conundrumed Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 What a pos. I've always hated this. Just give the 1 to the worst team already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 The Flyers jump from 13 to 2. The 1 of Patrick/Hischeir that the Debbies don't take will help. It doesn't make up for losing the Patrick Kane lottery in 2007 in a year we were so bad we even lost the lottery ending up with JVR but it helps for the now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyromancer Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 20 hours ago, Pyromancer said: Hoping the Nucks get bumped to 5th. It's possible! Colorado can get bumped to 4th, Vegas to 6th & Arizona 7th. Congrats FF for your Flyers getting up to 2nd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyromancer Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 Odds for top 3 moving up: New Jersey from 5th to 1st was 8.5% Philadelphia from 13th to 2nd was 2.4% Dallas from 5th to 3rd was 6.4% For comparison: Colorado from 1st to 4th 50.9% Vancouver from 2nd to 5th was 30.7% Las Vegas from 3rd to 6th was 18.1% Arizona from 4th to 7th was 9.7% Given these odds, the final result was surprising but not totally unexpected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 50 minutes ago, Pyromancer said: Congrats FF for your Flyers getting up to 2nd Nailed it on the nux, Pyro. This thing is a joke, though. The worst teams that need the most help get jobbed, let's face it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Pyromancer said: Congrats FF for your Flyers getting up to 2nd Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 Love it. Wish it was nonweighted and every team had equal odds. No more selling players at deadline. No more losing on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 49 minutes ago, The_People1 said: Love it. Wish it was nonweighted and every team had equal odds. No more selling players at deadline. No more losing on purpose. That is way overplayed. No team did that this year, the worst teams are the worst teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 3 hours ago, conundrumed said: That is way overplayed. No team did that this year, the worst teams are the worst teams. Let's see, the NHL evens the lottery odds and teams reduced tanking across the league. This is great. And you want to eliminate the lottery again?... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 10 hours ago, The_People1 said: Let's see, the NHL evens the lottery odds and teams reduced tanking across the league. This is great. And you want to eliminate the lottery again?... lol If you suck at the trade deadline and trade assets to stockpile picks, is that tanking or is it logical resolve to try to improve? Look at Philly at 2, c'mon. They're not near as bad as the Avs, Nucks, Wings etc. Drafts are meant to help really bad teams get better, this method fails them. I'm all for doing a, say, bottom 6 lottery, sure. But isolate the other 9 in a lottery from 7-15 picks. An 88 pt team shouldn't get to grab the #2 pick. I mean, hey, great for the Flyers, but it shouldn't be a possibility. As I said, this whole "tanking" thing is overblown, every time a team is pathetic and a bonafide last place team, the tanking card gets thrown around like candy. Every team gives their prospects a shot when they are out of the race, for some reason, it gets turned around into, they're tanking on purpose". A good chuckle over this Taylor Hall tweet, though: Officially adding "NHL lottery ball specialist" to my hockey resume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 32 minutes ago, conundrumed said: If you suck at the trade deadline and trade assets to stockpile picks, is that tanking or is it logical resolve to try to improve? Look at Philly at 2, c'mon. They're not near as bad as the Avs, Nucks, Wings etc. Drafts are meant to help really bad teams get better, this method fails them. I'm all for doing a, say, bottom 6 lottery, sure. But isolate the other 9 in a lottery from 7-15 picks. An 88 pt team shouldn't get to grab the #2 pick. I mean, hey, great for the Flyers, but it shouldn't be a possibility. As I said, this whole "tanking" thing is overblown, every time a team is pathetic and a bonafide last place team, the tanking card gets thrown around like candy. Every team gives their prospects a shot when they are out of the race, for some reason, it gets turned around into, they're tanking on purpose". A good chuckle over this Taylor Hall tweet, though: Officially adding "NHL lottery ball specialist" to my hockey resume. You seriously don't believe there is tanking? It's not resolve to do better if it's seen as a way to make up for an inept management. I like the fomula where the odds go up for the teams with the best record after being officialy eliminated. Rewarding teams for being bad on purpose goes against every sporting reason. Sure teams give their prospects a shot when the playoffs are out of reach but how they do is either showing sucess in drafting or yet another testament to ineptitude. Assembling a bad team is easier than creating a winner when odds are against it (Chicago managing to win 3 Cups when trading better players than some have as top enders every year) . Being bad & drafting high doesn't hold a candle to being good & drafting smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said: You seriously don't believe there is tanking? It's not resolve to do better if it's seen as a way to make up for an inept management. I like the fomula where the odds go up for the teams with the best record after being officialy eliminated. Rewarding teams for being bad on purpose goes against every sporting reason. Sure teams give their prospects a shot when the playoffs are out of reach but how they do is either showing sucess in drafting or yet another testament to ineptitude. Assembling a bad team is easier than creating a winner when odds are against it (Chicago managing to win 3 Cups when trading better players than some have as top enders every year) . Being bad & drafting high doesn't hold a candle to being good & drafting smart. I seriously am not drinking that concoction. Do you really think the Avs were bad on purpose? They were bad no matter what they wanted. Probably doesn't help when your coach resigns so close to camp, but you play the hand you have. Do you guys really think that mgmt will risk their jobs to be bad on purpose? And then you get the players to buy in? That's a lot of conspiracy isn't it? Maybe really bad teams are just really bad teams, and those markets need the most help. Is that a really out there thought? Failing on purpose was never a widespread problem, we just pretend it is, and every team that really sucks can't do anything without getting that label hung on them. Welcome to lose-lose scenarios. Don't take the historical route that might help you get better, because you'll be painted as "losing on purpose". How many markets are we willing to risk with this mindset? