BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 I do believe that the lottery occurs as normal. If NJD won the pick they would forfeit it like usual. so its like the lottery never happened and they'd pick 1st and whoever finishes dead last picks 2nd but since they cant use the first overall then the guy in dead last picks whoever they want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 (edited) so its like the lottery never happened and they'd pick 1st and whoever finishes dead last picks 2nd but since they cant use the first overall then the guy in dead last picks whoever they want? Yes? I think if I understand that right... If NJD finish 10th and win the lottery they forfeit the 1st overall pick. If they finish 10th and lose the lottery they forfeit the 10th overall pick. The lottery occurs as normal and NJD forfeit the pick. Edited December 10, 2013 by LGR4GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sicknfla Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 (edited) so its like the lottery never happened and they'd pick 1st and whoever finishes dead last picks 2nd but since they cant use the first overall then the guy in dead last picks whoever they want? I sure as hell don't understand what you are saying but Liger is right. So as long as we finish last (about the same odds as the sun rising tomorrow) we would get the #1 pick if NJ or us win the lottery. I think!! Edited December 10, 2013 by sicknfla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 I sure as hell don't understand what you are saying but Liger is right. So as long as we finish last (about the same odds as the sun rising tomorrow) we would get the #1 pick if NJ or us win the lottery. I think!! brain is fried from studying for finals, i apologize for that rather ridiculous run on sentence. made sense in my head hahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 (edited) so its like the lottery never happened and they'd pick 1st and whoever finishes dead last picks 2nd but since they cant use the first overall then the guy in dead last picks whoever they want? Seems like it. So it basically adds New Jersey's lottery balls to whoever finishes in last. This is because even if NJ wins the lottery, the dead last team still picks first. So the league wanted Crosby in Pittsburgh instead of a city like New York, LA, Chicago, or Toronto? Makes sense. Trying to find an article that quotes it, but you also have to consider that Mario Lemieux said at one point that Crosby is the type of player he would continue his career to play with. The appeal was all there. Edited December 10, 2013 by DStebb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted December 11, 2013 Report Share Posted December 11, 2013 Not that I'm subscribing to this tinfoil-hattism, but Pittsburgh was, I believe, nearly bankrupt and it was assumed it was going to move around this time, wasn't it? Mario bought the Pens out of bankruptcy. Second time he "saved" the Pens. He made it public knowledge (sorry, no links, just my memory) that he wanted Crosby. And who wouldn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted December 11, 2013 Report Share Posted December 11, 2013 I almost drove my car off the road last night, not even due to the blizzard, listening to WGR. A caller suggested an offer sheet for another teams RFA. Meaning sacrificing Reinhart and McDavid. Umm...what? It didn't even dawn on Schopp or Bulldog. I was mortified! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted December 11, 2013 Report Share Posted December 11, 2013 I almost drove my car off the road last night, not even due to the blizzard, listening to WGR. A caller suggested an offer sheet for another teams RFA. Meaning sacrificing Reinhart and McDavid. Umm...what? It didn't even dawn on Schopp or Bulldog. I was mortified! I always wonder how stupid people exist. Isn't it human nature to desire to gain knowledge? Or are there people who just say "nah, I don't want to know anything."? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted December 11, 2013 Report Share Posted December 11, 2013 Does the RFA compensation require it has to be our pick in each of the next X consecutive years? Or can we use other teams picks and stack them? For example, the Islanders this year, And St. Louis (miller) Vancouver (Moulson) and detroit's (Ott) next. I'm not advocating that, just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted December 11, 2013 Report Share Posted December 11, 2013 Does the RFA compensation require it has to be our pick in each of the next X consecutive years? Or can we use other teams picks and stack them? For example, the Islanders this year, And St. Louis (miller) Vancouver (Moulson) and detroit's (Ott) next. I'm not advocating that, just curious. It is your pick. If you do not have your own pick that corresponds to the compensation, you cannot sign the RFA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsixspd Posted December 11, 2013 Report Share Posted December 11, 2013 i predict stafford will play well tonight, then disappear for another month. He seemed pretty invisible last night - didn't help, didn't hurt. And as bad as he played LAST year, with only 6 goals in 46 games played, he's only got 2 in 31 games! 6 in 46 is terrible - 2 in 31 is beyond words! And he's already a -6 for the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted December 11, 2013 Report Share Posted December 11, 2013 He seemed pretty invisible last night - didn't help, didn't hurt. And as bad as he played LAST year, with only 6 goals in 46 games played, he's only got 2 in 31 games! 6 in 46 is terrible - 2 in 31 is beyond words! And he's already a -6 for the season. No worries. He's due for another big season next year since it will be a contract year, ha ha! In all seriousness though, I hope he does break out next year so we can unload his expiring contract for something good at the trade deadline next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted December 11, 2013 Report Share Posted December 11, 2013 I almost drove my car off the road last night, not even due to the blizzard, listening to WGR. A caller suggested an offer sheet for another teams RFA. Meaning sacrificing Reinhart and McDavid. Umm...what? It didn't even dawn on Schopp or Bulldog. I was mortified! Won't this years draft be over by the time that they can make offers on RFAs this offseason? Isn't the draft right before the start of FA?If so, won't they only lose out on McDavid next year, if they give it up AND continue to suck, AND win the draft lottery to get the #1 pick? I don't think I would have a problem with them being aggressive and going after a RFA and giving up picks for them IF that player was a player that can upgrade them right now, plus they would be aggressive in FA and the trade market to turn things around and not try to be the worst team in the league next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted December 11, 2013 Report Share Posted December 11, 2013 EMBRACE THE TANK. