Fantasy Draft Round 1

Which team would win each series?

  • A: Montreal

    Votes: 12 60.0%
  • A: Philadelphia

    Votes: 6 30.0%
  • B: Toronto

    Votes: 11 55.0%
  • B: Detroit

    Votes: 9 45.0%
  • C: Carolina

    Votes: 8 40.0%
  • C: Ottawa

    Votes: 10 50.0%
  • D: New Jersey

    Votes: 9 45.0%
  • D: Columbus

    Votes: 10 50.0%
  • E: Vegas

    Votes: 14 70.0%
  • E: Chicago

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • F: Anaheim

    Votes: 9 45.0%
  • F: San Jose

    Votes: 8 40.0%
  • G: St Louis

    Votes: 16 80.0%
  • G: Calgary

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • H: Dallas

    Votes: 11 55.0%
  • H: Nashville

    Votes: 7 35.0%

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .

hockeynorth

Registered User
Aug 31, 2017
12,572
6,364
Moving on:

Montreal
Toronto
Ottawa
New Jersey
Vegas
Anaheim
St Louis
Dallas

We now go to the Polls section, I'll be removing logos/team names there
 

Panda Bear

Registered User
Apr 2, 2010
6,566
5,699
god damned travesty

"But who would be your minute muncher?"

I don't know. Maybe the two guys who played first pairing all year for their teams?
 

BeLeafing

Registered User
Jun 5, 2017
2,163
3,436
I am currently outraged that Montreal has more votes, and the only rationale possible is that people love Matthews.

I voted Philly and love Matthews :huh:

Realistically both defenses just aren't great, so you have to give Philly the offensive edge for Stamkos/Ovi. And yes, the bottom 3D for Montreal + Manson on the top pair is less than ideal. Not that I loved 2 young guys on the bottom pair together either though. But am surprised by that result myself, not cause I don't think Montreal is a good team but I had Philly 1st in their division.
 

Panda Bear

Registered User
Apr 2, 2010
6,566
5,699
It is at this point that I cast my blame directly on @m0pe for failing to draft Petry for me as I intended in round four.

If I had simply been skipped at that pick, I would have been able to grab Petry in time to pair with Krug while still nabbing Weegar later.

There would be no Gallagher and thus no Kreider, and that would be okay.
 

hockeynorth

Registered User
Aug 31, 2017
12,572
6,364
Panda in full honesty, @ConnorMcMullet pmed me essay upon essay that I could leak that influenced my decision. He raised the point of who would you put out to close games, and do you have a true horse on D. He also really tried to hammer home who on L2 would feed Ovechkin. IMO a lineup of:

Ovechkin-Stamkos-Smith
Kreider-Dvorak-Fiala

Would've been a better (and more appealing) configuration. I was really back and forth and at the end just opted for the team I trusted the slightest bit more on the back end. I think Philadelphia was an awesome team, McMullet really did sway me though on who would matchup for you, or close out games, and can we trust Krug in that role, and that's why I at the end of the day switched.

Edit: I should say, I think with a better #3 I would've trusted Krug there more just because of the support behind him. I do think if you had:

Krug-Petry
x-Weegar

I'm taking you every day of the week.
 

hockeynorth

Registered User
Aug 31, 2017
12,572
6,364
In my opinion, there are clearly 2 teams who are a tier below, but then of the remaining 6 it's anyones game here
 

DropTheGloves

Registered User
Sep 18, 2020
2,808
4,635
GMs left:
Me x 2
@AveryStar4Eva
@LT
@m0pe
@BeLeafing
@Llamamoto
@ConnorMcMullet

Draft postions for each team (without trades):

3rd
4th
7th
9th
10th
13th
18th
25th

Semi frustrating, I wonder if there's a way to level it out more

Easy: don’t flip the draft order so early. There’s virtually no punishment for teams who get to pick near the top. If you have to do it, maybe only flip once at the halfway mark once most teams have their top 6F/4D/1G sorted out.
 

hockeynorth

Registered User
Aug 31, 2017
12,572
6,364
Easy: don’t flip the draft order so early. There’s virtually no punishment for teams who get to pick near the top. If you have to do it, maybe only flip once at the halfway mark once most teams have their top 6F/4D/1G sorted out.
That's worse
 