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 1 hour ago, conundrumed said: If you suck at the trade deadline and trade assets to stockpile picks, is that tanking or is it logical resolve to try to improve? Look at Philly at 2, c'mon. They're not near as bad as the Avs, Nucks, Wings etc. Drafts are meant to help really bad teams get better, this method fails them. I'm all for doing a, say, bottom 6 lottery, sure. But isolate the other 9 in a lottery from 7-15 picks. An 88 pt team shouldn't get to grab the #2 pick. I mean, hey, great for the Flyers, but it shouldn't be a possibility. As I said, this whole "tanking" thing is overblown, every time a team is pathetic and a bonafide last place team, the tanking card gets thrown around like candy. Every team gives their prospects a shot when they are out of the race, for some reason, it gets turned around into, they're tanking on purpose". A good chuckle over this Taylor Hall tweet, though: Officially adding "NHL lottery ball specialist" to my hockey resume. I think the NHL has finally got this right. First 3 picks are lottery picks, the odds of winning a lottery pick improves with worst records. Every team that misses the playoffs has had a failed season, hence you get a shot at the lottery picks (however small). To draw the line for lottery pick eligibility at 6th worst doesn’t make any sense to the 7th worst team, it just creates an imaginary line for losers to aim for. I was happy for PHI, a team who definitely played with integrity down the stretch was rewarded for doing so. Not saying other teams did not play to win, but when your having a bad year, management can manipulate the roster to make sure their having a really bad year if the prize is worth while. No more guaranteed prize for the biggest losers. 1 hour ago, Flyerfan52 said: You seriously don't believe there is tanking? It's not resolve to do better if it's seen as a way to make up for an inept management. I like the fomula where the odds go up for the teams with the best record after being officialy eliminated. Rewarding teams for being bad on purpose goes against every sporting reason. Sure teams give their prospects a shot when the playoffs are out of reach but how they do is either showing sucess in drafting or yet another testament to ineptitude. Assembling a bad team is easier than creating a winner when odds are against it (Chicago managing to win 3 Cups when trading better players than some have as top enders every year) . Being bad & drafting high doesn't hold a candle to being good & drafting smart. How would this work when one team is officially eliminated with 25 games to go and others miss on the last game of regulation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 5 minutes ago, CheersMan said: I think the NHL has finally got this right. I disagree, but that doesn't mean we can't be friends, lol. I just think it's overplayed and may actually harm markets. People will stop supporting 30-52, it's just human nature. We have to give them the pick of the litter for how bad they are. I just think there are implications here that shouldn't exist. What market really, really needs the hope at #2? Philly doesn't really come to mind. The Avs are completely screwed in all of this. I hate the Avs and Nux, but those are markets getting screwed from what used to be a traditional way for hope. Are we ready to tie their hands? I really hope so, because we are. For misconceptions and half-truths, it isn't worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, CheersMan said: How would this work when one team is officially eliminated with 25 games to go and others miss on the last game of regulation? That's an extreme example but I'd suppose that the bubble team that missed get the nod if they win the final game. If not they revert to where they finished. A tie would move them up slightly as the loser point still gives a 0.33%. A team eliminated after only 57 games but wins the majority of the remainder must have either been 1) snake-bitten by injury &/or bad coaching or 2) retooled around the trade deadline via trades or a coaching change. Either way it'd be unlikely they'll be as bad next season so aren't using the draft as their only tool to be better someday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 4 minutes ago, conundrumed said: I disagree, but that doesn't mean we can't be friends, lol. I just think it's overplayed and may actually harm markets. People will stop supporting 30-52, it's just human nature. We have to give them the pick of the litter for how bad they are. I just think there are implications here that shouldn't exist. What market really, really needs the hope at #2? Philly doesn't really come to mind. The Avs are completely screwed in all of this. I hate the Avs and Nux, but those are markets getting screwed from what used to be a traditional way for hope. Are we ready to tie their hands? I really hope so, because we are. For misconceptions and half-truths, it isn't worth it. Fair weather fans already don't support losing teams (see Colorado or Florida attendance depending on if they as icing a contender or loser). This appies even when there is a deliberate tank with a prize in sight (Pittsburgh before & after drafting Crosby & previously Mario). Remember in the USA even in the biggest hockey towns hockey isn't the only game in town since many/most also have the NFL, NBA & MLB. The big markets (fan wise) don't dare go on extended losing streaks so try to compete. They might have