owner, and a crap rep in the league. But the league gives you a good draft position so that you can build your way (back) up to a competing level.

There is absolutely no incentive to pick up or add to a roster that is clearly needing a rebuild.

What they HAVE done is make it so that the first over all is not a sure thing, and that the bottom teams all have a chance to move up.

This is as far as things need to go. Teams don't really tank, they don't try and lose games, if the roster sucks, it sucks, but don't think for a second that anyone involved doesn't want the team to get better, as soon as make sense for the long term. Usually that means sucking for a bit while drafting good players.

 

[Minister of Offence]

I think you're missing the point; if you're one of those bad teams that really doesn't stand much of a shot, what is the incentive to add to your team at the deadline or even hold pat and be as good a team as you can be to finish off the season? I'm not saying give the teams that just missed better picks, I really don't see an answer to be honest (relegation simply wouldn't work in the NHL, but at least that provides incentive not to finish last).

We've got two different carrots for team to go after, one of them is rewarding the wrong thing, but has to be there in order to promote parity. I wouldn't mind if we made that second carrot less appealing.

I think fans are under the false impression that tanking is easy. Ice tray mentions good reasons why above. Tanking for the most part is this fantasy world that lives in the fans mind (especially at a place called hockey's future).

Owners ****ing hate the idea. And in the scenario of a deadbeat market that can't get off the ground, the change to get someone young and marketable is good for the league.

indont think its regular practice for teams to be okay with finishing last. I think it's more common that some front offices are inept and some markets are much harder to get off the ground.

I mean imagine the LA kings have a rough season and instead of 8th, they finish 9th and get a top pick?

The team that typically gets the top pick is usually a team that really ****ing needs it.

not sure why this is such an issue with people. No sense overcomplicating the draft order.

Maybe if we're seeinf groups of bottom feeders racing to the bottom spot. But I haven't seen that.

 

[Micklebot]

There is no incentive, and nor should there be.

It's the ebb and flow of the game. The punishment for sucking is a decrease in fanbase, less revenue for the owner, and a crap rep in the league. But the league gives you a good draft position so that you can build your way (back) up to a competing level.

There is absolutely no incentive to pick up or add to a roster that is clearly needing a rebuild.

What they HAVE done is make it so that the first over all is not a sure thing, and that the bottom teams all have a chance to move up.

This is as far as things need to go. Teams don't really tank, they don't try and lose games, if the roster sucks, it sucks, but don't think for a second that everyone involved wants the team to get better, as soon as make sense for the long term. Usually that means sucking for a bit while drafting good players.

Of course the team want to get better, the point is that for one season once they establish that they are not in a position to make the playoffs they are better off long term by being as bad as possible. There really is no fix to that in the current make-up of the league. The draft pick structure does what it needs to do, I think we all agree on that. But teams clearly do actively make themselves worse at the trade deadline, and sometimes for very minimal gain (Does drafting Make us better long term than keeping Kovalev? We don't likely get a player as good as Fisher for the 2nd he got us)

Players will always try to win, as will coaches, but gm's are paid to look at both long and short term. It's fine to be ok with how the current system works, but saying there is no incentive to lose is quite frankly just being willfully ignorant. As for the lottery making it really hard to tank, you can only move down one spot if you lose the lottery, so there is still lots of value to be had by dropping 5-6 spots. Top 5 picks are traditionally far better than 6-10.

As I said, relegation is an effective way to discourage bottoming out, it just doesn't work for the NHL. I don't think that any team goes into the season with the intention of finishing last (not even Buffalo this year), but imo the ideal scenario has every team trying to be as good as it can all season long. That doesn't happen right now.

 

[Minister of Offence]

Of course the team want to get better, the point is that for one season once they establish that they are not in a position to make the playoffs they are better off long term by being as bad as possible. There really is no fix to that in the current make-up of the league. The draft pick structure does what it needs to do, I think we all agree on that. But teams clearly do actively make themselves worse at the trade deadline, and sometimes for very minimal gain (Does drafting Make us better long term than keeping Kovalev? We don't likely get a player as good as Fisher for the 2nd he got us)

Players will always try to win, as will coaches, but gm's are paid to look at both long and short term. It's fine to be ok with how the current system works, but saying there is no incentive to lose is quite frankly just being willfully ignorant. As for the lottery making it really hard to tank, you can only move down one spot if you lose the lottery, so there is still lots of value to be had by dropping 5-6 spots. Top 5 picks are traditionally far better than 6-10.

As I said, relegation is an effective way to discourage bottoming out, it just doesn't work for the NHL. I don't think that any team goes into the season with the intention of finishing last (not even Buffalo this year), but imo the ideal scenario has every team trying to be as good as it can all season long. That doesn't happen right now.

Teams dish players at the deadline because

A) player is a pending UFA and will sign elsewhere

B) get picks/prospects


They don't do this in order to get worse although thats obviously a possibility. We got better after we dished our vets.

We got a 1st for fisher and Althogu there's no certainty you get a player as good, competent teams do expect to get a good player that is under control for 7-8 years.

