nfreeman Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 Well that should make this particular pissing contest a little more fun. Very nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 (edited) Again you are proving my point instead of yours. History (I have no reason not to trust your numbers) shows that the bottom two teams have won the lottery 44.4% of the time. It's actually impressive how close that is to the actual 43.8% chance the bottom two have of winning the lottery. That's hardly heavily weighted towards the bottom two teams as you stated earlier: Just admit you made a couple BS statements earlier and let the thread move back on topic. I did admit I was wrong. I was proving your point. I was just providing some statistics. Edited November 12, 2013 by DStebb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 Let's go back for a second here. There was a conversation about getting the #1 overall pick, and specifically McDavid next year. Mr. Stebb himself said: To which shrader correctly responded: This response was correct because under the prior system, teams #6-14 in the lottery -- i.e. 64.3% of the lottery participants -- weren't eligible to win the #1 pick -- so Stebb's statement that "history suggests..." was neither here nor there. Stebb, presumably flummoxed but not wanting to admit defeat, responded with: ...which was also neither here nor there. We then migrated to a discussion of what "winning the lottery" really means -- which doesn't jibe with the prior discussion about getting McDavid. This would be nice but I ain't holding my breath. I'm not sure what your obsession is here. And I already admitted I was wrong. I was no longer claiming that my original point was correct. I was just furthering the other poster's point after I found that part of my "research" interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 Thank you, Pittsburgh. I always understood Ottawa (and Yashin of all picks) to be the catalyst for the lottery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 I always understood Ottawa (and Yashin of all picks) to be the catalyst for the lottery. That may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but I remember talk of lotteries when Pittsburgh tanked for Lemieux. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 In other news people who eat pickles die 100% of the time. The Sun comes out tomorrow. And Las Vegas says you can bet your bottom dollar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 I always understood Ottawa (and Yashin of all picks) to be the catalyst for the lottery. Yea. Alexander Daigle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 That may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but I remember talk of lotteries when Pittsburgh tanked for Lemieux. Yep. After NJ & the Pens made a shameless run for Mario there was a LOT of discussion about implementing a lottery. The Otters managed to seal the deal, but sentiment started in the '80's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 Thomas Vanek will miss his third consecutive game on Thursday. Things have not gone well for Vanek or the Isles since he was acquired in an October blockbuster from Buffalo. The Austrian sniper has three points in six games — just one goal — and the Islanders are 3-5-0 since bringing him aboard. http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/14/vanek-to-miss-third-straight-for-isles/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted November 15, 2013 Report Share Posted November 15, 2013 Thomas Vanek will miss his third consecutive game on Thursday. Things have not gone well for Vanek or the Isles since he was acquired in an October blockbuster from Buffalo. The Austrian sniper has three points in six games — just one goal — and the Islanders are 3-5-0 since bringing him aboard. http://prohockeytalk...ight-for-isles/ Regier studied under the most famous of Islander GMs.. I hear he's available in case they need a change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Islanders lose again tonight. How high does this 1st round pick have to be for them to defer to next season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Islanders lose again tonight. How high does this 1st round pick have to be for them to defer to next season? 10th or better, I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Islanders lose again tonight. How high does this 1st round pick have to be for them to defer to next season? Top 10, but they could choose not to. I don't really care what they do. I highly doubt they are picking number one next year anyways. Tavares alone is enough to keep them from being number one. I mean, I'd like a little added chance at McDavid, but I don't think it'll matter what they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 10th or better, I believe. Top 10, but they could choose not to. I don't really care what they do. I highly doubt they are picking number one next year anyways. Tavares alone is enough to keep them from being number one. I mean, I'd like a little added chance at McDavid, but I don't think it'll matter what they do. No, I mean how high does it have to be for them to *decide* they want to defer. There's no way they'd let us keep a top 5 pick right? Maybe they'd let us keep a 6-10 pick, if only to make sure we don't have both their 1st round and 2nd round picks next year (along with their chance of getting MacDavid if they suck again). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 No, I mean how high does it have to be for them to *decide* they want to defer. There's no way they'd let us keep a top 5 pick right? Maybe they'd let us keep a 6-10 pick, if only to make sure we don't have both their 1st round and 2nd round picks next year (along with their chance of getting MacDavid if they suck again). If they're convinced that Vanek is gone and they aren't going to be a landing spot for anybody worthwhile, I could see them giving up any pick that isn't top 3 possibly. But I think they'll defer if it's anywhere from 1-10. It'd be interesting to here if the deferral comes before or after the lottery. Do they have to decide at the end of the year or lottery? I assume lottery but has it been reported when it'll come? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 It'd be interesting to here if the deferral comes before or after the lottery. Do they have to decide at the end of the year or lottery? I assume lottery but has it been reported when it'll come? They have the right to defer right up until its time for them to use the pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 They have the right to defer right up until its time for them to use the pick. That's actually pretty rough for us. It's a lot harder to plan when you don't even know if you have a pick right then. If we knew we had the pick, we could work on deals to move up or down (or for players). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 They have the right to defer right up until its time for them to use the pick. Until the Islanders are due to pick on draft day? So the Sabres could be sitting there and suddenly be informed that they have 10 minutes to decide on, say, the number 8 pick? Sounds strange but possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 They have the right to defer right up until its time for them to use the pick. There is no way that is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 There is no way that is right. I'm pretty sure I read it on here. I'll look it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 (edited) They have the right to defer right up until its time for them to use the pick. Thought there was no way this was true. Turns out it pretty much is. In the NHL, pick deferral has to be decided TWO PICKS before the selection is made. That's ridiculously dumb. At least that's what Columbus had to do: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-10/news/sns-rt-hkn-jackets-team-reportsx7daa0a1-20120509_1_columbus-blue-jackets-los-angeles-kings-scott-howson Edited November 28, 2013 by DStebb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Sorry Sabrespace I'm 100% certain I read/heard/watched that a day or so after news of the deferral option broke. But I can't find it anywhere, so maybe it was a radio report, or someone speculating, as opposed to a news story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 (edited) Sorry Sabrespace I'm 100% certain I read/heard/watched that a day or so after news of the deferral option broke. But I can't find it anywhere, so maybe it was a radio report, or someone speculating, as opposed to a news story. Check my post. The Blue Jackets had to submit their decision two picks before the LA Kings selection. And they ended up choosing to defer the draft pick while the first round was going on. I'd assume, unless it's a top three pick, that the Isles would wait as late as they can to make the decision because you never know who might fall. Edited November 28, 2013 by DStebb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Check my post. The Blue Jackets had to submit their decision two picks before the LA Kings selection. And they ended up choosing to defer the draft pick while the first round was going on. I'd assume, unless it's a top three pick, that the Isles would wait as late as they can to make the decision because you never know who might fall. Yes, thank you. That was a good find. But I am positive what I heard/read/saw was specifically referring to the Vanek deal. Maybe Darcy or Ted in a presser, or WGR interview? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Yes, thank you. That was a good find. But I am positive what I heard/read/saw was specifically referring to the Vanek deal. Maybe Darcy or Ted in a presser, or WGR interview? Might've been somewhere in WGR. Darcy never addressed it in the presser because that news didn't break until later. And then Patty has never addressed the trade I believe. Would be interested to see if it's the same. 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.