General NHL Stuff

[The_People1]

11 hours ago, The_People1 said:

Trading off all players to get as many picks as possible is exactly losing inorganically.  Flames didn't do this exactly. 

 

6 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Are you depicting this as Calgary is tanking for a high draft pick on purpose? Because that is precisely what you're implying with full-on blinders.

 

I said the Flames are not tanking.  They tried to win but they were bad.

 

BUT not every team is as honest as the Calgary Flames.  Some teams do tank on purpose.  Most recently, Chicago emptied out their roster including budding stars like Hagel to make sure there was no obstacles to drafting Bedard.  Do the Flames do this?  No.  But some teams do.

 

If you let me trade Lindholm and Hanifin, for example, then I would show you making sure the Flames don't get immediate help to win the rest of the season.  The Flames didn't do that but some teams do.

 

Now change the lottery to unweighted.  Suddenly, no need to ensure there are no wins the rest of the season after TDL.  In fact, just keep winning as much as possible.

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

There is no way the NHL will ever go to an unweighted lotto. While we think tanking is a horrible way to go, there are going to be some poorly run clubs and teams that need to benefit the system. 

 

I don't think the NHL will go to unweighted lottery either but I support anything that would discourage a draft advantage to losing games.  Maybe the "most points after being officially eliminated" system is worth trying.

 

Another suggestion is the set/rotation system but I think that doesn't work when the NHL is expanding and inserting teams into the draft order before a full cycle has completed.

 

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

Calgary needs to do a full gut of the team and start from scratch. With your proposed system you assume teams need to keep the studs and rebuild. Our studs left. There aren't any anymore.

 

I think you will the find game theory behind an unweighted draft lottery to be far superior to the current system in the long run.  Everything from keeping teams honest to fan support near the end of a losing season.  It's an overall good look on the league.

 

The Flames would still trade Lindholm and Hanifin because the players refuse to extend long term.  Asset management.  Getting Kuzmenko and Miromanov to help in the immediate short term wouldn't change.  Flames haven't been in tank mode.

 

But other teams have been tanking.  Trading anyone with a pulse for picks and prospects that don't help immediately as the team is engineered to slide to the very bottom.  This is what being honest like the Calgary Flames is up against.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

Still think the idea that teams "tank" is flawed. Can ask any pro athlete and the idea that any of them would go out and lose on purpose is just flat out silly and wrong. This concept is for fans only and really isn't situated in fact. Do some teams ship everyone out, sure they do but that doesn't come without risk. All you have to do is look at the Oilers, Sabres and Islanders as team that got rid of basically everyone and then realized that the build up is pretty difficult. Could be Detroit in this bucket now too, Leafs even. 

 

Go look at the NFL. There isn't even a lottery there and tanking doesn't come up for them. 

 

Honestly not sure why this comes up as often as it does but it's a lot of discussion around a made up problem IMO. 

 

You are trying to say "tanking doesn't work so it's not a problem"

 

I'm saying tanking itself is a problem.

 

We are not the same.

[cberg]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

Still think the idea that teams "tank" is flawed. Can ask any pro athlete and the idea that any of them would go out and lose on purpose is just flat out silly and wrong. This concept is for fans only and really isn't situated in fact. Do some teams ship everyone out, sure they do but that doesn't come without risk. All you have to do is look at the Oilers, Sabres and Islanders as team that got rid of basically everyone and then realized that the build up is pretty difficult. Could be Detroit in this bucket now too, Leafs even. 

 

Go look at the NFL. There isn't even a lottery there and tanking doesn't come up for them. 

 

Honestly not sure why this comes up as often as it does but it's a lot of discussion around a made up problem IMO. 

I know NHL tanking has occurred, and probably still does but to a limited extent.  You are correct that players would not tank, their job is to win games.  General Managers have a different job, to build the franchise/increase sales... and sometimes a step back to reload players is required leading to sell-offs...i.e. "deliberate tanking".  And yes, it usually does not work out as expected, but yes, it does happen.  In the NFL there are like 50 players per team, making it impossible to tank in the same way... 

[cberg]

32 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

I said the Flames are not tanking.  They tried to win but they were bad.

 

BUT not every team is as honest as the Calgary Flames.  Some teams do tank on purpose.  Most recently, Chicago emptied out their roster including budding stars like Hagel to make sure there was no obstacles to drafting Bedard.  Do the Flames do this?  No.  But some teams do.

 

If you let me trade Lindholm and Hanifin, for example, then I would show you making sure the Flames don't get immediate help to win the rest of the season.  The Flames didn't do that but some teams do.

