3putt Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 So if the Hawks dump players to get out of cap hell and Hossa retires and they accept the fact they have to resist spending, is that a tank? Should they be rewarded with opportunity to restock because they were willing to not chase FAs or make trades? Stripping away bad assets and restocking the farm is just good management. Putting a lottery in place to dissuade tanking is dissentive to good management. Either get rid of the draft altogether and go to uncapped unrestricted FA for all eligible players and all teams. Otherwise any pretense of trying to ensure competitive balance is baseless and the league is pissing on my leg and trying to tell me it is raining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 I think we are giving the NHL more credit than they deserve when we (as in the collective) seem to think that they actually know what they are doing in running the league. I believe they have no clue and are simply flying by the seat of their pants and hoping for the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 I think we are giving the NHL more credit than they deserve when we (as in the collective) seem to think that they actually know what they are doing in running the league. I believe they have no clue and are simply flying by the seat of their pants and hoping for the best. I wouldn't want Bettman's job. It has to be the professional equivalent of herding cats. The owners actions harm themselves and Bettman's job is to prevent them from doing irrepairable damage in the process......... and keep them happy enough with him to retain his services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 I've said before that the problem needs to be fixed, not just by de-incentivizing it, but also by legislating away the tools to do so. For example, players under contract should only be allowed to be traded for other players under contract. What a brilliant way to completely kill off what little excitement the trading deadline has left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 What a brilliant way to completely kill off what little excitement the trading deadline has left. I guess maybe if you find excitement in obtaining that 2nd round pick. Good teams can still get help for the playoff stretch, they just have to trade players already under contract to do it. Actual, real hockey trades. What a horribly unexciting concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 I've said before that the problem needs to be fixed, not just by de-incentivizing it, but also by legislating away the tools to do so. For example, players under contract should only be allowed to be traded for other players under contract. How far down this particular rabbit hole are you willing to go? Should the NHL have veto power over trades they feel are unfair to both teams with respect to the current on-ice product? Should prospects be restricted similarly to draft picks? Forced free agency spending? How far should the league go to force teams to ice the best possible roster at every moment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 How bad were the Sens tanking for Daigle in their first season of existence? The struggle of expansion teams historically make me think that a lot of their bad first season is simply more of that, even if they weren't displeased with the results. Of course, I didn't watch then so I can't say for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 How far down this particular rabbit hole are you willing to go? Should the NHL have veto power over trades they feel are unfair to both teams with respect to the current on-ice product? Should prospects be restricted similarly to draft picks? Forced free agency spending? How far should the league go to force teams to ice the best possible roster at every moment? Didn't figure you for the slippery slope argument. And to answer.... I don't know. The minimum needed to prevent teams from setting up to purposely lose would be about right for me. I suspect that less heinous lottery odds combined with contract player trades only during the season would be enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 I wouldn't want Bettman's job. It has to be the professional equivalent of herding cats. The owners actions harm themselves and Bettman's job is to prevent them from doing irrepairable damage in the process......... and keep them happy enough with him to retain his services. Good point. I think you are correct that the owners are their own worst enemies and the league is just trying to keep it all together. The powers that be at the NHL (Bettman ...) are not doing a really good job at that and in the process make themselves look bad too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 (edited) I guess maybe if you find excitement in obtaining that 2nd round pick. Good teams can still get help for the playoff stretch, they just have to trade players already under contract to do it. Actual, real hockey trades. What a horribly unexciting concept. It's inefficient, like going to back to the bartering system instead of using currency. Sure you may be able to find a candle maker who needs your eggs but it's way easier to sell your eggs to whomever needs them and use the cash to buy candles. Edited April 30, 2017 by Drunkard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 How