General NHL Stuff

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

 

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. 

 

The draft is luck based right now though.  There is a lottery system.

 

For me, whether it makes sense or not is a matter of cultural acceptance over time.  Restoring integrity to the fanbase cheering for losses and GMs from trying to lose up the draft ranks are more important.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, sak22 said:

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?

 

But if there is an unweighted lottery, then we don't even need to define tanking.  Just try to win every game in the regular season.

[sak22]

9 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

But if there is an unweighted lottery, then we don't even need to define tanking.  Just try to win every game in the regular season.

Don't think in an era where coaches often don't get 2nd chances and players earnings can drastically change based on performance, you have issues of people not trying to win every game. 

[cross16]

14 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

The draft is luck based right now though.  There is a lottery system.

 

For me, whether it makes sense or not is a matter of cultural acceptance over time.  Restoring integrity to the fanbase cheering for losses and GMs from trying to lose up the draft ranks are more important.

 

Minimal luck yes but your proposing to turn it over entirely to luck. Doesn't make sense to me. 

 

I don't buy the integrity argument. Why isn't that a thing in football where they have no lottery at all? I don't see an integrity issue here at all which is why i've always aid your trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist

 

to each their own though. 

[The_People1]

3 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Don't think in an era where coaches often don't get 2nd chances and players earnings can drastically change based on performance, you have issues of people not trying to win every game. 

 

It's GMs doing it

[The_People1]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Minimal luck yes but your proposing to turn it over entirely to luck. Doesn't make sense to me. 

 

I don't buy the integrity argument. Why isn't that a thing in football where they have no lottery at all? I don't see an integrity issue here at all which is why i've always aid your trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist

 

to each their own though. 

 

Because one player can't turn a whole franchise around in the NFL.  Best QBs are usually found in later rounds.

 

NBA is arguably the most affected by 1 star player.  They have a tanking problem too.

[cross16]

11 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Because one player can't turn a whole franchise around in the NFL.  Best QBs are usually found in later rounds.

 

NBA is arguably the most affected by 1 star player.  They have a tanking problem too.

 

 

You'd want to do more research on that one.

 

I think we've already seen it in hockey where 1 player cannot turn around a franchise. 

[sak22]

35 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

It's GMs doing it

Great thing about sports, plenty of teams have looked awful on paper and have done good things, plenty of teams have looked great on paper and done nothing, games are won and lost on on the ice/court/field.  Remember pre-cap when the Rangers couldn't even buy a playoff team.  Even this year I'd say most predicted this to be another bad year for the Flyers.

52 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Because one player can't turn a whole franchise around in the NFL.  Best QBs are usually found in later rounds.

 

NBA is arguably the most affected by 1 star player.  They have a tanking problem too.

Depends on what you consider late rounds but of last years playoffs 10/14 starting QB's were 1st rounders, 1 2nd, 1 3rd, 1 4th and 1 7th.  I know people love the underdog story about Brock Purdy, but I'll need to see what he can do once his cap hit limits what he will have to work with before he can be put in the same class as Brady, Manning, Mahomes or Rodgers, who yes 3/4 are first rounders.

 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

 

You'd want to do more research on that one.

 

I think we've already seen it in hockey where 1 player cannot turn around a franchise. 

 

9 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Depends on what you consider late rounds but of last years playoffs 10/14 starting QB's were 1st rounders, 1 2nd, 1 3rd, 1 4th and 1 7th.  I know people love the underdog story about Brock Purdy, but I'll need to see what he can do once his cap hit limits what he will have to work with before he can be put in the same class as Brady, Manning, Mahomes or Rodgers, who yes 3/4 are first rounders.

 

 

"First rounder"... I meant like tank for the #1 pick.  There's good QBs to go around.

[The_People1]

10 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Great thing about sports, plenty of teams have looked awful on paper and have done good things, plenty of teams have looked great on paper and done nothing, games are won and lost on on the ice/court/field.  Remember pre-cap when the Rangers couldn't even buy a playoff team.  Even this year I'd say most predicted this to be another bad year for the Flyers.

 

Ya again, "tanking doesn't work" is not the same as "attempt to tank".  We shouldn't reward any attempt to tank.

 

I don't think the Flames went all out tank this TDL.  And thus, no top pick unless they win the lotto.

[sak22]

1 minute ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

"First rounder"... I meant like tank for the #1 pick.  There's good QBs to go around.

