Sean Maloughney: Edmonton Could Draft 1st Overall And The Hockey World Is Terrified

Yeah definitely makes it interesting, I don't know how fair, but interesting.

Yes let it be Edmonton, they finally have a GM and Coach to get things done.

The draft lottery should be exclusive to the bottom 10 teams and only for the top 2 picks. That way a team like Detroit can’t fall out of top 3 and a bubble team can’t win it. All this ridiculousness starts with the 12th best odds (would’ve been the jets) being able to move up to 1st.

I like the draft format. One of the few I guess.

I don't like tanking. Many many franchises have done this in the past. The Oilers just one of the worst and most notorious.

I hope the Oilers play great and at least make it past the preliminary round. The hassle of losing and then perhaps even winning the draft is not worth the hassle.

I thought Edm had a legit shot this year. I would hope that their fans are thinking Cup

The draft lottery should be exclusive to the bottom 10 teams and only for the top 2 picks. That way a team like Detroit can’t fall out of top 3 and a bubble team can’t win it. All this ridiculousness starts with the 12th best odds (would’ve been the jets) being able to move up to 1st.

The problem with this is why bottom-10 and not bottom-12? Or bottom-8? There's no defining characteristic of teams within that range that separates them from other teams so your argument can continuously be used until we're right back at the old system.

I enjoy the current system. The chance for a bubble team to move up is more interesting. More specifically, it leaves the door open for perpetual bubble teams whose fanbases wouldn't persist through a rebuild or tank to win and get a franchise altering player.

I thought Edm had a legit shot this year. I would hope that their fans are thinking Cup
- Hardbalz

Don't worry; we are. It's nice to know that the possibility is there in the event that they were to lose, but winning is the only thing that matters now. The way it should've been all these years.

The problem with this is why bottom-10 and not bottom-12? Or bottom-8? There's no defining characteristic of teams within that range that separates them from other teams so your argument can continuously be used until we're right back at the old system.

I enjoy the current system. The chance for a bubble team to move up is more interesting. More specifically, it leaves the door open for perpetual bubble teams whose fanbases wouldn't persist through a rebuild or tank to win and get a franchise altering player.
- MaximumBone

Bottom 10 because once the Seattle comes in it would be exactly 1/3rd of the league, which to me makes sense because in my opinion 2/3rds of the league is competitive. If that wasn’t the case we wouldn’t be doing this ridiculous 24 team playoff (with the exception of MTL and CHI, they were added for the revenue from their massive markets).

I get your point about perpetual bubble teams but teams shuffle slots from year to year and if they’re stuck in a rut chances are they should re-tool as one player isn’t going to suddenly make them a contender.

Bottom 10 because once the Seattle comes in it would be exactly 1/3rd of the league, which to me makes sense because in my opinion 2/3rds of the league is competitive. If that wasn’t the case we wouldn’t be doing this ridiculous 24 team playoff (with the exception of MTL and CHI, they were added for the revenue from their massive markets).

I get your point about perpetual bubble teams but teams shuffle slots from year to year and if they’re stuck in a rut chances are they should re-tool as one player isn’t going to suddenly make them a contender.
- RedC21

How is 10 1/3rd of 32?

Bottom 10 because once the Seattle comes in it would be exactly 1/3rd of the league, which to me makes sense because in my opinion 2/3rds of the league is competitive. If that wasn’t the case we wouldn’t be doing this ridiculous 24 team playoff (with the exception of MTL and CHI, they were added for the revenue from their massive markets).

I get your point about perpetual bubble teams but teams shuffle slots from year to year and if they’re stuck in a rut chances are they should re-tool as one player isn’t going to suddenly make them a contender.
- RedC21

Yet right now, your cut-off would have Arizona, Chicago and Montreal (74, 72, and 71 points) eligible but not Minnesota (77 points)

Why is a team RIGHT above .500 so different to a team right below .500 that it should mean they aren't comparably capable of getting a top-3 pick? Are this year's Minnesota Wild a much better team than Chicago, Arizona or Montreal? I'd argue they're likely worse off but had a strong run.

Last year, Philly, Vancouver and Anaheim (between 80 and 82 points) would've been eligible while Minnesota and Chicago (at 83 and 84 points, respectively) wouldn't be.

