Which 1st Rounder to Forfeit?

[NyQuil]

But giving up for sure is giving in and there is no way they should do that until the bitter end.

Chances are they will be better next season.

There is such a huge gulf between the top ten and the next twenty picks that I’d manage my risk appropriately.

How much would we conceivably improve from this year? And what would be the consequence to our draft position?

I think it’s extremely obvious but I guess not everyone sees it the same way.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

There is such a huge gulf between the top ten and the next twenty picks that I’d manage my risk appropriately.

How much would we conceivably improve from this year? And what would be the consequence to our draft position?

I think it’s extremely obvious but I guess not everyone sees it the same way.

with our current amateur scouting staff you have to expand that next twenty picks to next 40 picks and expect a project.

 

[Emrasie]

.

 

[Hale The Villain]

There are mixed messages about the league reducing the punishment, but the problem with this strategy is that losing our 2025 pick would close the book on that since it would resolve the case with the league. So I don't think the above is a solution if we take the Andlauer comments at face value.

I suggested something similar earlier in the thread. The idea being we could possibly trade our 2026 pick for a 2025 pick in the same range as we are picking, but include some form of protection that we wouldn't get if we gave up the 2026 pick to the league. When I made that suggestion, the most recent comment about the league reducing the punishment was Staios being dismissive to the idea that it is a consideration.

If we take the league punishment aspect out of it, and assume this is set in stone, then in a scenario where we want to stay in the 2025 draft, it probably makes sense to explore what our 2026 protected pick is worth to teams picking in the range of our pick (19th currently). That range likely being determined by where we see the tier the 19th pick is in cutting off. It could be a draft where we can't move any farther back and still get a similar player, or 19th could already be far enough back that we missed out on the higher tiers and even moving back to the late 20s would produce what we would consider to be a similar player. In that scenario, it would be pretty easy to flip our 2026 1st with playoff protection for a pick in the 20+ type range. I'm sure someone who has multiple picks might bite.

Has their been any indication that the league is open to reducing the punishment?

I might have missed something but from what I remember there's only been repeated confirmation from Staios and Bettman himself, when asked by Garrioch, that the penalty is not likely to be reduced or cancelled.

I don't think this is a Devils/Kovalchuk situation where the league eventually relented and gifted them a pick at the end of the 1st. The penalty itself was suspect, in the sense that several other teams were throwing similar contracts around with the intention of subverting the cap and the Devils were made an example of, while the other teams got off scot free. It was also helped by Kovalchuk voiding the contract by going back to Russia, so Devils didn't get the benefit the pick penalty was supposed to help negate.

This seems more like when the Yotes lost their 1st in 2021 for cheating. League didn't budge on their penalty, despite Arizona being their own pet project as a failing franchise that needed all the help from the league they could get to remain afloat.

Andlauer may not want to go ahead with surrending a pick and admitting defeat in his quest to get a break from the league, but unless he's got a real sense that it's a distinct possibility, we really should be giving up this year's pick.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Also speaking of the Devils, they waited until the bitter end to give up their 1st, despite having the opportunity to give up the 29th overall pick after their cup run in 2012, and the pick they ended up losing a couple years later was the 10th overall selection in 2014.

Yeah they got gifted a pick at the end of the 1st due to the reasons I listed above, but John Quenneville was a poor consolation price when Kevin Fiala was available at 10.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

I voted for giving up this year's pick for a few reasons:

1. We should keep improving.
2. An extra year of development for a prospect matters given that we don't have a huge window for contention.
3. Still that small chance that the league will reduce the penalty.

All that being said I would be OK with giving up this year's pick as well. A 19th (or worse) OA pick is unlikely to be a game changer and the possibility for bad luck, injuries, coach losing the room, etc. does exist. It would sting losing a top 10 pick in a great draft next year.

One thing to consider is that we have a fair bit more draft capital next year. That could enable us to do some moving up (a few spots) in probably next year's draft.

Honestly there is no good answer. It's been a long while since I thought of Dorion but f*** that guy. What a clown.

