Speculation: 2020-21 News/Rumors/Roster Thread Part II

[Raccoon Jesus]

I actually don't *hate* the current method as much as I made it seem, they just borked it this year with the 'playoff' games. I think people overstate tanking, as some teams are just legit bad, but I don't like how bad it feels for those teams, with greater chances to lose your spot than gain a spot. And I still maintain my hypothetical, "Kings win the McDavid Pick," would have seen this method turfed years ago.

Just as people wanted this to happen as a way to disincentivize tanking and just collecting 1-3 overalls, I'd like to see it adjust so that when, say, Chicago wins from the black hole or NJ wins twice in 3 years, that they don't get another crack it it right away either. That was the whole complaint, right? That Edmonton was just collecting multiple firsts? Well, what happens when the same blackhole team wins 1OA 2 years, 3 yeras in a row? Yeah it's highly unlikely, but again, imagine if the 2015-era Kings won McDavid then in 2017 picked up Heiskanen/Makar? Again, this would have been turfed long ago.

I don't hate the current system, just add the protection tweak so teams aren't winning multiple lottery picks from outside the lottery, and so that tank teams aren't monopolizing the top 3. Done.

 

[bland]

Literally semantics. Glad to see you've joined the NHL PR dept!

I'll rephrase...let's call it a playON team! A team that had a chance to playON for the Stanley Cup ALSO had a chance to win 1oa and did. Wow, that feels so much better, thanks for the correction.

Look I know it's not a normal year but if you and Daly can't see a fatal flaw there I've got nothing more to say on it.

A decision had to be made if they wanted to hand out the Cup.

They couldn't practically play the rest of the season, they wanted a playoffs, and they wanted those playoffs to be as close to good hockey as possible. The quality of play would have been so poor that they had to give the playoff teams a chance to get up to speed.

It wasn't practical to just pick up the year with a bunch of teams playing out the string in dire circumstances, so the best solution at hand was to have a normal playoff bracket. That bracket would have excruciatingly bad hockey if everybody started from a cold stop, so the decision was made to give the bubble teams a chance to compete for playing in the playoffs just as they would have over the last 20 games while those secure in the spots had a chance to warm up.

The playoffs were the exact same as always. No playoff team was allowed to participate in the draft lottery. The play-in round and round robin seeding round were just essentially training camps so the product would be better when the actual playoffs started.

Its not a technicality, its not semantics, its making the best of a bad situation. The Rangers didn't have a chance at the Cup, they only had a chance at making it into the playoffs, which they definitely did not do, thus making them eligible for the lottery just like the other teams who didn't qualify for the playoffs.

It is factually inaccurate to say that they were a playoff team. They weren't. They didn't make the playoffs as the league defined them. They made it to a play-in round that had two possible outcomes, either making the playoffs with a chance at the Cup or missing them with the potential benefit of being in the lottery like the rest of the teams who weren't in the playoffs. They failed, then got extraordinarily fortunate.

The only semantics being thrown around here is calling them a playoff team, not in correcting that misnomer. The real complaint is that a team that wasn't that bad got the number one pick, right? If it wasn't a fix, which only stupid Qanon level fans have claimed - not the teams actually harmed, then the only other option is that the Rags just flat out got lucky. Shit just happens.

Besides, didn't some of us claim that Byfield would be the better pick anyway? Who actually got harmed here?

 

[BigKing]

@bland

The league is counting the play in round stats as playoff stats, even though they weren't playoffs... supposedly.

All those teams got to play for the Cup. Being in the play-in round was an extended playoff round. The round-robin was the training camp portion.

I'm not losing sleep over it, but those were playoff games.

 

[regulate]

I think Brian Burke has the right idea: The worst 10 teams should only be in the lottery (weighted). Several years in a row now a lower team has moved way up in the draft lottery. If you finish just outside the playoffs, you shouldn't be in the running for a top 3 pick.

 

[RaymondReddington]

Who actually got harmed here?

The reputation and credibility of the NHL. Almost every fan I know, non-hockey sports fans, and hockey media all recognized immediately how ridiculous it was to award the #1 pick to: (1) a team to be named later, and (2) a play-in loser. It was such a ridiculous arrangement I actually rooted for a team I hate to win the play-in so they would have no chance at #1, even though that gave them the chance to win the Stanley Cup. Also, how idiotic that my team is sitting at #2 and one team still playing was going to get the pick right above mine. All in all, very detrimental to a league’s reputation while that league is fighting for recognition and legitimacy in the US and to bottom finishing teams and their fans.

