Ongoing NHL thread - Part III

[dash]

Here you go again, being feisty.

I would substitute feisty for argumentative.

/He is a lawyer, after all.

 

[pixburgher66]

I would substitute feisty for argumentative.

/He is a lawyer, after all.

THIS COMMENT IS OUT OF LINE.

 

[dash]

Dave Pratt flat out thinks McDavid should outright win the Calder ... Botchford just screamed at him ... "HOW DO YOU LIVE WITH YOURSELF ?"

He (Pratt) was beating that same drum a couple of weeks ago. I don't know the Calder was based on pro-rated stats for an entire season or points-per-game average.

 

[dash]

THIS COMMENT IS OUT OF LINE.

Withdrawn.

 

[Darkstone42]

Withdrawn.

Overruled!

Can I overrule your withdrawal?

If only there were a lawyer to clarify...

 

[forty_three]

Overruled!

Can I overrule your withdrawal?

If only there were a lawyer to clarify...

 

[dash]

Turn in your goaltender's union card, Mr. Hall

Hall: Make goalie equipment smaller

 

[forty_three]

Turn in your goaltender's union card, Mr. Hall

Hall: Make goalie equipment smaller

Of course he wants the gear to be smaller. Preserve his records. He wore 30 pounds on just his legs.

 

[dash]

From the Hall article:

On finishing ahead of Black Hawks teammate Al MacNeil, a defenseman, in the 1965-66 scoring race: "I had two assists and Al had none, and I reminded him of this often during the season. Al said, 'I'll catch you if I have a good second half and stay healthy.' At the end of the year, I have two assists and he has one. So Al announces, 'I know how that happened. Hall played all the power plays.' "

 

[elocomotive]

Here you go again, being feisty.

There's nothing feisty about logic.

 

[Dacks]

Going to Pens / Sens tonight, woohoo! On paper, Pens are due for a letdown - they've already clinched a playoff spot and just beat hated rival Philly on Sunday. But I'm hoping they'll still put up an entertaining performance, and still need a few points to clinch home-ice in the first round.

There's nothing feisty about logic.

Where do you work? Anytime I bring up a logical argument at work I'm labelled feisty.

(I'm sure my condescending tone has nothing to do with it...)

 

[dash]

A simpler solution would be to make all 14 non-playoff teams share the exact same odds in the lottery.

You're preaching to the choir, Pierre.

Rumblings: Tanking talk isn't healthy for the NHL

 

[KennyBanyeah]

A simpler solution would be to make all 14 non-playoff teams share the exact same odds in the lottery.

You're preaching to the choir, Pierre.

Rumblings: Tanking talk isn't healthy for the NHL

I'm definitely OK with this. And I agree that all the tanking talk is bad for the game.

During the final 20 games of the season, improve the draft lottery odds for those bottom-dwelling teams that win games rather than lose games during that stretch. In other words, the more points you pick up in the standings during that final stretch, the better your odds in the lottery. It's almost like reversing the standings for the final quarter of the schedule.

I also like this idea. My only issue with this is that it might put a real damper on deadline day. Teams will be less likely to sell their rentals if they could win the 1st overall pick (or improve chances).

On the flip side it might make draft day and the rest of the offseason more exciting as teams know they'll have to go into the season with their team mostly set.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

A simpler solution would be to make all 14 non-playoff teams share the exact same odds in the lottery.

You're preaching to the choir, Pierre.

Rumblings: Tanking talk isn't healthy for the NHL

I would definitely disagree with making the odds even for all non playoff teams. Take last year for example. Should the Kings, with two Cups in three years and barely missing the POs, really have the same odds of winning as say Carolina or NJ, neither of whom was good, but also neither could be accused of openly tanking (which is why I specifically left Buffalo and Arizona out of my example)?

The Gold Plan is so much better to me. Since bad teams naturally get eliminated earlier, they've got more games to try to earn points in. And if you get a team filled with young guys, like this year's Sabres team, who start to come together late in the season (by my math, only Pitt has more points in their last 10), they still have something real to play for.

 

[dash]

I would definitely disagree with making the odds even for all non playoff teams. Take last year for example. Should the Kings, with two Cups in three years and barely missing the POs, really have the same odds of winning as say Carolina or NJ, neither of whom was good, but also neither could be accused of openly tanking (which is why I specifically left Buffalo and Arizona out of my example)?

With a hard salary cap in place, you will need to make tough choices even if you do well in the lottery as you won't be able to afford to keep all your players once their ELC has expired. If your team continues to struggle year-after-year (see Oilers, Edmonton), maybe it's time to bring in some fresh scouts and management. Of course, in the Oilers case, I think their scouting department consists of a subscription to the Hockey News.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

With a hard salary cap in place, you will need to make tough choices even if you do well in the lottery as you won't be able to afford to keep all your players once their ELC has expired. If your team continues to struggle year-after-year (see Oilers, Edmonton), maybe it's time to bring in some fresh scouts and management. Of course, in the Oilers case, I think their scouting department consists of a subscription to the Hockey News.

Definitely agree with that.

But even if they'd be in for hard choices three years down the road, imagine if you had put McJesus on the Kings. I think they'd jump to automatic favo(u)rites for at least the next three years.

I'm also in favo(u)r of the limits on how many number one picks the same team can have over a period of time.

 

[dash]

Definitely agree with that.

But even if they'd be in for hard choices three years down the road, imagine if you had put McJesus on the Kings. I think they'd jump to automatic favo(u)rites for at least the next three years.

I'm also in favo(u)r of the limits on how many number one picks the same team can have over a period of time.

I have no idea why the bolded has yet to be put in place (it makes too much sense I guess).

/And we all know that McJesus will end up in LA eventually, he's going to follow the same path as Gretzky.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

I just don't quite understand how you can have parity and a non-weighted lottery at the same time. Somehow two or three teams will wind up picking 12th and 14th every year and never be able to build a team that can contend.

I think the simpler solution would be to give teams that finish 6-10 some sort of cap benefit they can use the next season, including the ability to trade the space to a maxed out team for an asset. How many GM's would love to have an extra $3 million to play with right now?

 

[dash]

I just don't quite understand how you can have parity and a non-weighted lottery at the same time.

That's really my beef with the current draft lottery system - When there was no hard salary cap and you had some teams spending 70+ million on salaries and some spending less than 30 million on salaries, it was pretty clear that you needed a mechanism to aid the teams that couldn't compete financially with the big boys. However, now that the playing field has been somewhat leveled as far as what can you spend on player salaries, all non-playoff teams should have the same chance at the number 1 overall draft pick or have a chance to move up as high as possible to that number one pick.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I have no idea why the bolded has yet to be put in place (it makes too much sense I guess).

/And we all know that McJesus will end up in LA eventually, he's going to follow the same path as Gretzky.

I guess the league never expected Edmonton to get 3 in a row and 4 in 6.

But agreed that it just makes too much sense. I might consider making an exception in the case of an expansion team, depending on what the exact X times in Y years rule worked out to, given that expansion teams generally need a while to get up to speed.