bad were the Sens tanking for Daigle in their first season of existence? The struggle of expansion teams historically make me think that a lot of their bad first season is simply more of that, even if they weren't displeased with the results. Of course, I didn't watch then so I can't say for sure. The Sens admitted to losing on purpose to obtain Daigle and then went into damage control and denial after the backlash. https://www.si.com/vault/1993/08/30/129195/winning-by-losing-its-clear-after-revelations-that-the-ottawa-senators-considered-tanking-a-game-to-clinch-the-no-1-draft-pick-that-the-nhl-needs-a-lottery# According to MacGregor, Firestone said that the Senators were prepared to pull their goalie to make sure Boston won; that it had been difficult "keeping the restraints" on Bowness over the final weeks of the season; and that Firestone himself had had a plan to guarantee four players roster spots for next season if those players helped assure a loss to the Bruins. "It is no coincidence," MacGregor said Firestone told him, "that those four players will be back with the team next season." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 The Sens admitted to losing on purpose to obtain Daigle and then went into damage control and denial after the backlash. https://www.si.com/vault/1993/08/30/129195/winning-by-losing-its-clear-after-revelations-that-the-ottawa-senators-considered-tanking-a-game-to-clinch-the-no-1-draft-pick-that-the-nhl-needs-a-lottery# I didn't know that, thanks. I'm mad at the Sabres for tanking but I don't like the league addressing it with the lottery because I don't think that's good for the teams that are in the "bad" cycle after a successful period, or teams that are just bad on accident. I just don't see NHL tanking as a prevalent enough problem to lotto off 3 picks. I liked it the way it was in 2014 - one team could get lucky but you could only fall one spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 I didn't know that, thanks. I'm mad at the Sabres for tanking but I don't like the league addressing it with the lottery because I don't think that's good for the teams that are in the "bad" cycle after a successful period, or teams that are just bad on accident. I just don't see NHL tanking as a prevalent enough problem to lotto off 3 picks. I liked it the way it was in 2014 - one team could get lucky but you could only fall one spot. You know what the stupid part is, the only time the league reacted was when teams were idiotic enough to brag about their intentions. The league looked the other way as long as there was plausible deniability. Every time a team bragged about setting up to lose it resulted in the league changing the rules. You can thank Darcy Regier for the current rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 You know what the stupid part is, the only time the league reacted was when teams were idiotic enough to brag about their intentions. The league looked the other way as long as there was plausible deniability. Every time a team bragged about setting up to lose it resulted in the league changing the rules. You can thank Darcy Regier for the current rules.Do you think that had more of an influence than McDavid heading out to the 10:30pm tundra for their 4th win in 6 years instead of someplace easy to market? Normally I'd dismiss the idea that rash decisions were made because of something highly unlikely to be repeated again (that level of incompetence and luck) but it's the NHL, so nothing is impossible. I don't even remember what Darcy said, I'm trying to burn all memories of 2013-15 from my brain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 DR let it be known to all that Sabre fans should prepare for suffering. He didn't even try to hide it. Maybe that is why he was finally canned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 Didn't figure you for the slippery slope argument. And to answer.... I don't know. The minimum needed to prevent teams from setting up to purposely lose would be about right for me. I suspect that less heinous lottery odds combined with contract player trades only during the season would be enough. I'm not, but when you start proposing restrictions on the types of traded teams can make for a teeny on-ice effect, the slope had already been slipped down. Seriously, how much worse would the Sabres really have been of they had moved Franson, Kulikov, and Gionta? How much better would Arizona have been with an extra 20 games of Hanzal? Meanwhile, I think such a policy would have very real negative consequences for the ability of teams to re-tool, both in the near and long terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 I'm not, but when you start proposing restrictions on the types of traded teams can make for a teeny on-ice effect, the slope had already been slipped down. Seriously, how much worse would the Sabres really have been of they had moved Franson, Kulikov, and Gionta? How much better would Arizona have been with an extra 20 games of Hanzal? Meanwhile, I think such a policy would have very real negative consequences for the ability of teams to re-tool, both in the near and long terms. It is the model MLB uses. I don't think it prevents MLB teams from re-tooling. Granted, MLB has a very recent public example of prolonged tanking as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 I think any thing you try to do will harm the game even more. Let's be real. The teams that are successful now were bad for many seasons. It's not just 1 losing season and you recover. If you draft players and they turn out to not be the right group of players then you have to move them out. This usually happens after you fire a GM who will move them out anyway. It is what it is.