 

[Schrute farms]

Simply limiting those play-in losers to move up to a max of #4 or 3 (if they won) would have been the smart and easy solution.

 

[Statto]

There's a number of reasons... but to keep it brief...

The reason nobody create the perfect mouse trap is because the entire premise is flawed to begin with.

I don't think it's fair to the players. I don't think it creates the best product for the fans. I don't think it ensures parity or a spread of talent across the teams which are the only reasons I can think of to use a draft.

Have to disagree with the parity bit. No, it doesn’t in of itself guarantee parity because other factors come into play like developers, trading picks, scouting and a good front office however it absolutely helps spread out talent. There are certain franchises that will never compete financially and/or are just bad locations so without the draft they would never compete. Without the draft you’d end up with an elite group of teams from whom the cup winner will always come. The English Premier League is a great example, there are 5 or 6 teams that can win it each year. La Liga is an Elite of 2.

The draft allows every team to have a chance of building a winner, assuming they are run competently. I get your point about fairness to players as it takes away free choice but they seem to accept it.

I enjoyed your coverage though...

 

[Statto]

I don't like paying taxes and I have a number of thoughts about the way taxes are levied and collected.

I am very excited to pay my accountant to do my taxes every year.

Also... it's my job man.

The Kings are an NHL team and NHL teams participate in the draft. That is the current method of acquiring talented young players entering the league. I want the Kings to win, therefore I want them to draft well.

Telling an 18 year old that if he doesn't want to enter the draft he's free to opt out and wait, jeopardizing his ability to pursue his career doesn't really address my opinion of the system being unfair to players.

As for current players who may not like the institution of the draft... I haven't asked him specifically but I imagine Lias Andersson might have some thoughts about how his career played out as a result of the draft.

I've spoken to former players who lamented the fact that they didn't live up to the expectations people placed on them based on their draft spot. It's not really the kind of conversation people have. It's also not really germane in my opinion. Players that have had success will likely not critique the system and we tell ourselves that players that aren't successful are to blame for their own failure. I just don't think that's always the only reason.



EDIT : Also I told myself I was going to keep my thoughts brief and I have plenty of platforms to spew my unpopular nonsense so I'll just apologize for taking over a page of this thread and say toodles for now.

Please don’t apologise, I actually think it’s a good discussion and your points have merit from a player perspective. However, I think on balance though it does produce a better product. It is worth saying that a draft system would never happen in Europe as it violates their human rights laws. The Bowman rule, Jean-Marc Bosman tested those laws in court from a sport perspective, then ensured that there were no longer any types of restricted free agents also. The case changed transfer rules for all sports in Europe which then impacted everything globally, it seems apart from the NA centric big 4 sports.

 

[Ollie Weeks]

I think Brian Burke has the right idea: The worst 10 teams should only be in the lottery (weighted). Several years in a row now a lower team has moved way up in the draft lottery. If you finish just outside the playoffs, you shouldn't be in the running for a top 3 pick.

I agree. Keep it simple.

 

[KingsFan7824]

@bland

The league is counting the play in round stats as playoff stats, even though they weren't playoffs... supposedly.

All those teams got to play for the Cup. Being in the play-in round was an extended playoff round. The round-robin was the training camp portion.

I'm not losing sleep over it, but those were playoff games.

They were playoff games, but the Rangers were on the outside looking in for the real non-covid playoffs. They were right on the door, which is why the league threw so many teams into the mix(the Rangers not being the lone team in a fight for a spot), but they were also close to finishing in the bottom 10.

It's probably only a story because it's the Rangers. Had the Panthers gotten #1, nobody would be caring.

The reputation and credibility of the NHL. Almost every fan I know, non-hockey sports fans, and hockey media all recognized immediately how ridiculous it was to award the #1 pick to: (1) a team to be named later, and (2) a play-in loser. It was such a ridiculous arrangement I actually rooted for a team I hate to win the play-in so they would have no chance at #1, even though that gave them the chance to win the Stanley Cup. Also, how idiotic that my team is sitting at #2 and one team still playing was going to get the pick right above mine. All in all, very detrimental to a league’s reputation while that league is fighting for recognition and legitimacy in the US and to bottom finishing teams and their fans.

It was a one time thing, in a weird situation. The Kings ended up with a higher pick. It was winning $30m instead of $100m. The only team that got screwed was Det, but thems the breaks. Plus if the Rangers become a yearly contender, that's good for the league as a whole. Big city aura isn't the same as it used to be, but it's still NY. I doubt the league loses much sleep over it. Had it been the Panthers, then we never hear the name Lafreniere again.