Very few teams outright try to lose as much as possible.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Of course the team want to get better, the point is that for one season once they establish that they are not in a position to make the playoffs they are better off long term by being as bad as possible. There really is no fix to that in the current make-up of the league. The draft pick structure does what it needs to do, I think we all agree on that. But teams clearly do actively make themselves worse at the trade deadline, and sometimes for very minimal gain (Does drafting Make us better long term than keeping Kovalev? We don't likely get a player as good as Fisher for the 2nd he got us)

I don't think any team that has a shot at the playoffs even considers it a better option to just give up. What I do see, and understand completely, are teams that maybe could squeak in if they sold off young assets for short term gain. The problem here is that when you chase the short term gains it becomes a never ending cycle, with your squad getting slightly worse each time around. The smart move is to sacrifice in the short term by collecting young assets, drafting well, and being patient. Yes, the second makes us better in the long term, given that we were already a downward trending team. Also, the wants of the vets in question need to be considered; older players like to be given a shot at contending at the deadline if their team is targeting a rebuild.

Players will always try to win, as will coaches, but gm's are paid to look at both long and short term. It's fine to be ok with how the current system works, but saying there is no incentive to lose is quite frankly just being willfully ignorant. As for the lottery making it really hard to tank, you can only move down one spot if you lose the lottery, so there is still lots of value to be had by dropping 5-6 spots. Top 5 picks are traditionally far better than 6-10.

I know what you're saying, I just think it goes down that way. My point is not to say that there aren't rewards to finishing in the basement, it's that the cost of such a situation means that your team is crap. The team being crap carries A LOT of negatives that owner's, managers, coaches, players, and fans dislike. It's a huge price to pay just to get a high pick. I disagree that it is done willfully when there are better options. Rather, rebuilds occur when management no longer feels that the current team is able to progress to a level that will allow them to contend for a championship. When that happens, a plan is put in place to trade older players that will not be part of the rebuild, and start creating a new core. There really is no other way to go about it that makes sense. You can't pour money into a sinking team, just to avoid sucking.

As I said, relegation is an effective way to discourage bottoming out, it just doesn't work for the NHL. I don't think that any team goes into the season with the intention of finishing last (not even Buffalo this year), but imo the ideal scenario has every team trying to be as good as it can all season long. That doesn't happen right now.

I disagree, I think that Buffalo is trying to be as good as it can given the circumstances. they aren't hiding a ton of talent in the minors, and they haven't iced a rookie team. I'm interested to see what you think they could do differently. I mean they could trade pics and prospects for established players, but I think we could all agree that that would be much more likely to make the other team better. How then exactly is a team to do a ground up rebuild without being labelled as tanking cheaters?

 

[Karlsson2Turris*]

IMO a team such as NYR/Toronto/Montreal is a team that can realistically financially afford to tank a season. Hockey isn't a very popular sport (compared to others) and most teams would suffer financially by tanking.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

IMO a team such as NYR/Toronto/Montreal is a team that can realistically financially afford to tank a season. Hockey isn't a very popular sport (compared to others) and most teams would suffer financially by tanking.

Oh and we are most definitely one of those teams... for one year though... im sure melnyk would rather have mcdavid ( massive marketing tool that we have never had) for the next 15 years. than finish 9th in the east. heck i think he would rather have mcdavid long term than finish 8th in the east this year.

Note: all hypothetical.

 

[Sens Rule]

Oh and we are most definitely one of those teams... for one year though... im sure melnyk would rather have mcdavid ( massive marketing tool that we have never had) for the next 15 years. than finish 9th in the east. heck i think he would rather have mcdavid long term than finish 8th in the east this year.

Note: all hypothetical.

No we can't. We draw 20k fans for a winner. We outdrew the Leafs in our Cup finals year and the year before. (Bigger arena here).

Now we are drawing 16-17k for some games.

When we truly sucked a few tears ago the Canadian Flag sent around during the anthem had a hard time staying off the ground we had so many empty (and expensive 100 level seats).

If we suck... We lose like 30% of team revenue vs when we are elite. We can't tank.

The team won't fold if we suck for 3 or 4 years. But it sure won't turn a profit. We win we come close to selling out 41 games a year at higher ticket prices. We sick and we will have many 15k and 16k games. Win 19k and 20k games.

We aren't the Rangers or the Leafs. And our rich owner is not so rich anymore so we can't hemorrhage money by being terrible and drawing bad. Nor pass on playoff revenue.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

I like the system they're going to implement next year, where the top 3 picks are a weighted lottery. It means there's a chance a team that's a middle of the pack bubble team stuck forever in the dead zone has a small chance of getting an impact top pick, while at the same time the bottom dweller can pick no lower than 4th.

It's a lot better than what we're seeing now in Buffalo. We've all seen them jettison some good players for first round picks for this McJesus draft....don't anyone dare say they weren't doing this to tank. It has been their blueprint for almost two seasons now, and why they're screaming bloody murder at the thought of their draft odds dropping to 20% with the recent rule changes. Everything they've done int he last two seasons now has revolved around a complete teardown and rebuild with McDavid (or failing that Eichel) as the centerpiece.