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 It is the model MLB uses. I don't think it prevents MLB teams from re-tooling. Granted, MLB has a very recent public example of prolonged tanking as well. DIdn't a bunch of MLB teams just get over ~20 year playoff droughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 (edited) DIdn't a bunch of MLB teams just get over ~20 year playoff droughts? Get used to it. With no cap the big teams (Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox and maybe a few more) will continue to be good because they spend, spend, spend. Edited April 30, 2017 by Sabres Fan In NS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 DIdn't a bunch of MLB teams just get over ~20 year playoff droughts? I think there are alot more reasons for that than trade rules. Teams spend way over the cap on a regular basis in MLB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 (edited) Anyone who blames the Sabres' suckiness on the league, Bettman, whoever, is letting the franchise off the hook. They are who we thought they were! Edited April 30, 2017 by PASabreFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 I don't see an issue with teams that sell off assetts at the deadline and throw in the towel then. I don't think the league has a problem with teams out of playoff contention by the March deadline spending the last few weeks just riding out the year for picks. Thats what most teams that people bring up as 'tanking' have done. The Coyotes didn't go into the season before the McDavid Draft trying to be the worst team, and before the matthews draft the Leafs didn't go into the season trying to be the worst. They may have been working to rebuild, but they went into the season looking to win games. In Buffalo the intention was that they go into the season with a "McDavid or Bust" attitude and made it known they wanted that #1 spot. I can not recall any team that has ever done that before, and even Murray wasn't trying to deny it. Theres a difference between tanking (intentionally putting together a bad team hoping to get the #1 pick) and rebuilding What the NHL needs to do is just make it so there is no guarantee that if you finish dead last, or 1st place out of the playoffs that you are guaranteed the #1 pick. Why not just give all teams out of the playoffs the same odds at it? or take out the rule about only being able to drop back a certain number of spots? Make the whole thing a lottery draw for the order Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubkev Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 Anyone who blames the Sabres' suckiness on the league, Bettman, whoever, is letting the franchise off the hook. They are who we thought they were! On the nose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted April 30, 2017 Report Share Posted April 30, 2017 I don't see an issue with teams that sell off assetts at the deadline and throw in the towel then. I don't think the league has a problem with teams out of playoff contention by the March deadline spending the last few weeks just riding out the year for picks. Thats what most teams that people bring up as 'tanking' have done. The Coyotes didn't go into the season before the McDavid Draft trying to be the worst team, and before the matthews draft the Leafs didn't go into the season trying to be the worst. They may have been working to rebuild, but they went into the season looking to win games. In Buffalo the intention was that they go into the season with a "McDavid or Bust" attitude and made it known they wanted that #1 spot. I can not recall any team that has ever done that before, and even Murray wasn't trying to deny it. Theres a difference between tanking (intentionally putting together a bad team hoping to get the #1 pick) and rebuilding What the NHL needs to do is just make it so there is no guarantee that if you finish dead last, or 1st place out of the playoffs that you are guaranteed the #1 pick. Why not just give all teams out of the playoffs the same odds at it? or take out the rule about only being able to drop back a certain number of spots? Make the whole thing a lottery draw for the order Because that would absolutely #### any non-playoff team. It is the model MLB uses. I don't think it prevents MLB teams from re-tooling. Granted, MLB has a very recent public example of prolonged tanking as well. It also makes the MLB trade deadline an absolute bore. Plus remember their franchises have so many random prospects that they can trade in an almost only player-based market. At the end of an MLB year they have a 40 man roster, 10 fewer than an NHL team can have in total contracts. An MLB roster hold 25 most of the time with 3+ minor league affiliates. The NHL + AHL has about 46 players. That's at minimum when including unsigned assets for an NHL team, about 65 players for the NHL teams to 100+ for a MLB team. Not to mention how long the MLB draft is, and their lack of a salary cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.