 

[Ice-Tray]

If we bottom out due to some anomaly, we get a huge infusion of skill into our line-up and we go right back to winning again the following year.

To me it's a no-brainer to give this year's away.

Sure, except we most likely won’t bottom out instead potentially getting a worse pick that is just another year away from helping a team that is on the rise.

I don’t think it’s a big deal either way really, no reason to overthink it.

I suspect they will see where the final pick ends up, consider what players they have available in their range, and make a final decision then

 

[Ice-Tray]

A wildcard team missing the playoffs the following year isn’t really an anomaly.

Anyway, I haven’t been a fan of the way this team has drafted over the last 4 drafts. At the very least deferring the pick means there’s a chance a new scouting staff gets to work on making the pick. The homework for the 2025 deaft is pretty mych done.

The first rounder will be on Staois and the top brass no matter which year it is, if he’s like most GMs.

I understand the sentiment though.

 

[NyQuil]

Sure, except we most likely won’t bottom out instead potentially getting a worse pick that is just another year away from helping a team that is on the rise.

I don’t think it’s a big deal either way really, no reason to overthink it.

I suspect they will see where the final pick ends up, consider what players they have available in their range, and make a final decision then

Losing a few spots and having a prospect join a potentially competitive team a year later doesn’t bother as much as seeing a potential superstar get missed because we have a whole bunch of bad luck for whatever reason.

Anyway, I’m curious if they will let us in on the rationale when they make the decision.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Losing a few spots and having a prospect join a potentially competitive team a year later doesn’t bother as much as seeing a potential superstar get missed because we have a whole bunch of bad luck for whatever reason.

Anyway, I’m curious if they will let us in on the rationale when they make the decision.

I understand playing the odds of a collapse to hopefully pick at the top of the draft.

But if we’re going to play the odds, wouldn’t it make sense to hold on to the pick in hopes that we will be able to convince Gary to lower the penalty over the course of the next year.

Anyways, I do think it would be most prudent to see where we pick this year, and who we have available on our list in that area, and then make an informed decision rather than simply choosing the mystery pick next season because we may collapse.

 

[frightenedinmatenum2]

Has their been any indication that the league is open to reducing the punishment?

I might have missed something but from what I remember there's only been repeated confirmation from Staios and Bettman himself, when asked by Garrioch, that the penalty is not likely to be reduced or cancelled.

I don't think this is a Devils/Kovalchuk situation where the league eventually relented and gifted them a pick at the end of the 1st. The penalty itself was suspect, in the sense that several other teams were throwing similar contracts around with the intention of subverting the cap and the Devils were made an example of, while the other teams got off scot free. It was also helped by Kovalchuk voiding the contract by going back to Russia, so Devils didn't get the benefit the pick penalty was supposed to help negate.

This seems more like when the Yotes lost their 1st in 2021 for cheating. League didn't budge on their penalty, despite Arizona being their own pet project as a failing franchise that needed all the help from the league they could get to remain afloat.

Andlauer may not want to go ahead with surrending a pick and admitting defeat in his quest to get a break from the league, but unless he's got a real sense that it's a distinct possibility, we really should be giving up this year's pick.

People posted an article that I assume is recent where Andlauer mentions it being a factor in possibly keeping this year.

Prior to that, the most recent time it was brought up was with Staios at the online fan Q&A, and he seemed to pour water on it and make it sound like it wasn't a factor.

Ultimately, we both are probably in agreement that they should give up the pick this year.

I think it is possible that Andlauer is simply posturing so that if Staios does give up the pick, it doesn't come off like the organization giving up the pick now is a note of non-confidence in the team. Having their owner publicly state he would keep the pick in advance of the GM giving it helps push against that being a narrative that the media could run with.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I would give up pick next year, and in no way should they be trading a first, that would mean no firsts 2 years in a row, you need some cheap contracts later.

No use banking on Sens behind worse next year, you use all the time you have to keep on the NHL, to lower the penalty.

 

[RyCam]

IIRC the team has the chance all the way up to our turn to decide whether to forfeit or not(please correct me if I'm wrong). Given that option, we should default to keeping it as long as the player(s) we want is/are on the board. The moment we feel that we can get our players with later picks, get rid of it.