 

Now change the lottery to unweighted.  Suddenly, no need to ensure there are no wins the rest of the season after TDL.  In fact, just keep winning as much as possible.

Not sure what you mean by unweighted lotto?

[sak22]

11 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

I said the Flames are not tanking.  They tried to win but they were bad.

 

BUT not every team is as honest as the Calgary Flames.  Some teams do tank on purpose.  Most recently, Chicago emptied out their roster including budding stars like Hagel to make sure there was no obstacles to drafting Bedard.  Do the Flames do this?  No.  But some teams do.

 

If you let me trade Lindholm and Hanifin, for example, then I would show you making sure the Flames don't get immediate help to win the rest of the season.  The Flames didn't do that but some teams do.

 

Now change the lottery to unweighted.  Suddenly, no need to ensure there are no wins the rest of the season after TDL.  In fact, just keep winning as much as possible.

Who else did this besides Chicago recently?  Which Chicago doing that wasn't too long after trading an unprotected 1st that wound up being top 10 for Seth Jones.  A new GM correcting a previous ones mistakes and wanting to start fresh at a time the organization is completely disgraced and needs to transition away from franchise legends, isn't that crazy.  Also not crazy to take the Hagel deal from Tampa regardless if rebuilding, 2 firsts for a 23 year old former 6th round pick on a season that could've been a one off, guarantee he isn't a 70 point player on Chicago.

[The_People1]

17 minutes ago, cberg said:

Not sure what you mean by unweighted lotto?

 

All teams that miss the playoffs, regardless of points and standings, enter a lottery with one ball each in the box.

 

The idea is to encourage every team to win to the very final game and eliminate the concept of tanking to the bottom for a higher pick.

[The_People1]

17 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Who else did this besides Chicago recently?  Which Chicago doing that wasn't too long after trading an unprotected 1st that wound up being top 10 for Seth Jones.  A new GM correcting a previous ones mistakes and wanting to start fresh at a time the organization is completely disgraced and needs to transition away from franchise legends, isn't that crazy.  Also not crazy to take the Hagel deal from Tampa regardless if rebuilding, 2 firsts for a 23 year old former 6th round pick on a season that could've been a one off, guarantee he isn't a 70 point player on Chicago.

 

The Hagel trade even got Toews publicly questioning the franchises motive at the time.  It was so obvious.

 

Recently, just Chicago.  Bedard was the "next one"... McKenna is supposed to be the next one in 2026.  We will see some shenanigans again because he's franchise altering talent.

[sak22]

Just now, The_People1 said:

 

The Hagel trade even got Toews publicly questioning the franchises motive at the time.  It was so obvious.

 

Recently, just Chicago.  Bedard was the "next one"... McKenna is supposed to be the next one in 2026.  We will see some shenanigans again because he's franchise altering talent.

And Chicago won a lottery to get him, so they tanked and finished ahead of teams like Columbus who was an active free agent player and Anaheim who has been in a steady decline due to years of going for it.  Yes Fantili and Carlson are considered better than average consolation prizes, but I'd still say the drop off between them and Bedard is significant.  Sure there was a 1 point difference between the teams but Chicago finished their season by ending the Penguins and then losing in OT, not exactly work of a team more focused on giving them the best odds. 

[sak22]

4 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Calgary will never be a team that does that. Are they penalized for it? No. Because that is their choice. They choose to operate that way in hopes to gain extra revenue for a round of hockey or catch lightening in a bottle and then lose to them due to poor video on the goal that was in. That's just the way the Flames operate. 

I find the way we forget 10 years ago funny.  The year after the Iginla, Bouwmeester trades and Kipper retirement the big offseason moves were Corban Knight, TJ Galiardi, Kris Russell and Joe Colborne, that doesn't scream quick turnaround to me.  They weren't fooling anyone back then with following Kipper with Joey Macdonald, Karri Ramo and Reto Berra and running with Matt Stajan as the first line center after he was 4th a few years earlier.  Go back in time no body saw a quick turnaround, sure management said they were committed to one but I find Kevin Lowe's speech at around the 1:45 mark of this video to explain who the team is talking to when it refuses to say the word rebuild.  

 

They could care less that non paying fans are pissed, they worry about the ones paying over $10,000 a seat because they've been done that road when those guys don't want to support the team.  I have some of the cheapest seats in the building, don't think they would bat an eye if I threatened to leave, 10 years ago my boss at the time was furious they were moving on from Iginla and co. he paid $40,000 a season, left an angry email and got a call from Ken King the next day, one thing you might not know about Calgary which ownership definitely does is that it is a bandwagon city, we are full of transplants who jump on when things are good and then pull out their original favorite team when things are bad.  The team will never say they want to be bad, doesn't mean they never will be that way, they are always concerned with keeping their rich supporters on board.