 

[Anguyen92]

On the flip side, every hockey community, that's in the know regarding these things, would have flip their lid so hard if Oilers or Leafs won that lottery. Honestly, aside from maybe the Wilds, the Rangers winning the #1 pick was the best result that would not cause a major stir.

I do agree there needs to be better tinkering regarding the draft lottery on how many times a team can win a top 3 in a certain amount of years or a limit to how many spots a team can move up.

 

[cyclones22]

My biggest problem with a bubble team winning the lottery was the fact that the combined odds of all of the bubble teams was the second best odds to win the lottery so it's not surprising that one of them ended up in the top three. Add in the fact that it was a huge advantage development-wise for their young players. Do you think that it helped Kaapo Kakko and the other Rangers young players? Or Kirby Dach? Do you think it would have helped Gabe Vilardi or Mikey Anderson to participate? Or sneaking in Turcotte for some mini training camp and actual games? Of course it would have. It's why bowl games are so important for college football programs. It's more practices and development opportunities and learning the system.

 

[Reaper45]

Has Kahun signed yet?

 

[SettlementRichie10]

Single elimination NCAA style tournament for the #1 overall featuring all non-playoff teams.

The tournament ONLY decides the #1. If the regular season statistical worst team does not win the tournament and get the #1, they automatically get the #2. The second worst team automatically gets the #3. So on and so forth.

It would be way more exciting than f***ing all star weekend or any other dumb event the NHL tries to put on. It would give non-playoff team fans something to look forward to and watch.

It has its flaws. The truly “worst” team is typically not going to win the tournament. But it’s not like that team won’t receive compensation in the form of #2 overall. But it’s way f***ing better than a glorified random number generator deciding the fate of entire franchises.

 

[KingsFan7824]

My biggest problem with a bubble team winning the lottery was the fact that the combined odds of all of the bubble teams was the second best odds to win the lottery so it's not surprising that one of them ended up in the top three. Add in the fact that it was a huge advantage development-wise for their young players. Do you think that it helped Kaapo Kakko and the other Rangers young players? Or Kirby Dach? Do you think it would have helped Gabe Vilardi or Mikey Anderson to participate? Or sneaking in Turcotte for some mini training camp and actual games? Of course it would have. It's why bowl games are so important for college football programs. It's more practices and development opportunities and learning the system.

One issue is that normally, 15 teams aren't in the playoffs. 7 of them were taken out for math purposes, which leaves 8 teams that normally would've been in the lottery with a shot at #1, in that weird limbo. They're not a playoff team, but they are, the records are categorized as playoffs, but they don't include the best 4 teams in those games, etc, etc.

At the end of the day, the teams are the ones that agreed to all this. They agreed to it knowing the risks and possibilities, because it was all brought up in the media before it was agreed to. That's why I can't really get upset about it. Same with the playoff format. Is it odd? Yes. The people directly involved agreed to it though, and ultimately it's their league. They had their discussions, they had their meetings, I'm sure everyone asked about this or that unfair aspect, but what they agreed to is what they agreed to.

 

[regulate]

Has Kahun signed yet?

Nope. Since the rumor was 4 or so teams were in the running, have to think he's holding out for a better deal, a gamble in a cap and actual cash strapped league.

 

[Anguyen92]

Single elimination NCAA style tournament for the #1 overall featuring all non-playoff teams.

The tournament only decides the #1. If the statistical worst team does not win the tournament and get the #1, they automatically get the #2. The second worst team automatically gets the #3. So on and so forth.

It would be way more exciting than f***ing all star weekend or any other dumb event the NHL tries to put on. It would give non-playoff team fans something to look forward to and watch.

It has its flaws. The truly “worst” team is typically not going to win the tournament. But it’s not like that team won’t receive compensation in the form of #2 overall. But it’s way f***ing better than a glorified random number generator deciding the fate of entire franchises.

So it's basically the best team of the worst that wins #1 draft pick. You know what? That's a bloody good idea. As you said, there are bound to be flaws, but at least, a team winning something like this gives hope to a guy going out in #1 thinking that he will not spend his peak years in a craphole organized team with a losing mentality. Also, this idea could forces losing teams to be competitive and go against the nature of tanking which is what we are trying to accomplish.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Single elimination NCAA style tournament for the #1 overall featuring all non-playoff teams.

The tournament only decides the #1. If the statistical worst team does not win the tournament and get the #1, they automatically get the #2. The second worst team automatically gets the #3. So on and so forth.

