CanucksCorner.com Forums

Is no one else chapped about the league decision on Ottawa and their draft pick?

Is it not fair to say that every team in the league has been operating for some time under the presumption that their pick will be one better than where they finished in the standings and arguably could have been making decisions based on that?

Truth be told, that kind of capricious league BS towards the Canucks - and, yes, the other teams who picked after Ottawa in the first round - is like Bonnie Blue nearing 100: no matter how big the phallus, nor how roughly it's applied, you just have a hard time feeling it.

No Canuck's justice but other teams seem to catch a Bettman break.

Honestly I thought it was a harsh penalty in the first place but ya, teams maybe set back a bit. I mean I figured not only would we get Minny's pick but the 32nd.

donlever wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 12:02 pm Is no one else chapped about the league decision on Ottawa and their draft pick?

Is it not fair to say that every team in the league has been operating for some time under the presumption that their pick will be one better than where they finished in the standings and arguably could have been making decisions based on that?

Unless I’m reading it wrong, everyone’s pick will be one better. Ottawa gets their 1RP back but they pick 32nd overall. I suppose it affects the subsequent rounds when considering that their forfeiture originally meant that they just didn’t get a selection.

I’m somewhat ok with the decision as the ownership and management of the team are completely different. The league should have enforced the punishment much sooner.

In this case, when showing mercy, I would modify the decision by giving them the pick back but relegating their draft position to last place in the first 3 rounds.

Mëds it was literally going to be our 32nd overall pick and Gary shoved us back one to give Ottawa theirs back.

I think in the grand scheme we shouldn’t be surprised, Bettman did exactly this when he stripped the Devils of their pick and the team changed hands between the misdeed and the punishment (which is worth millions) so there’s that as well.

Anyway. What if we pick Liam Ruck with Minny’s pick and Ottawa takes the other one at 32

dbr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2026 9:36 am Anyway. What if we pick Liam Ruck with Minny’s pick and Ottawa takes the other one at 32

Give the man a lollipop.

Exactly where I was going....

Pretty much a pile of garbage again, and of course we are the first team to have a draft pick knocked back.

And why do it right after the trade deadline? It’s an asset that could’ve been in play.

What about all those teams that grabbed 2nd round picks estimating where they would be. And now it’s one spot back!

Lame. If you’re going to give it back to them do it early in the year so it’s an asset either way.

donlever wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 12:02 pm Is no one else chapped about the league decision on Ottawa and their draft pick?

Is it not fair to say that every team in the league has been operating for some time under the presumption that their pick will be one better than where they finished in the standings and arguably could have been making decisions based on that?

I think what's most bothersome about it is that it seems capricious. Usually the league values finality. Not here. Usually appeals are resolved quickly. Not here. I am really not sure why there is an about face; I am pretty sure the arguments that Ottawa was making didn't change and there wasn't really new information.

Because there are so many situations involving the league with close analogs (like player safety suspension decision), we consistently see things where it just looks like the league has favorites, and there is no question (Colin Campbell....) that the league has played favorites in the past. And that stuff undermines an important value of sport -- teams, playing by the same rules, with the same dedication towards winning, war and there is an objective winner. Tilting the pitch, whether its gambling or making different teams jump through different hoops (or allowed to bypass the rules) sours it all.

Now with the Dadanov situation, there really aren't close analogs to what the punishment has been previously and therefore what it should be. Personally, I think that this punishment (drop to the end of the first round) is an abstractly fair punishment for a team like Ottawa that should be picking between 10-20, and that losing the first altogether for what looks like incompetence as opposed to deception is a pretty harsh penalty. But the interest in finality and the perception that things are fair and teams are treated equally outweighs the marginal weight to a slightly more appropriate punishment (if it is that).

And stepping back from it, I kind of wish that they'd tie the punishment more to the activity. E.g., all players on Ottawa have NTC written into their contracts for the net 2 seasons, and these will follow to any team to which they are trading. (this reduces the trade value of Ottawa players and is a prophylactic against any "oversight" about the existence of an NTC). Or Ottawa's trade deadline is a month earlier for 2 seasons. Or even, Ottawa is not permitted to make trades for a season.

Picker of Cherries wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2026 4:25 am Team - Net Movement - Key Outcomes
Chicago Blackhawks +18 Jumps in 1999, 2007, 2019, and 2023 (Connor Bedard) .
...
Vancouver Canucks -8 Lost the 1970 wheel spin (-1) and 7 spots during their 2016–2019 slide.
Detroit Red Wings -9 The unluckiest team; dropped 8 spots from 2017–2020 and 1 spot in 2025 .

Its a salve to know that the Hockey Gods are responsible for our pain.

But introducing a note of objectivity here.... (1) In order to drop regularly, statistically you have to be a team who regularly finishes outside the playoffs and does so near the bottom half of that group. Because nearly every year there will be a lottery winner -- a team (or two, or until a couple seasons ago, three) that moves up. You only get knocked down when you would otherwise be in a good spot. If you are picking #13, only 3 teams behind you can jump you (and they have the lowest odds to jump); if you are picking 5 pre-lottery, the likelihood is much greater. And when you are a playoff team, you can't go up or down.

Since the institution of the draft lottery, the Canucks had a long run of usually in the playoffs (can't move up or down) followed by a long run of being in or close to the bottom quarter of the league. Mathematically, that's a formula for accumulating bad luck.

(2) This analysis misses the 2005 draft, which was conducted under different rules. Three balls for each team that missed the playoffs the past 3 seasons and didn't have a #1 pick, two balls for teams who made the playoffs only once (or had a #1 pick, and 1 ball for everyone else. The Canucks were in the one ball camp, along with 15 other team (there were 30 teams in the league at the time). Drafting #10 with that distribution was very good fortune. The pick, Bourdon, didn't end of contributing to the Canucks because of the accident, but while he wasn't a wunderkind, he has tracking pretty well, and very well could developed into a 2-3 D, and was probably going to provide second pairing or 4-5 quality play.