[redfire11]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

I don't think the NHL will go to unweighted lottery either but I support anything that would discourage a draft advantage to losing games.  Maybe the "most points after being officially eliminated" system is worth trying.

Years ago I presented a lottery system that withdrew 10 or 20 % of the lottery percentages given to the non playoff teams. At the end of the season the total number of wins by the 16 non playoff teams after game 41 were counted and divided by that 10 or 20 %. Each win after game 41 would increase your lottery %. Realistically under this system teams could only tank from games 1 to 41. 

[robrob74]

3 hours ago, sak22 said:

I find the way we forget 10 years ago funny.  The year after the Iginla, Bouwmeester trades and Kipper retirement the big offseason moves were Corban Knight, TJ Galiardi, Kris Russell and Joe Colborne, that doesn't scream quick turnaround to me.  They weren't fooling anyone back then with following Kipper with Joey Macdonald, Karri Ramo and Reto Berra and running with Matt Stajan as the first line center after he was 4th a few years earlier.  Go back in time no body saw a quick turnaround, sure management said they were committed to one but I find Kevin Lowe's speech at around the 1:45 mark of this video to explain who the team is talking to when it refuses to say the word rebuild.  

 

They could care less that non paying fans are pissed, they worry about the ones paying over $10,000 a seat because they've been done that road when those guys don't want to support the team.  I have some of the cheapest seats in the building, don't think they would bat an eye if I threatened to leave, 10 years ago my boss at the time was furious they were moving on from Iginla and co. he paid $40,000 a season, left an angry email and got a call from Ken King the next day, one thing you might not know about Calgary which ownership definitely does is that it is a bandwagon city, we are full of transplants who jump on when things are good and then pull out their original favorite team when things are bad.  The team will never say they want to be bad, doesn't mean they never will be that way, they are always concerned with keeping their rich supporters on board.

I don't think it's forgotten at all! I think we could be scarred by it lol, as some of us worry they'd fall into that again. I also wonder about the improvement of scouting. Conroy definitely has a philosophy, a slight shift in His approach. But I think there's improvement. Back then, it was by necessity and Sutter trades that got them there. 
 

I don't know how many of us expected it to go the same as it did at that time period. 
 

but you're definitely right, there is a place a team gets to before improvement. Sometimes it's signing a glimmer of hope in 2nd chance players with previous upside. Chances at college kids, or best goalies out of the NHL. Or guys with good KHL numbers yet to translate. That was a rough time. 

[cross16]

7 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

You are trying to say "tanking doesn't work so it's not a problem"

 

I'm saying tanking itself is a problem.

 

We are not the same.

we are not because what you describe as tanking I don’t think exists, therefore it’s not a problem. 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

we are not because what you describe as tanking I don’t think exists, therefore it’s not a problem. 

 

You said throw the Oilers, Sabres, Islanders, and maybe Red Wings and Leafs into a bucket of teams that tried to "tank" and failed to turn it around successfully.  So you are saying it exists but it isn't always successful.

[cross16]

10 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

You said throw the Oilers, Sabres, Islanders, and maybe Red Wings and Leafs into a bucket of teams that tried to "tank" and failed to turn it around successfully.  So you are saying it exists but it isn't always successful.

 

We clearly have a different definition of tanking. Tanking to me is losing on purpose making intentional and deliberate steps to make sure your team is as bad as they can be. I don't think that happens anymore with the lottery rules. I would have a problem with this if teams were doing it but as I said I don't think this is occurring.

 

I do think teams shed assets and rebuild which to me is not tanking, it's just a life cycle or a pro sports franchise.  That process comes with risk which is part of the reason why i don't think teams intentionally lose on purpose because often the risk in doing so outweighs the player your going to get. 

[cberg]

19 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

All teams that miss the playoffs, regardless of points and standings, enter a lottery with one ball each in the box.

 

The idea is to encourage every team to win to the very final game and eliminate the concept of tanking to the bottom for a higher pick.

OK, thanks.  I believe that would definitely discourage tanking, just not sure it provides any ability to improve terrible teams.  The problem is, management and development, and being good at projecting growth are often more important in the long run than draft position.  I've advocated a fixed draft schedule, but that has issues too.  

[cberg]

19 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

The Hagel trade even got Toews publicly questioning the franchises motive at the time.  It was so obvious.

 

Recently, just Chicago.  Bedard was the "next one"... McKenna is supposed to be the next one in 2026.  We will see some shenanigans again because he's franchise altering talent.