That said, if I had to choose before the draft, I'd pick the sure thing and forfeit this year's pick.

 

[OD99]

IIRC the team has the chance all the way up to our turn to decide whether to forfeit or not(please correct me if I'm wrong). Given that option, we should default to keeping it as long as the player(s) we want is/are on the board. The moment we feel that we can get our players with later picks, get rid of it.

That said, if I had to choose before the draft, I'd pick the sure thing and forfeit this year's pick.

I believe we have to decide within 24 hours of the draft lottery.

 

[RyCam]

I believe we have to decide within 24 hours of the draft lottery.

Given this, I would choose to forfeit this year's pick. Although it's too early to talk about next season, I am optimistic about our team next year, but a disastrous injury, an extremely poor stretch of games, or even a disastrous offseason(eg. Calgary Flames 2022 offseason) can easily drop you from the top to the bottom of the league.

 

[SomaliHackey]

Definitely not the McKenna one.

 

[Cosmix]

with our current amateur scouting staff you have to expand that next twenty picks to next 40 picks and expect a project.

By "amateur" I assume you are not referring to their lack of professional expertise at scouting, right? Or wrong?

 

[Cosmix]

Given this, I would choose to forfeit this year's pick. Although it's too early to talk about next season, I am optimistic about our team next year, but a disastrous injury, an extremely poor stretch of games, or even a disastrous offseason(eg. Calgary Flames 2022 offseason) can easily drop you from the top to the bottom of the league.

I doubt that the team will drop out of the playoff picture next season, but I also doubt that we will advance much higher in the standings due to the lack of NHL ready prospects and our limited attraction value for UFAs versus other cities in the USA (tax and weather advantages).

 

[Cosmix]

People posted an article that I assume is recent where Andlauer mentions it being a factor in possibly keeping this year.

Prior to that, the most recent time it was brought up was with Staios at the online fan Q&A, and he seemed to pour water on it and make it sound like it wasn't a factor.

Ultimately, we both are probably in agreement that they should give up the pick this year.

I think it is possible that Andlauer is simply posturing so that if Staios does give up the pick, it doesn't come off like the organization giving up the pick now is a note of non-confidence in the team. Having their owner publicly state he would keep the pick in advance of the GM giving it helps push against that being a narrative that the media could run with.

It's unfortunate that the team cannot make the decision to give up the piece at the time they would make the pick in the draft rather than the date linked to the draft lottery. Is the decision date before or after the draft lottery?

 

[Golden_Jet]

It's unfortunate that the team cannot make the decision to give up the piece at the time they would make the pick in the draft rather than the date linked to the draft lottery. Is the decision date before or after the draft lottery?

24 hours after

 

[Ice-Tray]

I’m so annoyed by this….

 

[frightenedinmatenum2]

It's unfortunate that the team cannot make the decision to give up the piece at the time they would make the pick in the draft rather than the date linked to the draft lottery. Is the decision date before or after the draft lottery?

The closest thing they can do would be to pre-arrange a trade with a team that would send the 2026 1st (ideally with protection) to them for a 2025 1st in a similar condition, with the trade being conditional on the right guy being available. Then if he is there, they can call in the trade.

Calgary has 18 and 22. Montreal has 16 and 17. Columbus has 13 and 20. Philadelphia has 24 and 25, etc. So there are multiple teams who have multiple picks in the vicinity of where Ottawa currently picks at 21.

I think it is reasonable to think that at least one of those teams might be open to swapping one of their picks for a 2026 1st with some protection.

Of course, if the incentive for keeping the pick is some idea that the league is going to withdraw or lower the punishment, then that isn't relevant.

 

[frightenedinmatenum2]

I’m so annoyed by this….

It's annoying, but the positive way to look at it is that some pundits were claiming that GMs were looking at late 1sts as being worth less this year, and with us picking 21 or later, we're getting off pretty easy compared to some of the worst case scenarios that most could have probably dreamed up last year when the rumour first broke that we might lose a 1st.