2016 NHL Draft

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

That Juolevi sounds a lot like a Finnish Brodie.

Yeah they used Brodie as an NHL comparable on McKenzies midseason rankings show.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

It's pretty crazy that even if you finish last its pretty much a coin flip for a top 10 pick.

I kinda like it. Sure it sucks that it comes in during our worst season ever, but whatever. It's a neat twist.

If you finish last, you pick no worse than 4th.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

If Chychrun falls to around 10-12 spot I wonder what it would take for the Flames to move into that spot.

Could use a big, mean, d-man back there to really cap off our d-corps.

Assuming DAL doesn't make the conference finals I've been wondering about the idea of packaging our three 2nd rounders + something else to get a pick in the teens and grab another top prospect. Seems like the year to do it given it drops off quite a bit. Why would the other team do it? If none of the guys they are super hyped on falls to them.

I doubt Chychrun will be there at 10 but grabbing a guy like Max Jones in the teens or w/e could be interesting.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

It's pretty crazy that even if you finish last its pretty much a coin flip for a top 10 pick.

I kinda like it. Sure it sucks that it comes in during our worst season ever, but whatever. It's a neat twist.

You can only move back 3 spots.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

How is 39 and 37 points 2C numbers? I disagree there. He might get there, you are right in that but he will never be a 1st line C.

He's on pace for almost 50 points if he had been healthy all year. And on top of that, Couturier is one of the best defensive forwards in the NHL. Definitely growing into a legit #2 center.

[anyonebutedmonton]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm "butt hurt" because it general it's a horrible solution. Cap number of top three pics over a set period. Done.



Tanking isn't a problem, constantly rewarding ineptitude is. Toronto is likely going to be finishing last and has what, a 50% chance at a top three pick?



That's dumb.

I disagree. Tanking is the problem.

If a team is consistently bad, but is trying to get better, they should get top picks. Parity is good for the league. That's the entire purpose of structuring the draft on the inverse of standings.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If you finish last, you pick no worse than 4th.

Originally Posted by AC

You can only move back 3 spots.

Typo. I am clearly having a rough start to this thread....

[nik-]

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

I disagree. Tanking is the problem.

If a team is consistently bad, but is trying to get better, they should get top picks. Parity is good for the league. That's the entire purpose of structuring the draft on the inverse of standings.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And then damaging that structure by flattening out the percentages?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by nik-

And then damaging that structure by flattening out the percentages?

How does it damage the structure? I think everybody but the worst team in the league favours flatter percentages.

[nik-]

Because the structure is set to reward the worst teams. Flattening the percentages reduces the chances they are actually helped as the structure intends.

Their fix punishes legitimately bad teams as a result of teams like the Oilers making a mockery of the draft. "Tanking" is the "Voter Fraud" of the NHL.

[Poe969]

I have to agree with nik- here, a team like the Flames who hasn't been historically bad and needs a top prospect could miss out because a team like New Jersey could get the top pick. It kind of sucks because that would have been like last year the kings(or whatever other good team just missed the playoffs) getting McDavid. It really isn't fair to the teams that actually need a player like that as opposed to the teams that could use a player like that. By capping the number of higher (maybe top 5) picks a team can get, it'll prevent teams from tanking and still reward the teams that are bad and need help while preventing an already solid team from taking a player that weaker teams need.

They could do a bit of both here though. There's no reason they can't just award the top 5 draft positions points and after you get so many points, you're out of the top 5 or something. And limit the lottery to the bottom 10 teams or so while still weighing it a lot more in favor of the bottom teams.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by nik-

Because the structure is set to reward the worst teams. Flattening the percentages reduces the chances they are actually helped as the structure intends.

Their fix punishes legitimately bad teams as a result of teams like the Oilers making a mockery of the draft. "Tanking" is the "Voter Fraud" of the NHL.

It doesn't punish bad teams, it rewards them less. But they are still rewarded with the best odds at a top 3 pick and the highest guaranteed pick. That's still a pretty dang good reward for finishing last. They are rewarded, not punished. Punishment would be demoting them to a lesser league with lesser revenues. The last place team is rewarded with one of the top 4 best young talents entering the league. That's a pretty good reward and does help parity.

If tanking isn't a problem then get rid of the lottery altogether. Clearly nobody is comfortable with that and tanking is a mild problem. Current system seems fine to me, just a bunch of fans bitter about the timing of it is what I'm seeing.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by AC

Use this link: http://i.imgur.com/5IqlzGR.png

You're linking to the album, not the picture.

It's really interesting how flat your chances are for a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd at each spot. Yes, the worse you finish the higher your flattened probability of each is, but your chances at a 1st, 2nd or 3rd are all virtually identical.

[PeteMoss]

Regarding size - I'm all for taking the big guy if its a tie, but pick the best player available.

Just look back at the 2014 draft - Flames took Hunter Smith at 54. Next pick was Brandon Montour by Anaheim - he's got 42 points in 52 games in the AHL as a defenseman. A few picks later was Christian Dvorak who's got 113 points in 53 games in the OHL and played in the world juniors this year. If Hunter Smith was 6'2 would the Flames have taken him at 54? Doubtful.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

It doesn't punish bad teams, it rewards them less. But they are still rewarded with the best odds at a top 3 pick and the highest guaranteed pick. That's still a pretty dang good reward for finishing last. They are rewarded, not punished. Punishment would be demoting them to a lesser league with lesser revenues. The last place team is rewarded with one of the top 4 best young talents entering the league. That's a pretty good reward and does help parity.

If tanking isn't a problem then get rid of the lottery altogether. Clearly nobody is comfortable with that and tanking is a mild problem. Current system seems fine to me, just a bunch of fans bitter about the timing of it is what I'm seeing.

I would be absolutely fine if they removed the lottery. I just want them to cap the number of high picks in a set period. Teams shouldn't just be allowed to be there year after year after year.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Draft pick odds using Enoch Root's standings-pick percentages combined with sportsclubstats.com's final standings probabilities as of today.



(Numbers don't quite add to 100% in some cases because I just used sportsclubstats summary table which only shows to the nearest whole percent).

These probabilities are right before any of the lotteries are done. But they do shift once someone gets the first pick and then again with the second pick.

For example - if Toronto wins the lottery and gets the 1st pick, for the 2nd lottery the Flames odds of getting the 2nd pick move up above 10% (of course everyone else's go up as well).

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

These probabilities are right before any of the lotteries are done. But they do shift once someone gets the first pick and then again with the second pick.

For example - if Toronto wins the lottery and gets the 1st pick, for the 2nd lottery the Flames odds of getting the 2nd pick move up above 10% (of course everyone else's go up as well).

All those combinations have been considered in the standings-pick probability table developed and posted by Enoch Root here:
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=941

[druetetective]

I just hope if we don't win a top 3 pick it is a combination of teams above us in the standings/teams out east.

That way obviously we don't get bumped down too much and we send the top talent out east. Worst thing would be for the Oilers, Canucks and Jets to get all these dynamic player and them turn into Flame killers.

[Calgary4LIfe]

If the NHL simply announced that a team can't draft more than 'x' amount of times in 'y' amount of years, would that stop tanking?

Well, it would stop the Edmonton Oil Tankers from continually tanking every year... but there will still be tankers.

There will still be teams that tank when the season is 'out the window'. The NHL was right to make the top 3 picks a lottery (and I hate it as a Flames' fan), but they just forgot to include the caveat that teams can't pick so many times in the top of the draft.

You are still rewarding poor teams essentially, but making it less attractive to go on a full-on tank because the odds make it less likely it pays off.

[sureLoss]

Dubois feature from THN

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/pr...duct-in-years/