It would be way more exciting than f***ing all star weekend or any other dumb event the NHL tries to put on. It would give non-playoff team fans something to look forward to and watch.

It has its flaws. The truly “worst” team is typically not going to win the tournament. But it’s not like that team won’t receive compensation in the form of #2 overall. But it’s way f***ing better than a glorified random number generator deciding the fate of entire franchises.

The flaw is that players aren't going to care. Will they be paid extra for this #1 pick tournament? Would it be the same as that playoff money? It would have to be much more than the playoff money, because the playoff money is subsidized by the Cup. Players are going to play hard so that their employer can select the guy that might take their job? I don't see that working.

Would players play through injury in the tournament? Put off having that off-season surgery for it? What if that makes them miss a month at the start of next season? Anything that involves non-playoff teams continuing to play after the paychecks stop isn't getting off the ground.

That's the problem with the draft though. Anything, even the most basic worst record gets 1st pick structure, can be corrupted. Every tweak to it to make it more fair, makes it more complicated. I guess if you kept the cap and got rid of the draft, some guys, even the better 18 year olds, wouldn't always sign in Toronto or NY. However, if you get rid of the draft, how can you keep the cap? Ideologically it doesn't quite fit. Plus you'd have to get rid of restricted free agency if the draft goes away.

Not every top player ended up with Det/NY/Tor back in the no cap days.

 

[Anguyen92]

^^ Ok if you put it that way, it probably wouldn't mean the players on the ongoing roster would go balls out in effort. There needs to be some progress on to sort the kinks on this draft system.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

The flaw is that players aren't going to care. Will they be paid extra for this #1 pick tournament? Would it be the same as that playoff money? It would have to be much more than the playoff money, because the playoff money is subsidized by the Cup. Players are going to play hard so that their employer can select the guy that might take their job? I don't see that working.

Would players play through injury in the tournament? Put off having that off-season surgery for it? What if that makes them miss a month at the start of next season? Anything that involves non-playoff teams continuing to play after the paychecks stop isn't getting off the ground.

That's the problem with the draft though. Anything, even the most basic worst record gets 1st pick structure, can be corrupted. Every tweak to it to make it more fair, makes it more complicated. I guess if you kept the cap and got rid of the draft, some guys, even the better 18 year olds, wouldn't always sign in Toronto or NY. However, if you get rid of the draft, how can you keep the cap? Ideologically it doesn't quite fit. Plus you'd have to get rid of restricted free agency if the draft goes away.

Not every top player ended up with Det/NY/Tor back in the no cap days.

The entire tournament would be over and done before the second round of the playoffs completes. Obviously everyone would be paid. It would be considered an extension of the playoffs.

If getting professional athletes to go out and try is such a problem that it compromises the entire tournament, this league has way bigger problems than the draft lottery.

 

[cyclones22]

Just to add to your tournament idea, in each match up the worst seeds could host the game.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

They were playoff games, but the Rangers were on the outside looking in for the real non-covid playoffs. They were right on the door, which is why the league threw so many teams into the mix(the Rangers not being the lone team in a fight for a spot), but they were also close to finishing in the bottom 10.

It's probably only a story because it's the Rangers. Had the Panthers gotten #1, nobody would be caring.


It was a one time thing, in a weird situation. The Kings ended up with a higher pick. It was winning $30m instead of $100m. The only team that got screwed was Det, but thems the breaks. Plus if the Rangers become a yearly contender, that's good for the league as a whole. Big city aura isn't the same as it used to be, but it's still NY. I doubt the league loses much sleep over it. Had it been the Panthers, then we never hear the name Lafreniere again.

That's kind of my point above, though. Just because the real pain hasn't really happened doesn't mean the opportunity for pain is ok. Laf had a legit chance of landing on the Penguins, just like McDavid/Eichel had a legit chance of landing on the immediately-post-Cup Kings.

I think keeping it simple is important but there has to be a small protection tweak in there so finishing last doesn't come with additional nut punches several years in a row while some team typically already on the up-and-up gets the better shot at improving itself repeatedly.

Ultimately good management > utterly tanking anyway but it's infuriating watching teams jump >10 spots.

 

[Token]

The simple rule from the past where a team couldn’t jump more than 4 spots would pretty much solve this dilemma.

 

[Reaper45]

The simple rule from the past where a team couldn’t jump more than 4 spots would pretty much solve this dilemma.

Seriously. It’s not rocket science. Hell make it 5 spots.

 

[FrozenKing18]

Has Kahun signed yet?

lmao been checking this thread daily to see if kings or another team has signed him.