Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
10th is an extreme longshot.
While the odds of winning the lottery and picking 1st are low, the odds of Ottawa picking top 4 this year are very high.
Their choice was keep the 4th this year and give up next year, or give up the 4th this year.
Considering where things were with Karlsson and Hoffman, and the lack of progress on a contract with Stone, plus the fact that Buffalo and Arizona are probably improved this year,IMO it was an easy call to give up the 4th and keep the lottery pick.
If Ottawa finishes 31st, the pick has a 100% chance of being top 4.
If they finish 30th, it has a 82.1% chance of being top 4.
If they finish 29th, it has a 47.1% chance of being top 4.
How many people think Ottawa has any kind of realistic chance of finishing higher than bottom 3?
|
I do. There are several other teams in the running for worst overall, and they can't all finish in the bottom 3.
Last season, there were two teams below 70 points, and then Detroit, Vancouver, Montreal, and Arizona tightly grouped from 70 to 73. The difference between third-worst and sixth-worst was statistically insignificant. I think Carolina might sink down into that group with the new owner chucking dynamite everywhere, and I'm not the least bit sold on the Oilers, either. That's potentially eight teams in the running to be seriously bad.
You must also remember that the Senators had to make their choice before the draft. At that time, they still had Hoffman on the roster, and good reason to suppose that by keeping the 4th overall pick, they would acquire a player who could step in immediately. It was some time after the draft before Brady Tkachuk announced that he was returning to college.
You are also failing to account for the value of having a high pick this year instead of next. At present, it comes down to this: Which is more valuable in 2019-20, a 19-year-old Brady Tkachuk who has had an extra year of seasoning in college hockey and is ready to step in, or an 18-year-old who-knows-who chosen with a pick that is unlikely to be significantly better and could be significantly worse?
I don't think the Senators necessarily made the right decision, but there certainly were arguments on both sides.