Maybe Stevie trades 4 for a spot that gets Sanderson and another pick early 2nd round.......but I would prefer Rossi.
- HenryHockey

So would i but there are some that have Sanderson at #3 overall and think he is better than Drysdale. It's less of a stretch to pick him at 4th overall than it was picking Seider at 6th last year. It's possible Stutzle or Byfield could be there at 4th or that Yzerman and the Wings staff have Sanderson or someone else above Rossi...hell maybe some teams have Rossi above Byfield and Stutzle who knows.

So would i but there are some that have Sanderson at #3 overall and think he is better than Drysdale. It's less of a stretch to pick him at 4th overall than it was picking Seider at 6th last year. It's possible Stutzle or Byfield could be there at 4th or that Yzerman and the Wings staff have Sanderson or someone else above Rossi...hell maybe some teams have Rossi above Byfield and Stutzle who knows.
- dcz28

Sanderson is #4 as a N. American skater and is a Left D-man, which is needed. decent size too. I would be happy with that pick, too. If Stevie picks him maybe he could trade Cholo for a center prospect.....
However next year's draft is projected as defense heavy, But I would rather deal with the here and now.

When this lottery format came out I said the NHL is rigging this for whatever they can get. This is a joke. SHAME ON THE NHL!
- redmonsters

I’m not a conspiracy person at all but at best I’m so disappointed the NHL told 7 teams to screw off in regards to the playoffs but wouldn’t even exclude the 8 “play in” teams from the lottery.

That said it seems really fishy for the play in teams to magically end up with the first overall. Ironically it might encourage play in teams to tank which is exactly what the lottery was suppose to prevent.

And what happens if they don’t get to actually play any hockey this year???? Will more teams get a shot at the first overall pick in the second lottery?

As a Devils fan I can’t complain only getting pushed back 1 spot. You guys got (frank)ed and deserved better.

the point i was trying to make is EDM/TB. look at them. theyve drafted first overall plenty of times. no cups.. yet. Boston who hasnt drafted that high hit on later picks and is very successful...

the point i was trying to make is EDM/TB. look at them. theyve drafted first overall plenty of times. no cups.. yet. Boston who hasnt drafted that high hit on later picks and is very successful...
- wingz4life

Counterpoint:

If you need to hit a last-second shot to win a basketball game, would you rather it be a layup or from half court? Or if you need a last-second touchdown, would you rather be 5 yards out or 50 yards out?

Of course it's possible to miss the layup (top 2-3 pick busts) and lose, or nail the half court shot and win (e.g., pick Datsyuk in sixth round). No one is arguing that drafting first is a guarantee of future success, or that not drafting first is a guarantee of future failure.

But you have to acknowledge that it's a lot harder to rebuild through the draft when every pick is a Hail Mary. Yes, you can still screw up even with lots of high picks (Edmonton) or win without them (Boston now; Detroit in the 90s and 00s), but that doesn't change the fact that drafting in the top 2-3 for at least a couple of years running is still by far the most reliable way to build a winner.

Again, this draft might be different. I think we're probably going to get a very good player at 4. But I have to hard, hard disagree with the idea that 1st vs 4th (or 6th, or 9th) doesn't really matter. The odds of getting a truly superstar talent are just much better at the very top. The historical record bears that out.

Counterpoint:

If you need to hit a last-second shot to win a basketball game, would you rather it be a layup or from half court? Or if you need a last-second touchdown, would you rather be 5 yards out or 50 yards out?

Of course it's possible to miss the layup (top 2-3 pick busts) and lose, or nail the half court shot and win (e.g., pick Datsyuk in sixth round). No one is arguing that drafting first is a guarantee of future success, or that not drafting first is a guarantee of future failure.

But you have to acknowledge that it's a lot harder to rebuild through the draft when every pick is a Hail Mary. Yes, you can still screw up even with lots of high picks (Edmonton) or win without them (Boston now; Detroit in the 90s and 00s), but that doesn't change the fact that drafting in the top 2-3 for at least a couple of years running is still by far the most reliable way to build a winner.

Again, this draft might be different. I think we're probably going to get a very good player at 4. But I have to hard, hard disagree with the idea that 1st vs 4th (or 6th, or 9th) doesn't really matter. The odds of getting a truly superstar talent are just much better at the very top. The historical record bears that out.
- Sven22

i am witholding my judgement until a couple years from now when these players actually get playing.

maybe just maybe the wings get one of these players that should of gone higher that we seen in every draft (Makar, Hughes,Rantanen)...

i am witholding my judgement until a couple years from now when these players actually get playing.

maybe just maybe the wings get one of these players that should of gone higher that we seen in every draft (Makar, Hughes,Rantanen)...
- wingz4life

Again, I think with the depth at the top of this draft class there is definitely reason to feel optimistic that they might snag one of those players.

At the same time, I think it's possible to be:

- Frustrated at the result of the lottery
- Annoyed that the system is so stupid
- Excited by the talent that will be available at No. 4 and hopeful for the best

... all at the same time. That's basically where I'm at.

hey we can all be upset again next season when Seattle wins the lottery next year. because i think this team is finishing in last again..

Lol your poop trash team didn’t deserve to win it. Don’t be so (frank)ing butt hurt
- yelraf10

Speaking of poop teams.

Again, I think with the depth at the top of this draft class there is definitely reason to feel optimistic that they might snag one of those players.