The year prior, the Isles, Oilers, and Rangers (between 77 and 80 points) would be eligible but Carolina and Calgary (83 and 84 points) wouldn't.

If you want to propose a set of rules where only one of the top-3 picks can go to a team outside the bottom-5 then I could maybe get behind that, but your current cut-off seems mighty arbitrary.

Yet right now, your cut-off would have Arizona, Chicago and Montreal (74, 72, and 71 points) eligible but not Minnesota (77 points)

Why is a team RIGHT above .500 so different to a team right below .500 that it should mean they aren't comparably capable of getting a top-3 pick? Are this year's Minnesota Wild a much better team than Chicago, Arizona or Montreal? I'd argue they're likely worse off but had a strong run.

Last year, Philly, Vancouver and Anaheim (between 80 and 82 points) would've been eligible while Minnesota and Chicago (at 83 and 84 points, respectively) wouldn't be.

The year prior, the Isles, Oilers, and Rangers (between 77 and 80 points) would be eligible but Carolina and Calgary (83 and 84 points) wouldn't.

If you want to propose a set of rules where only one of the top-3 picks can go to a team outside the bottom-5 then I could maybe get behind that, but your current cut-off seems mighty arbitrary.
- MaximumBone

Like I said it would be under expansion if that were to happen, which would bump Arizona out of the bottom 10.

So what separates Arizona from Chicago and Montreal. Arizona was 4 points out of the playoffs where Chicago was 6 And Montreal 10. While the difference between Arizona and Chicago may not sound like much but that extra game is huge based on the way the NHL’s point system is structured. You could have made a reasonable argument at the time of cancelation that the yotes had a shot at making it where everyone counted Chicago out

Like I said it would be under expansion if that were to happen, which would bump Arizona out of the bottom 10.

So what separates Arizona from Chicago and Montreal. Arizona was 4 points out of the playoffs where Chicago was 6 And Montreal 10. While the difference between Arizona and Chicago may not sound like much but that extra game is huge based on the way the NHL’s point system is structured. You could have made a reasonable argument at the time of cancelation that the yotes had a shot at making it where everyone counted Chicago out
- RedC21

I understood your point was intended in a 32-team system, but that's not going to change the counter arguments because you need to map suggestions against historical standards.

To the second bolded portion: if that's your reasoning, then your method would have to account for the divisions in which they play because 75 might still be "in the fight" in one division while 75 might be effectively doomed in another. Admittedly, this is less of a problem in the wildcard system, but still could come up.

Your suggestion also places a pretty major incentive for teams in that range to throw games that isn't remotely strong in the current system. A team moving from 11th to 10th gains 0.5% chance on each pick in the current system. Under your proposition, it'd represent the difference between no chance and an actual chance in the lottery (likely ~5% jump). This is something the NHL wholly wants to avoid.

Lastly, are the teams that feel screwed out of a 1st overall pick by a bubble team (ranging from 8th to 15th) this year really going to feel much less screwed by a 10th place team that would inevitably, eventually win it? No. They aren't. Some people are always gonna bemoan the fact that their team didn't win when "they earned it by being so bad".

The way I see it, you'd be changing the system to one that gatekeeps at a rather ill-defined and meaningless dividing line, incentivizes throwing of games more than the current system, and wouldn't even really fix the "problem" of the worst teams feeling slighted.

Honestly, I do not see the hockey world terrified at all. The Oilers will not be able to pay them all with the salary cap and as long as Edmonton has Koskinen or Smith in the net, nothing good will happen. But offensively...the team is really fun to watch...

Honestly, I do not see the hockey world terrified at all. The Oilers will not be able to pay them all with the salary cap and as long as Edmonton has Koskinen or Smith in the net, nothing good will happen. But offensively...the team is really fun to watch...
- contracom

Lol. You're over here firing shots like we weren't 2nd in the pacific WITH Kosk and Smith. No nothing good. Meanwhile you guys were selling for the lottery at deadline day. Can't wait for the boys to smash like 15 goals in 3 games on you guys.

The oilers are proud to select...yakov smirnoff!!!

What a country.