I don't find the #1 creates as much buzz normally in the NFL, but it also teams have shown to be more open to moving that pick over the NHL and NBA, but as far as QB's go the only ones that can be put on a level of a Crosby, McDavid and Bedard over the last 2 decades would be Andrew Luck and Trevor Lawrence, and I wouldn't say either team got those guys by intention.  The Colts couldn't find anything capable to fill in the year Manning was hurt and the Jags have just been a horribly run team.

17 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ya again, "tanking doesn't work" is not the same as "attempt to tank".  We shouldn't reward any attempt to tank.

 

I don't think the Flames went all out tank this TDL.  And thus, no top pick unless they win the lotto.

The team could've forfeited every game after the TDL and still finished with the 5th best lottery odds.  So I don't think an all out sell off made sense.

[robrob74]

6 hours ago, cberg said:

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.  

A tricky one yup. At least I'd get to see Calgary draft 1st overall once in my lifetime maybe. I'm pushing 50 so it's possible I might not even get to with your suggestion, if it took 10-30 years to get there lol.
 

What might be more interesting to adapt your idea would be, if a team gets 1st overall one year, they can only draft as high as 4th or 5th overall  the next 5 drafts? I dunno what a magic number is. Say a team drafts first overall one year, but they're in the #2 or #4 Spot, they automatically get pushed to 5... or 4 depending on the rule.

 

im ok with keeping it as is. 
 

id prefer a true lottery, but give the worst teams more balls in the bin to increase odds that way...

 

Coming out of the machine: 

Ball 1 SJS - 1st overall

Ball 2 SJS - where their pick lands in the second round

ball 3 Flames - their 1st round pick

ball 4 SJS - where their third rounder lands

ball 5 CBJ they get put onto the 1st round section.... its their spot 

 

and so on, 

 

the Flames would get 9 Balls, San Jose gets 16...

 

a team just out that just misses the playoffs get 1. The next would get 2, then 3 and so on... They'd still have a chance at winning it all, but that last team out only get one ball's chance. 

[cberg]

5 hours ago, sak22 said:

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?

Agree nobody has gone to that degree, but there are various degrees of tanking.

 

Basically it comes down to timing.  Everyone is trying to win, but the players plan is to win immediately, while the GMs plan to win is longer term, maybe immediate, maybe 3-5 years down the road.  To get to success in 3-5 years they give up(tank) success today.  

[cberg]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ya again, "tanking doesn't work" is not the same as "attempt to tank".  We shouldn't reward any attempt to tank.

 

I don't think the Flames went all out tank this TDL.  And thus, no top pick unless they win the lotto.

Agree the Flames did not go full tank this year, actually just the opposite.  The changes were player’s decisions to move on, economics.  

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, cberg said:

Agree the Flames did not go full tank this year, actually just the opposite.  The changes were player’s decisions to move on, economics.  

im not frustrated with the league process, I want the Flames to get a 1st overall as much as some of us, but realistic they need to tear to extreme bare bones, and ownership will do it when it's a must, yet avoid until the writing on the wall is barely noticeable.

[conundrumed]

6 hours ago, robrob74 said:

they need to tear to extreme bare bones

What does this even look like? So you get rid of useful things for picks. Great. Now there's a cap floor. So are you paying the Stecher's $5mil per?

So now you need roster players. Are you going to throw your prospects in way over their heads and pound the confidence right out of them?

I don't understand bare bones, with regard to meeting the cap floor and maintaining any form of positive work environment.

It all sounds good in theory, but it requires a lot of foresight into the hurdles that you're also creating.

So now. I'm the owner. This is hardly the only business in my portfolio. You're going to come to me with a proposition. "I want to drive the value of this business right into the ground. But within about 5 years, we can double the value that it's at now".

Okay. I have a risk assessment team that I pay to deal with this for all of my businesses. You go talk to them. They will advise me on what they think of this proposal.

God help you if you're not prepared to deal with a boardroom filled with accountants and lawyers. Because there is a 99% chance that you are about to get yourself fired. And it will just be in a cold email filled with cold legalese mixed with accounting principles.

This is a business that operates on business principles, not flights of fancy. The bottom line is all that matters.

[robrob74]

2 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

What does this even look like? So you get rid of useful things for picks. Great. Now there's a cap floor. So are you paying the Stecher's $5mil per?

So now you need roster players. Are you going to throw your prospects in way over their heads and pound the confidence right out of them?

I don't understand bare bones, with regard to meeting the cap floor and maintaining any form of positive work environment.

It all sounds good in theory, but it requires a lot of foresight into the hurdles that you're also creating.