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIe1KtfpDzw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 Won't this years draft be over by the time that they can make offers on RFAs this offseason? Isn't the draft right before the start of FA? If so, won't they only lose out on McDavid next year, if they give it up AND continue to suck, AND win the draft lottery to get the #1 pick? I don't think I would have a problem with them being aggressive and going after a RFA and giving up picks for them IF that player was a player that can upgrade them right now, plus they would be aggressive in FA and the trade market to turn things around and not try to be the worst team in the league next year. I am much more concerned about next years pick but I don't want to lose 2014 either. The RFA's they can sign won't be as good as Reinhart or McDavid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 I am much more concerned about next years pick but I don't want to lose 2014 either. The RFA's they can sign won't be as good as Reinhart or McDavid. I was just wondering if anyone actually believes that the Sabres will end up with either one of those guys. Also, is sucking this bad worth it in the case that we don't get either guy? Are the players just behind them worth it, from a franchise building standpoint? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sicknfla Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 I was just wondering if anyone actually believes that the Sabres will end up with either one of those guys. Also, is sucking this bad worth it in the case that we don't get either guy? Are the players just behind them worth it, from a franchise building standpoint? Simply put if they are putting all their eggs in the McDavid sweepstakes then we are in just as bad of shape as we were with DR. You don't build a team on a 25% AT BEST chance of getting ONE player. You can get away with one year of being an absolute embarrassment but two years is going to be a tough sell. Especially if we finish in last place this year by 20pts and still don't get the #1 pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 Another consideration: Let's say the Sabres get the #1 pick. What do you do when your rebuild is centered around him and he blows out a knee? This whole concept of needing a top pick in order to excel is deeply flawed. Build a great team by getting the best players you can. But if you purposely tank to get a top pick, all you're doing is instilling a culture of losing. I don't want to see that in my team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 Fortunately Darcy laid the groundwork in such a way that Pat can build a winning culture and still reap the benefits of tanking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 Another consideration: Let's say the Sabres get the #1 pick. What do you do when your rebuild is centered around him and he blows out a knee? This whole concept of needing a top pick in order to excel is deeply flawed. Build a great team by getting the best players you can. But if you purposely tank to get a top pick, all you're doing is instilling a culture of losing. I don't want to see that in my team. That ship has sailed. IMO it went out with Regier. Since the new guys have taken over I've seen improvement in how they play, how they practice, their mindset, how they treat the young guys and how they believe young guys should be developed. The results aren't there quite yet but the loser mentality left in Regiers suitcase imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 I still don't understand why people have this notion that tanking = trying to lose on purpose just to get a top draft pick. Instead think of tanking as choosing NOT to put lipstick on a pig. Maybe PL helps with the recruiting problem that we have, because if he doesn't I'm all ears on any ideas people may have on how to maximize the chances of obtaining elite talent other than through the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 (edited) Another consideration: Let's say the Sabres get the #1 pick. What do you do when your rebuild is centered around him and he blows out a knee? This whole concept of needing a top pick in order to excel is deeply flawed. Build a great team by getting the best players you can. But if you purposely tank to get a top pick, all you're doing is instilling a culture of losing. I don't want to see that in my team. What happens if you overpay a UFA by $2MM per year to come here and he has a career-ending concussion, or trade away two high picks and prospects for a proven star who ends up retiring in two years? Those kind of "what if" scenarios really don't have much value because teams have no control over them. And it's really not so deeply flawed when you look at the results: since the lost season, only 2/8 Cup winners (Boston and Detroit) didn't either have a top-5 pick contributing significantly or used as a trade chip to acquire other players who did contribute significantly. This is the song that doesn't end... :lol: Edited December 12, 2013 by TrueBluePhD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 What happens if you overpay a UFA by $2MM per year to come here and he has a career-ending concussion, or trade away two high picks and prospects for a proven star who ends up retiring in two years? Those kind of "what if" scenarios really don't have much value because teams have no control over them. And it's really not so deeply flawed when you look at the results: since the lost season, only 2/8 Cup winners (Boston and Detroit) didn't either have a top-5 pick contributing significantly or used as a trade chip to acquire other players who did contribute significantly. This is the song that doesn't end... :lol: And now we're moving the goalposts, innit? The relevant question is whether being bad enough to draft in the top 5 pays off for that team -- not for some other team that ends up using the highly-drafted player. So it doesn't matter to Hartford, who drafted Pronger #2 in 1993, that Pronger was the key to Anaheim winning the cup in 2006. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 And now we're moving the goalposts, innit? The relevant question is whether being bad enough to draft in the top 5 pays off for that team -- not for some other team that ends up using the highly-drafted player. So it doesn't matter to Hartford, who drafted Pronger #2 in 1993, that Pronger was the key to Anaheim winning the cup in 2006. Good point. When I wrote that I was looking at it the other way: LA using Schenn (#5) and Johnson (#3) to acquire Richards and Carter, who played a role in their championship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 Good point. When I wrote that I was looking at it the other way: LA using Schenn (#5) and Johnson (#3) to acquire Richards and Carter, who played a role in their championship. Well, this hurts my side of the never-ending argument, but Doughty was also a top-5 pick and was a key player for that LA team... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.