Sun God Nika
Palestine 🇵🇸
Delay and keep pushing to lighten the punishment to something like drafting last in the first round of 2026
Would you rather forfeit a mid 2025 first rounder or a low 2026 first rounder?
- Thread starter Bjornar Moxnes
- Start date
I'd be tempted to give our up 1st this year just given the fact our insanely out-of-touch scouting staff is still in place, and there's a good chance they reach for some player ranked late 1st/early 2nd that has the attributes they want in a player (mainly size, physical play and PIM totals).
frightenedinmatenum2
Registered User
There is too much parity in the league, and teams are very often not consistent from year-to-year.
The downside of giving up a lottery pick, even if low, is not worth the upside of getting the 32nd pick and keeping a pick in the back half of the draft (assuming we finish in a playoff spot)
If Andlauer was willing to give up the Boston pick, I doubt he realistically expects any kind of reversal from the league.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 27,100
- 14,210
Had nothing to do with any reversal, it was about fixing the goaltending and shipping out Korpi.
frightenedinmatenum2
Registered User
I wasn't referring to the trade.
I was referring to it being publicly known that the Sens tried to offer the BOS pick as a compromise and the league said no.
Norris4Norris
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2022
- 517
- 378
But isn't the 16th pick a lottery pick?
So I would take that pick over a late 1st next year. But there is not telling we don't get a lottery pick next year or a higher lottery pick than 16 this year...
I too am optimistic that we will be in the playoffs this year and finish even better next year... but have you heard of jinxing something? Counting chickens before they see the light of day type of thing.
So I would take that pick over a late 1st next year. But there is not telling we don't get a lottery pick next year or a higher lottery pick than 16 this year...
I too am optimistic that we will be in the playoffs this year and finish even better next year... but have you heard of jinxing something? Counting chickens before they see the light of day type of thing.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 27,100
- 14,210
No it’s not a lottery pick, and could never end up winning the lottery either.
Norris4Norris
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2022
- 517
- 378
Help me understand,
32 teams, 16 make the playoffs, 16 don't.
The 16 that don't have chances assigned to the lottery, right? So the 16th has a chance to win the lottery, 0.5 percent I think.
It is a lottery pick but you can only move up a max of 10 slots so if you’re 16th and you win it’s technically the 6th overall pick.
Regardless though it doesn’t matter because the decision can be made after the lottery draw, so the Sens would know if they won and had the 6th overall when making that decision.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 27,100
- 14,210
No that changed 3 drafts ago.
You can only move up 10 spots
And only 2 lottery picks now, not 3
frightenedinmatenum2
Registered User
When people say give up a lottery pick I think the inference is it is an unprotected shot at a high pick. We could have a step back, injuries, etc, and end up giving up a top 5 pick or worse 1st OA via the lottery.
Even if we miss the playoffs this year, they are allowed to wait for the conclusion of the lottery to decide whether to give up the pick.
If Andlauer actually tried to negotiate to give up the Boston pick, I think it's fair to assume that they may give up our pick this year if it's in the back half of the round like that one. Wanting to give up the Boston pick says they value cost certainty if giving up a playoff pick over getting a prospect 1 year earlier and risking that they give up a better pick.
If the Sens make the playoffs and have a positive run, should they really want to have the negativity of an unprotected 1st being given to the league? Every loss would be magnified by that story. It's better to get it over with and have cost certainty.
Even if we miss the playoffs this year, they are allowed to wait for the conclusion of the lottery to decide whether to give up the pick.
If Andlauer actually tried to negotiate to give up the Boston pick, I think it's fair to assume that they may give up our pick this year if it's in the back half of the round like that one. Wanting to give up the Boston pick says they value cost certainty if giving up a playoff pick over getting a prospect 1 year earlier and risking that they give up a better pick.
If the Sens make the playoffs and have a positive run, should they really want to have the negativity of an unprotected 1st being given to the league? Every loss would be magnified by that story. It's better to get it over with and have cost certainty.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 27,100
- 14,210
I won’t say a 100%, cause never say never
But I’ll say 99% it’s 2026 they forfeit, keep trying until run out of options.
Last edited:
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
It is absolutely a problem. We have been graduating our last good prospects oustide of Yak (Greig, Kleven, Ostapchuk) and had to sign Perron, Amadio, Gregor, Cousins, Gaudette, MacEwen and Hamonic recently and they play most games. It would be nice to have good prospects to fill SOME of these roles instead.
Look at the Stars for example, they have a stacked team but are still graduating quality prospects on the way like Wyatt Johnston, Logan Stankoven, Mavrik Bourque, Thomas Harley, Lian Bichsel, Oskar Back...
ok f*** it, let's just win the Cup to close out the debate?
Yeah OP, the 20-32 defeated the purpose of your poll.
Well, I didn't say it wasn't a problem, just that it was overblown in my opinion. But I think it's a nuanced issue. I don't think you can ever predict the future and things happen, from injuries, to trade requests to players leaving in FA etc, so I recognize that not having many real options is not a good thing.
But the present day gaps on this team are A. Winger for Stutzle B. Partner for Sanderson (upgrade on Zub? or Zub himself just staying healthy?) C. A back-up goalie.
You can fix A and C quite easily in the off-season - those pieces are available every year and teams that do their homework find good ones. The RD that can handle top pair minutes will be tougher, and I will say I am not a fan of the idea of rushing Yakemchuk. But who knows, maybe Staios can get crafty there.
Bottom line for me is your prospect pool is a tool to fill holes, and especially in a place like Ottawa, you need to rely on it more than a team like Florida. But if you take Stutzle, Tkachuk, Batherson, Norris, Pinto, Greig, Ostapchuk, Chabot, Sanderson, Kleven, Yakemchuk then you are talking about 7/12 forwards, 4/6 dmen. And your goalie is in place. If you can't fill the rest via pro-scouting then that's on you. I doubt you have many teams with more youth than that, and if they have more, I bet they aren't good. (Mind you I recognize some of them aren't that young, but they are young enough that they should be good players for at least 5 more years).
aragorn
Do The Right Thing
- Aug 8, 2004
- 29,316
- 10,038
Ottawa needs a good scoring/playmaking RW to replace Giroux who we can see although still good is slowly aging out. There are a few RW in the 2025 draft who could go in the teens where Ott could be drafting. If they are, I would keep it & forfeit the 2026, since IMO they will be even better next season & could end up drafting much later. Why give it up sooner, I'd rather wait to the last second before giving it up? And I'd be looking to make a trade to get another first if possible to replace it.
Tuna99
Registered User
- Sep 26, 2009
- 16,346
- 8,255
Ottawas pro scouting has given me faith we can fill the holes, especially with salary coming off the books this season and the cap going up - we have a couple of major holes to fill but not lots of holes, only 1 or 2 we could solve via trade / FA
- Jan 22, 2010
- 10,581
- 5,928