So now. I'm the owner. This is hardly the only business in my portfolio. You're going to come to me with a proposition. "I want to drive the value of this business right into the ground. But within about 5 years, we can double the value that it's at now".

Okay. I have a risk assessment team that I pay to deal with this for all of my businesses. You go talk to them. They will advise me on what they think of this proposal.

God help you if you're not prepared to deal with a boardroom filled with accountants and lawyers. Because there is a 99% chance that you are about to get yourself fired. And it will just be in a cold email filled with cold legalese mixed with accounting principles.

This is a business that operates on business principles, not flights of fancy. The bottom line is all that matters.

the thing about cup winners is, Crosby, McKinnon, Toews and Kane, Ovechkin and his linemates, Etc, there's an expectation that goes with their elite personality.... I liken it to Yzerman, Sakic, Lemieux, Messier... there's excellence. How many teams don't have that yet still win? 
 

once in awhile you get the blues. Sometimes you can get elite deeper in the draft... most of the time it's early, and sometimes it depends on the draft, which is why we are a year late to the retool, again...
 

All good to have the mindset but there needs to be some elitist players coming in. Johnny has elite edges and vision. Tkachuk elite hockey sense. But they're not the full package... 

[jjgallow]

 

It seems like there's two sides here which are far apart.

 

If I can be any help, I'd like to offer to unify you in a proposal that you can all disagree with.

 

Have a locale-weighted draft.

 

Cale Makar.   Landon Dupont.

 

Come to mind.

 

I think that if a player comes from your city or territory, you should  have some kind of advantage over everyone else in being able to draft them.   I dunno what that looks like, but back in the day, guys just played for the closest team (I mean like, back, back, back in the day) and it was just fine. 

 

When we talk about good organizations versus bad organizations, I like to think of more than team performance.    I like to think of teams that give back to the community, help support new rink construction and upgrades, help kids play that otherwise wouldn't be able to.

 

In that sense, I think the Flames have actually done very, very well.   They should be rewarded for it.

 

 

What's the arguement about this?    Well it's that there's teams that need the top talent in order to promote the game and expand it.

 

No they don't.    They need to give back to their community and help foster hockey locally.   Then when their city develops NHL players they can have first shot at them.

 

 

Players get to play close to familly, means all sorts of less issues.

 

Fans have something way more powerful to cheer for.

 

 

So really what's the downside?   Well yeah it's possible Toronto could run away with many cups, it's true.   But maybe not.    And, if they do, they would pick last in the draft and things would balance.   Counter-balances could be put in place if they aren't already.  

Point is....all these guys who wanna play for Toronto because that's where they grew up?  Let em.
Calgary?  Let em.

 

To a point, of course.   Maybe one player per draft.   And maybe you pay a price if you have massive advantage.

 

But I think it would be cool.

[jjgallow]

18 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Because one player can't turn a whole franchise around in the NFL.  Best QBs are usually found in later rounds.

 

NBA is arguably the most affected by 1 star player.  They have a tanking problem too.

 

@cross16 alluded to this being something about nothing.

 

I would say, maybe, something about something else.

 

The reason the NFL and most leagues don't have this issue, is they don't draft 17 year olds.

 

 

This whole convo is about the problems around bad organisations drafting kids.    Raising the age would solve more than half the problem.

[conundrumed]

46 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

But I think it would be cool.

Only if you consider cool to be massively unfair. lol

 

https://www.hockey-reference.com/friv/birthplaces.cgi

[cberg]

8 hours ago, conundrumed said:

What does this even look like? So you get rid of useful things for picks. Great. Now there's a cap floor. So are you paying the Stecher's $5mil per?

So now you need roster players. Are you going to throw your prospects in way over their heads and pound the confidence right out of them?

I don't understand bare bones, with regard to meeting the cap floor and maintaining any form of positive work environment.

It all sounds good in theory, but it requires a lot of foresight into the hurdles that you're also creating.

So now. I'm the owner. This is hardly the only business in my portfolio. You're going to come to me with a proposition. "I want to drive the value of this business right into the ground. But within about 5 years, we can double the value that it's at now".

Okay. I have a risk assessment team that I pay to deal with this for all of my businesses. You go talk to them. They will advise me on what they think of this proposal.

God help you if you're not prepared to deal with a boardroom filled with accountants and lawyers. Because there is a 99% chance that you are about to get yourself fired. And it will just be in a cold email filled with cold legalese mixed with accounting principles.

This is a business that operates on business principles, not flights of fancy. The bottom line is all that matters.