DropTheGloves

Registered User
Sep 18, 2020
2,808
4,635
That's worse

I don't think so. Here's how the 8th overall team gets to draft right now:

8th, 55th, 86th, 101st, 148th, 163rd, 210th, 225th, 272nd, 287th, 334th

Here's the 28th overall team:

28th, 35th, 66th, 121st, 128th, 183rd, 190th, 245th, 252nd, 307th, 314th

8th overall basically gets four picks in the top 100, 28th 3. They get the same number of picks in the top 150, the same number in the top 150-250 range, and the same number in the 250-350 range. I can see why the top half of the draft is doing better since they basically get an extra top 100 player for free.
 

BeLeafing

Registered User
Jun 5, 2017
2,163
3,436
I don't think so. Here's how the 8th overall team gets to draft right now:

8th, 55th, 86th, 101st, 148th, 163rd, 210th, 225th, 272nd, 287th, 334th

Here's the 28th overall team:

28th, 35th, 66th, 121st, 128th, 183rd, 190th, 245th, 252nd, 307th, 314th

8th overall basically gets four picks in the top 100, 28th 3. They get the same number of picks in the top 150, the same number in the top 150-250 range, and the same number in the 250-350 range. I can see why the top half of the draft is doing better since they basically get an extra top 100 player for free.

I think the crucial thing missing from this exercise is where is the perceived drop off in player value? top 100 means nothing if there isn't a drop in player value until pick 130.

I don't know what the answer is. Just seems like it would be a needed variable to this equation.
 

hockeynorth

Registered User
Aug 31, 2017
12,572
6,364
I think the crucial thing missing from this exercise is where is the perceived drop off in player value? top 100 means nothing if there isn't a drop in player value until pick 130.

I don't know what the answer is. Just seems like it would be a needed variable to this equation.
We used to do it without the flip, I'm definitely not opposed to bring that back
 

DropTheGloves

Registered User
Sep 18, 2020
2,808
4,635
I think the crucial thing missing from this exercise is where is the perceived drop off in player value? top 100 means nothing if there isn't a drop in player value until pick 130.

I don't know what the answer is. Just seems like it would be a needed variable to this equation.

I would say top 100 while arbitrary neatly lines up with 60 F (20 LW/20 C/20 RW), 30D, 10G. That means 8th overall gets four players from those buckets, while 28th overall not only just gets three but they have to wait for an additional 20 players to be taken before they get to choose their fourth. Not to mention they lose any advantage to having the snake pick in the depth parts of the draft where they stand a chance to make up that value. In this most decent draft for example the forward taken at 100 was J.T. Miller and the closest forward to 120 was Krejci at 123. That's a big gap.

I don't know, maybe it's just me. I do like the snake flip at some point, it helps keep the bottom teams from getting an unfair advantage overall. But Round 3 is too early IMO.
 

BeLeafing

Registered User
Jun 5, 2017
2,163
3,436
We used to do it without the flip, I'm definitely not opposed to bring that back

A standard snake is a mistake. McDavid team could come out of the gates with McDavid-Hall-Werenski or something. The flip does help, just not sure it's a ton. But IMO there is a drop in the mid 3rd round, and 3RR allows the end of the draft to scoop some of that value.

I honestly don't know the solution. Flipping another round would be too much I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hockeynorth

hockeynorth

Registered User
Aug 31, 2017
12,572
6,364
I would say top 100 while arbitrary neatly lines up with 60 F (20 LW/20 C/20 RW), 30D, 10G. That means 8th overall gets four players from those buckets, while 28th overall not only just gets three but they have to wait for an additional 20 players to be taken before they get to choose their fourth. Not to mention they lose any advantage to having the snake pick in the depth parts of the draft where they stand a chance to make up that value. In this most decent draft for example the forward taken at 100 was J.T. Miller and the closest forward to 120 was Krejci at 123. That's a big gap.

I don't know, maybe it's just me. I do like the snake flip at some point, it helps keep the bottom teams from getting an unfair advantage overall. But Round 3 is too early IMO.
The point of the flip is to keep the top teams from getting like, Malkin, Hamilton and Laine
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->