Well, at least we have 2 unfettered shots at him in 2026.

[cberg]

14 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

We clearly have a different definition of tanking. Tanking to me is losing on purpose making intentional and deliberate steps to make sure your team is as bad as they can be. I don't think that happens anymore with the lottery rules. I would have a problem with this if teams were doing it but as I said I don't think this is occurring.

 

I do think teams shed assets and rebuild which to me is not tanking, it's just a life cycle or a pro sports franchise.  That process comes with risk which is part of the reason why i don't think teams intentionally lose on purpose because often the risk in doing so outweighs the player your going to get. 

Players tanking and GMs tanking are two different things.  Shedding assets and rebuilding is GM tanking.

[cross16]

5 minutes ago, cberg said:

Players tanking and GMs tanking are two different things.  Shedding assets and rebuilding is GM tanking.

 

As i said above I don't agree with this. 

[sak22]

I know the people thinks the honorable thing for a bad team to do is to make moves to become good, but for many teams the only way out is to get there through the draft.  We of all fans should know that quick fix trades don't work and free agency can often do more harm than good.  Add in some markets can't go those routes due to player clauses and desirability.  Edmonton for example, always called a tank but after their final appearance they lost Pronger (out of there control), traded Smyth (financial differences), bad season in '07 and a strong finish to '08 they made several attempts to sign marquee free agents like Jagr and Hossa, tried trading for Heatley he refused.  They did sign Souray and Bulin, so you can't say they weren't trying.  The issue why its taken so long is their draft performance, they had 3 of the worst #1's in the last 20 years and have done very poorly outside the first round.  But we can't all follow the Rangers model of rebuilding. 

 

But with Chicago recently, they were already bad with Hagel, Dach and Debrincat, and had low assets to improve thanks to Bowman.  Why commit a bunch of money to players who you don't feel are part of your long term vision.  I do find it funny the people who take issue with that approach are proposing trading the only remaining NHL dmen the Flames have, not an approach I'm against but if it is based on getting 1 player in this next draft, then I'm not as on board.

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

I do think teams shed assets and rebuild which to me is not tanking, it's just a life cycle or a pro sports franchise.  That process comes with risk which is part of the reason why i don't think teams intentionally lose on purpose because often the risk in doing so outweighs the player your going to get. 

 

I'm glad you said this because an unweighted draft lottery is really a reset of what it means to go through a "life cycle".  Teams don't have to intentionally tear it down as deep and lose on purpose as much.

[cberg]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

As i said above I don't agree with this. 

I think it’s a matter of semantics, and timing.  So let me ask, when our GM traded Tanev for an AHLer and picks, was he expecting the Flames to win more games the rest of the season or lose more?  Same question with Lindholm?  Same question with Hanifin?

[sak22]

13 minutes ago, cberg said:

I think it’s a matter of semantics, and timing.  So let me ask, when our GM traded Tanev for an AHLer and picks, was he expecting the Flames to win more games the rest of the season or lose more?  Same question with Lindholm?  Same question with Hanifin?

They will never admit that they expected to lose more, but what else was he supposed to do?  Keep players who didn't want to resign?  You aren't trading rentals for players who can help now unless you get lucky on a cap dump. But at the trade deadline they were on the outside looking at picking 11-12 range, the "tank" as you would call it dropped 2-3 draft spots, I would call it a more deliberate tank attempt if they moved Markstrom, left Wolf on the Wranglers and called up Dansk and gave him most starts. 

 

For me tanking would've required trading all before the season, as well as moving others with term, taking nothing in return in terms of current NHL players all the while moving any player during the season who may be overachieving.  How many teams have actually gone to that level in this era?

[cross16]

51 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I'm glad you said this because an unweighted draft lottery is really a reset of what it means to go through a "life cycle".  Teams don't have to intentionally tear it down as deep and lose on purpose as much.

 

 

I'm not in favor of any system that based solely on luck.  Team will still go through life cycles and if they don't get the right luck they could stay in that downward cycle for longer. 

 

That type of system makes no sense to me. 

[cross16]

41 minutes ago, cberg said:

I think it’s a matter of semantics, and timing.  So let me ask, when our GM traded Tanev for an AHLer and picks, was he expecting the Flames to win more games the rest of the season or lose more?  Same question with Lindholm?  Same question with Hanifin?

 

Acquiring future assets and tanking are not the same thing to me. Of course he knew he wasn't going to win as much but it doesn't make sense to me that you would frame it that way. 

 

Don't think your factoring in the idea that potential has value in a trade. Ok he could have traded those players for players to help him now but is that more valuable than what he got in return? No chance IMO.