Don’t agree this is a business like any other, I think it’s more of an investment with more focus on long-term value and community engagement.  I think the owners are more interested in covering their annual costs and growing the league, where they can make hundreds of millions rather than a few million every year.  To keep your fan base you’ve got to give them hope, entertain them and keep developing new fans via community support.  

[cberg]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

It seems like there's two sides here which are far apart.

 

If I can be any help, I'd like to offer to unify you in a proposal that you can all disagree with.

 

Have a locale-weighted draft.

 

Cale Makar.   Landon Dupont.

 

Come to mind.

 

I think that if a player comes from your city or territory, you should  have some kind of advantage over everyone else in being able to draft them.   I dunno what that looks like, but back in the day, guys just played for the closest team (I mean like, back, back, back in the day) and it was just fine. 

 

When we talk about good organizations versus bad organizations, I like to think of more than team performance.    I like to think of teams that give back to the community, help support new rink construction and upgrades, help kids play that otherwise wouldn't be able to.

 

In that sense, I think the Flames have actually done very, very well.   They should be rewarded for it.

 

 

What's the arguement about this?    Well it's that there's teams that need the top talent in order to promote the game and expand it.

 

No they don't.    They need to give back to their community and help foster hockey locally.   Then when their city develops NHL players they can have first shot at them.

 

 

Players get to play close to familly, means all sorts of less issues.

 

Fans have something way more powerful to cheer for.

 

 

So really what's the downside?   Well yeah it's possible Toronto could run away with many cups, it's true.   But maybe not.    And, if they do, they would pick last in the draft and things would balance.   Counter-balances could be put in place if they aren't already.  

Point is....all these guys who wanna play for Toronto because that's where they grew up?  Let em.
Calgary?  Let em.

 

To a point, of course.   Maybe one player per draft.   And maybe you pay a price if you have massive advantage.

 

But I think it would be cool.

Like the thinking, maybe every 5 years a team can make a “local” selection outside of the normal draft?  Of course, way back before my day (Just 70) Montreal had rights to Quebec players and perhaps mostly as a result(?) they won 24 Stanley Cups….  One positive result would be a much bigger focus on supporting kid hockey programs.

[robrob74]

7 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

It seems like there's two sides here which are far apart.

 

If I can be any help, I'd like to offer to unify you in a proposal that you can all disagree with.

 

Have a locale-weighted draft.

 

Cale Makar.   Landon Dupont.

 

Come to mind.

 

I think that if a player comes from your city or territory, you should  have some kind of advantage over everyone else in being able to draft them.   I dunno what that looks like, but back in the day, guys just played for the closest team (I mean like, back, back, back in the day) and it was just fine. 

 

When we talk about good organizations versus bad organizations, I like to think of more than team performance.    I like to think of teams that give back to the community, help support new rink construction and upgrades, help kids play that otherwise wouldn't be able to.

 

In that sense, I think the Flames have actually done very, very well.   They should be rewarded for it.

 

 

What's the arguement about this?    Well it's that there's teams that need the top talent in order to promote the game and expand it.

 

No they don't.    They need to give back to their community and help foster hockey locally.   Then when their city develops NHL players they can have first shot at them.

 

 

Players get to play close to familly, means all sorts of less issues.

 

Fans have something way more powerful to cheer for.

 

 

So really what's the downside?   Well yeah it's possible Toronto could run away with many cups, it's true.   But maybe not.    And, if they do, they would pick last in the draft and things would balance.   Counter-balances could be put in place if they aren't already.  

Point is....all these guys who wanna play for Toronto because that's where they grew up?  Let em.
Calgary?  Let em.

 

To a point, of course.   Maybe one player per draft.   And maybe you pay a price if you have massive advantage.

 

But I think it would be cool.

would you have a salary cap in your system? If you're creating more stars, you fork out more money.

[jjgallow]

6 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Only if you consider cool to be massively unfair. lol

 

https://www.hockey-reference.com/friv/birthplaces.cgi

 

Hamilton should happen.   Do some limits, like one player a year.   I dunno.   I feel it could work better than it is now.

 

How could it possibly be more unfair than shipping them all off to Edmonton to be slaughtered?

[jjgallow]

22 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

would you have a salary cap in your system? If you're creating more stars, you fork out more money.

 

I dunno.   Haven't thought that far lol.   But I think what you pay is a function of number of fans, not amount of stars.   Obviously there is a relationship between the two.

 

I would like to think that such a system would generate more genuine interest in the sport, and thus more fans, thus more revenue.

 

I might be wrong.   But I feel even in Canada there is room for a lot more growth.