The correct term is Mortified, not terrified. The fact that this organization could potentially have another 1st overall pick, after years of abject failure and futility; after having 1st overall pick, after 1st overall pick, after 1st overall pick; after years of destroying young players, and after having the 3 statistically worst seasons in NHL history, is nothing short of disgusting. Uselessness should not be continually rewarded.

I understood your point was intended in a 32-team system, but that's not going to change the counter arguments because you need to map suggestions against historical standards.

To the second bolded portion: if that's your reasoning, then your method would have to account for the divisions in which they play because 75 might still be "in the fight" in one division while 75 might be effectively doomed in another. Admittedly, this is less of a problem in the wildcard system, but still could come up.

Your suggestion also places a pretty major incentive for teams in that range to throw games that isn't remotely strong in the current system. A team moving from 11th to 10th gains 0.5% chance on each pick in the current system. Under your proposition, it'd represent the difference between no chance and an actual chance in the lottery (likely ~5% jump). This is something the NHL wholly wants to avoid.

Lastly, are the teams that feel screwed out of a 1st overall pick by a bubble team (ranging from 8th to 15th) this year really going to feel much less screwed by a 10th place team that would inevitably, eventually win it? No. They aren't. Some people are always gonna bemoan the fact that their team didn't win when "they earned it by being so bad".

The way I see it, you'd be changing the system to one that gatekeeps at a rather ill-defined and meaningless dividing line, incentivizes throwing of games more than the current system, and wouldn't even really fix the "problem" of the worst teams feeling slighted.
- MaximumBone

I do understand where your coming from and I’ll admit my idea isn’t perfect (and based on another idea of going to a 22 team playoff format permanently) but I feel we have to set a dividing line somewhere. It makes no sense for a team that misses the playoffs by a couple points and doesn’t need the franchise/generational talent at the top of the draft when the hole point of the draft is to disperse talent to the crappier teams in the league. Heck look at how long it’s taken the nucks to get back to being good after continually getting shafted in the lottery, and that’s after the massive amount of luck they got with petterson, Hughes and boeser.

I would be game maybe like you said in your earlier post about only one team outside of the top 5 to move in or maybe I would propose to go back to similar to the old format where we hold the 3 lotteries but teams can only jump up a select number of slots.

Let us remember the bigger problem with the old system was the odds were pretty well fixed for the last place team. In the 6 draft lotteries since they changed the odds in 2015 only twice has the worst team selected 1st. And in every other year (except for 15 due to rule) the last place team has fell to forth.

The correct term is Mortified, not terrified. The fact that this organization could potentially have another 1st overall pick, after years of abject failure and futility; after having 1st overall pick, after 1st overall pick, after 1st overall pick; after years of destroying young players, and after having the 3 statistically worst seasons in NHL history, is nothing short of disgusting. Uselessness should not be continually rewarded.
- Alberta_Tempest

You're right, it would have been better if we toiled in mediocrity for our entire existence like the flames have done. The only story line your entire franchise has ever had, stars a man with what looked like a cat glued to his upper lip. What a pathetic franchise.

The correct term is Mortified, not terrified. The fact that this organization could potentially have another 1st overall pick, after years of abject failure and futility; after having 1st overall pick, after 1st overall pick, after 1st overall pick; after years of destroying young players, and after having the 3 statistically worst seasons in NHL history, is nothing short of disgusting. Uselessness should not be continually rewarded.
- Alberta_Tempest

Your knowledge of history must be as pathetically shallow as the Oilers of the 2010s.

None of Edmonton's worst seasons even come close to being among the statistically worst in history. Their lowest point total in any of their seasons was 62 (which they stumbled to three times (09/10, 10/11, and 14/15). Their goal differentials in those seasons were -70, -76, and -85 respectively. Even just since their most recent 62 point season, there have been 5 teams that posted comparable or worse records and they're as follows:

Buffalo 14/15: 54 points -113
Arizona 14/15: 56 points -102
Colorado 16/17: 48 points -112
Buffalo 17/18: 62 points -81
Detroit 19/20: on pace for 45 points -141

Going further in the modern era, you'll see a few more:

Buffalo 13/14: 52 points -91
NYI 08/09: 61 points -78
Philly 06/07: 56 points -89

And this hasn't even touched expansion franchises (see: https://bleacherreport.co...orst-teams-in-nhl-history). Read something once in a while; knowledge isn't your enemy.