At the same time, I think it's possible to be:

- Frustrated at the result of the lottery
- Annoyed that the system is so stupid
- Excited by the talent that will be available at No. 4 and hopeful for the best

... all at the same time. That's basically where I'm at.
- Sven22

This is a constant back and forth. Back when the Oilers were always at the bottom the argument was "teams that are always that far down shouldn't be able to get them" so they changed the system to decrease the chances that the worst teams get the top picks all the time. Obviously, this has the effect of hurting the chances of legitimately horrible teams that only dropped that far for a few years (Detroit is a good example). How would you fix this without leading to the same problem as before?

I honestly like the system as it leaves the relatively slim chance that a team stuck in perpetual mediocrity could get a franchise altering player. A franchise whose fanbase may not stick with them through a rebuild/retool and, as such, can't risk even a single year where they aren't trying to win.

Yzerman walked into Tampa and found himself in possession of Steven Stamkos and Victor Hedman. Without those two elite foundational players, who knows what Yzerman's tenure might have been like. I am sure he would have improved things either way, but take away Stamkos and Hedman and you have a team full of middling players and declining veterans (when Yzerman came in - Kucherov notwithstanding).

Look at the results of the lotteries since implementation:

2016: 30th TOR wins #1, EDM drops 2 spots losing Laine, 25th ranked WPG and 27th ranked CLB win the others; Puljujarvi and Juolevi don't pan out but Tkachuk and Keller do

2017: NJ, Philly and Dallas (ranked 27th, 24th, and 19th) win the top-3 pushing worst teams down; COL and VAN get better players at #4 and 5 than #1 and 2 do

2018: 31st Buffalo wins #1, Carolina (well-managed team that likely couldn't risk tanking for a year) gets #2, Montreal moves up 2 spots pushing OTT and ARI down; Tkachuk and Hughes look like better picks than Kotkaniemi (a bit early)

2019: 29th place NJ moves up 2 spots, NYR up 4 spots, and CHI up 9 spots; too early to speak to results

While obviously the appeal of a #1 pick is great and often secures an elite player, I don't think the gap between players ranked between 2 and 4 (or even 5) is always all that high. Even under a different lottery system, I imagine you're still plenty likely to drop from #1 to #2.

More importantly, it's not as though it's not fellow bad teams benefiting from this arrangement. Aside from this year, every team that has won the #1 overall pick has been a very bad team that needed it badly with New Jersey's 5th worst finish being the "best" team to win the 1st overall.

Look at the results of the lotteries since implementation:

2016: 30th TOR wins #1, EDM drops 2 spots losing Laine, 25th ranked WPG and 27th ranked CLB win the others; Puljujarvi and Juolevi don't pan out but Tkachuk and Keller do

2017: NJ, Philly and Dallas (ranked 27th, 24th, and 19th) win the top-3 pushing worst teams down; COL and VAN get better players at #4 and 5 than #1 and 2 do

2018: 31st Buffalo wins #1, Carolina (well-managed team that likely couldn't risk tanking for a year) gets #2, Montreal moves up 2 spots pushing OTT and ARI down; Tkachuk and Hughes look like better picks than Kotkaniemi (a bit early)

2019: 29th place NJ moves up 2 spots, NYR up 4 spots, and CHI up 9 spots; too early to speak to results

While obviously the appeal of a #1 pick is great and often secures an elite player, I don't think the gap between players ranked between 2 and 4 (or even 5) is always all that high. Even under a different lottery system, I imagine you're still plenty likely to drop from #1 to #2.

More importantly, it's not as though it's not fellow bad teams benefiting from this arrangement. Aside from this year, every team that has won the #1 overall pick has been a very bad team that needed it badly with New Jersey's 5th worst finish being the "best" team to win the 1st overall.
- MaximumBone

years from now I want to do a comparison of Alexis vs. who the red wings get. then ill be ready to determine if the wings got "screwed" or not..

years from now I want to do a comparison of Alexis vs. who the red wings get. then ill be ready to determine if the wings got "screwed" or not..
- wingz4life

I think you should make the comparison based off of who gets picked at #2 or 3 because, even if they had a different lottery system, the chances that they'd have been picking #1 would be equally low. After all, their whole purpose for changing it was to limit the opportunities for a repeat of what the Oilers got (four 1sts, two lottery wins).

I think you should make the comparison based off of who gets picked at #2 or 3 because, even if they had a different lottery system, the chances that they'd have been picking #1 would be equally low. After all, their whole purpose for changing it was to limit the opportunities for a repeat of what the Oilers got (four 1sts, two lottery wins).
- MaximumBone

all i know is if the wings get a player like Makar at 4 nobody is going to be in here a couple years from now female doging about how they got screwed. time will tell if they got screwed by picking higher..

You guys are gonna get a very good player at 4, this draft is loaded, I think you got screwed, not that you care what a Buffalo fan thinks, but you will get a great prospect, and then watch Stevie go to work on where he really makes his money the 2nd and 3rd rnds

System is broken af. Worst team in years, not due to "tanking" but by poopty asset management by the old GM who is going into the HOF for some (frank)ing reason as a "builder". If that's not irony folks I don't know what is.
- MartyBurk

And this should be rewarded? Granted, thr GM is out, but ownership was ultimately responsible for his tenure.