a down year (Flyers were so bad in 2006-07 that even a 30th place finish didn't get them the 1st OA) but were contenders the next year due to trades, signings & internal growth. In Canada teams like the Leafs (corporate season ticket base) or Oilers (fans scared to lose their spot in the arena if they give up their tickets) can get away with it. So do we prop up the increasing # of cities with the NHL that don't support them until it's a status symbol or do we allow teams that were accidently not contending to keep building? Reward failure as team building or reward those that compete but for reasons like injury had an off year or 2? Failure as an alternative to trying is BS! Denying a decent team with loyal fans high picks only to favor 1 that doesn't even try goes against all principles of fairness. If you base it on need to draw fans only just give the 1st pick to the team with the least sold tickets. Ironically staying away would help them build via the draft so management can sit by the pool rather than even pretend to be working to improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 17 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said: Fair weather fans already don't support losing teams (see Colorado or Florida attendance depending on if they as icing a contender or loser). This appies even when there is a deliberate tank with a prize in sight (Pittsburgh before & after drafting Crosby & previously Mario). Remember in the USA even in the biggest hockey towns hockey isn't the only game in town since many/most also have the NFL, NBA & MLB. The big markets (fan wise) don't dare go on extended losing streaks so try to compete. They might have a down year (Flyers were so bad in 2006-07 that even a 30th place finish didn't get them the 1st OA) but were contenders the next year due to trades, signings & internal growth. In Canada teams like the Leafs (corporate season ticket base) or Oilers (fans scared to lose their spot in the arena if they give up their tickets) can get away with it. So do we prop up the increasing # of cities with the NHL that don't support them until it's a status symbol or do we allow teams that were accidently not contending to keep building? Reward failure as team building or reward those that compete but for reasons like injury had an off year or 2? Failure as an alternative to trying is BS! Denying a decent team with loyal fans high picks only to favor 1 that doesn't even try goes against all principles of fairness. If you base it on need to draw fans only just give the 1st pick to the team with the least sold tickets. Ironically staying away would help them build via the draft so management can sit by the pool rather than even pretend to be working to improve. The whole basis of your argument is teams having terrible seasons are tanking on purpose or are altogether incompetent. Bringing up Pittsburgh is treating it like it's the norm, which is what I mean by half-truths. The Avs were horrible this year, as were the nucks. They aren't sliding on purpose, they suck. Are they "tanking on purpose"? Whether they are or not, it's an over-used analogy that will be hung on them. Truth be damned. Why the NHL follows this is beyond me, it is such an over-reaction to a perceived problem, not a real one. What happened to parity? Not looking like it imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyromancer Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Flyerfan52 said: Fair weather fans already don't support losing teams (see Colorado or Florida attendance depending on if they as icing a contender or loser). This appies even when there is a deliberate tank with a prize in sight (Pittsburgh before & after drafting Crosby & previously Mario). Remember in the USA even in the biggest hockey towns hockey isn't the only game in town since many/most also have the NFL, NBA & MLB. The big markets (fan wise) don't dare go on extended losing streaks so try to compete. They might have a down year (Flyers were so bad in 2006-07 that even a 30th place finish didn't get them the 1st OA) but were contenders the next year due to trades, signings & internal growth. In Canada teams like the Leafs (corporate season ticket base) or Oilers (fans scared to lose their spot in the arena if they give up their tickets) can get away with it. So do we prop up the increasing # of cities with the NHL that don't support them until it's a status symbol or do we allow teams that were accidently not contending to keep building? Reward failure as team building or reward those that compete but for reasons like injury had an off year or 2? Failure as an alternative to trying is BS! Denying a decent team with loyal fans high picks only to favor 1 that doesn't even try goes against all principles of fairness. If you base it on need to draw fans only just give the 1st pick to the team with the least sold tickets. Ironically staying away would help them build via the draft so management can sit by the pool rather than even pretend to be working to improve. Without Mario or Crosby, the Pens could be elsewhere. I think that is conundrum's point. Even more than Fairweather fans will lose interest. The Flames nearly left Calgary. Is it different circumstances? I think not entirely. We couldn't really attract a free agent and were not drafting very well. There had to be a ticket drive to save the team. I think tou risk risk that in other markets by rewarding better teams with higher picks. Then we complain about some teams' fan support or lack thereof. You can't have both in your arguments, I don't think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, Pyromancer said: Not saying I don't like that part, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjgallow Posted May 1, 2017 Report Share Posted May 1, 2017 So... Just for clarity, Does this mean that the Oilers aren't picking first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted May 1, 2017 Report Share Posted May 1, 2017 7 hours ago, jjgallow said: So... Just for clarity, Does this mean that the Oilers aren't picking first? Unless they make a trade with the Debbies they finally don't. However, Hall seems to be getting yet another 1st OA as a teammate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.