I do understand where your coming from and I’ll admit my idea isn’t perfect (and based on another idea of going to a 22 team playoff format permanently) but I feel we have to set a dividing line somewhere. It makes no sense for a team that misses the playoffs by a couple points and doesn’t need the franchise/generational talent at the top of the draft when the hole point of the draft is to disperse talent to the crappier teams in the league. Heck look at how long it’s taken the nucks to get back to being good after continually getting shafted in the lottery, and that’s after the massive amount of luck they got with petterson, Hughes and boeser.

I would be game maybe like you said in your earlier post about only one team outside of the top 5 to move in or maybe I would propose to go back to similar to the old format where we hold the 3 lotteries but teams can only jump up a select number of slots.

Let us remember the bigger problem with the old system was the odds were pretty well fixed for the last place team. In the 6 draft lotteries since they changed the odds in 2015 only twice has the worst team selected 1st. And in every other year (except for 15 due to rule) the last place team has fell to forth.
- RedC21

This is the crux of my point, though. Why doesn't Minnesota "need" a franchise player? Why didn't Calgary during their years of mediocrity?

Yes, the point of the draft is to disperse talent, but that point isn't negated by this lottery system. Bad teams are still getting elite, franchise-altering players even if they get bumped down. Top-5 picks all have a high likelihood to produce elite players and, while #5 might not be as likely as #1, I think you'd find the gap between #2 or #3 and #5 is less than you might expect- particularly in recent years.

At the end of the day, whether teams are getting elite players from those picks from 2 to 5 or 6 after getting bumped down or not, it's usually not because there were no elite players available. It's a shortcoming in their drafting/developing/deployment strategy or- in the case of 2012- a bad draft year. Bad teams are often bad because they're looking at/for the wrong things.

Frankly, I’d be more worried if the Rangers got it, but I’m obviously biased. If Kakko comes around, then although they may not be quite as top heavy as Edmonton, but I really don’t want to face a core of Panarin, Lafrenière, Kakko, Fox, and to make it that much worse - Shesty in net.

I also don’t need him opening the window back open for Pitt before they slide, playing with a maturing Jack Hughes, or on an already nasty Canes offense. You guys can keep the top pick out there in the West this year. Fine by me. Let the Oil have him.

Honestly, I do not see the hockey world terrified at all. The Oilers will not be able to pay them all with the salary cap and as long as Edmonton has Koskinen or Smith in the net, nothing good will happen. But offensively...the team is really fun to watch...
- contracom

Koskinen is decent.

The reason no one wants it to be Edmonton is because they've been gifted so many 1st overall picks in the last decade or so (Hall, RNH, Yakupov, McDavid) and still have made the playoffs 1 time with all of that. Remember the look on McDavid's face at the draft lottery? That's the terror people are talking about.

This is the crux of my point, though. Why doesn't Minnesota "need" a franchise player? Why didn't Calgary during their years of mediocrity?

Yes, the point of the draft is to disperse talent, but that point isn't negated by this lottery system. Bad teams are still getting elite, franchise-altering players even if they get bumped down. Top-5 picks all have a high likelihood to produce elite players and, while #5 might not be as likely as #1, I think you'd find the gap between #2 or #3 and #5 is less than you might expect- particularly in recent years.

At the end of the day, whether teams are getting elite players from those picks from 2 to 5 or 6 after getting bumped down or not, it's usually not because there were no elite players available. It's a shortcoming in their drafting/developing/deployment strategy or- in the case of 2012- a bad draft year. Bad teams are often bad because they're looking at/for the wrong things.
- MaximumBone

Well as a Calgary fan myself I would say the piece we’re missing is more along the lines of a top 6 winger and a goalie. I don’t know about Minnesota but that’s the case for a lot of those 10-15 slotted teams, they’re only missing one small piece to put them over the top which they can go out and acquire, not the franchise generational talent at the top end.

I think we’re at an impasse here though so I’ll drop it. But I will propose something else, what if you held three lotteries, but teams could move up a max of 8 slots (half of the 16 slots once Seattle joins). If you’re so confident about the top 5 being a great picks, this format would have put this placeholder team E at 4. Like I said the odds were the issue that guaranteed last place 1st pick, it’s unlikely that unless they’re increased that we ever see another oilers saga again