2022-2023 Around The League

[Balthazar]

They want to keep the regular season meaningful and having 24 teams making the playoffs vs 8 teams that don't make them goes against that. Especially since once the postseason starts everyone is on the same page.

I'm with Bettman on this.

 

[Pokecheque]

Surprised that no one has mentioned the bit of news that Michael McCarron has entered the NHL's Player Assistance Program. I was told by a Habs fan that his time in the Montreal system was rough, that Sylvain Lefebvre (who was little more than a thug in a suit) pretty much bullied McCarron into becoming a goon, and we see far too often that particular vocation take way too big a physical and mental strain on the men who take them up.

Fighting should have been outlawed after Belak, Rypien, and Boogaard all died.

 

[NOTENOUGHRYJOTHINGS]

Joe Sakic is and always will be just pure class. This organization couldn't have asked for a better first captain.

Sakic is too classy to ever do so but I wonder if he had a better offer to trade Duchene elsewhere. But Ottawa looked like a sure thing and Duchene would have had the Canadian media spotlight in the playoffs. Which would lead to a big payday.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

If you want to get rid of tanking, the answer is simple. When a team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, you start a new point count for that team. Whichever team has the highest number of points after being eliminated gets the top pick.

Surprised that no one has mentioned the bit of news that Michael McCarron has entered the NHL's Player Assistance Program. I was told by a Habs fan that his time in the Montreal system was rough, that Sylvain Lefebvre (who was little more than a thug in a suit) pretty much bullied McCarron into becoming a goon, and we see far too often that particular vocation take way too big a physical and mental strain on the men who take them up.

Fighting should have been outlawed after Belak, Rypien, and Boogaard all died.

Don't foget Wade. I loved Belak.

 

[EdAVSfan]

They want to keep the regular season meaningful and having 24 teams making the playoffs vs 8 teams that don't make them goes against that. Especially since once the postseason starts everyone is on the same page.

I'm with Bettman on this.

I don’t think the owners nor Bettman have any care whatsoever about “meaningful”. They are about making money and maximizing profit.

If you want to get rid of tanking, the answer is simple. When a team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, you start a new point count for that team. Whichever team has the highest number of points after being eliminated gets the top pick.


Don't foget Wade. I loved Belak.

This assumes the players on the team care about the draft pick. Not sure that they do.

Do you believe that when Anaheim gets officially eliminated from the playoffs that the players losing are all of sudden gonna care so they can have a chance at 1st overall? I dont

Owners yes, players, not so much.

 

[Pokecheque]

They want to keep the regular season meaningful and having 24 teams making the playoffs vs 8 teams that don't make them goes against that. Especially since once the postseason starts everyone is on the same page.

I'm with Bettman on this.

Again, I'm not quite there on expanding the playoffs, but we already have a lot of meaningless regular season games. One could argue more teams would try harder knowing they had a shot.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

I don’t think the owners nor Bettman have any care whatsoever about “meaningful”. They are about making money and maximizing profit.


This assumes the players on the team care about the draft pick. Not sure that they do.

Do you believe that when Anaheim gets officially eliminated from the playoffs that the players losing are all of sudden gonna care so they can have a chance at 1st overall? I dont

Owners yes, players, not so much.

That's the purpose. Teams that built to not give a f*** because they are tanking, will continue to tank after they are eliminated, therefore they won't get the top pick.

This actually helps teams that are trying to improve but are stuck in the mushy middle. You ignore shit teams like Edmonton who got the 1st overall for what seemed like 5 years straight.

 

[Ceremony]

O'Reilly and Stastny can say what they were going to make was limited by Duchene. Duchene can't say that about the others.

What utter bullshit is this? Was Duchene dishing out the contracts and telling them what they could get paid?

 

[EdAVSfan]

That's the purpose. Teams that built to not give a f*** because they are tanking, will continue to tank after they are eliminated, therefore they won't get the top pick.

This actually helps teams that are trying to improve but are stuck in the mushy middle. You ignore shit teams like Edmonton who got the 1st overall for what seemed like 5 years straight.

I don’t disagree with the general idea, but there are negatives to any decision made.

This idea would likely put a bigger strain on trade deadlines. How can you sell vets and UFAs to be if winning becomes imperative post elimination?

Wouldn’t a team like Anaheim at minimum hold onto its players, or even worse, perhaps become a buyer?

 

[expatriatedtexan]

I don’t disagree with the general idea, but there are negatives to any decision made.

This idea would likely put a bigger strain on trade deadlines. How can you sell vets and UFAs to be if winning becomes imperative post elimination?

Wouldn’t a team like Anaheim at minimum hold onto its players, or even worse, perhaps become a buyer?

It could impact the draft, that would be a decision each GM has to make for themself. But the point is, don't reward trying to lose...you stomp that shit out everywhere you can, and you'll make the games more enjoyable.

 

[dahrougem2]

I think the sooner Gary goes the better. Then again the grass ain't always greener.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

I think the sooner Gary goes the better. Then again the grass ain't always greener.

Yes, absolutely. I know the grass isn't always greener, but I'm looking at the decisions Gary has made throughout his tenure and am not sure one of them has been good for the game. Some will argue the salary cap was good for the league, and I'll somewhat agree. But other than that, I'm sure finding it hard to find one good change that Gary has been responsible for. Somedays I think a monkey in a suit could do a better job, it sure as hell would be more personable.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

This geographical schedule is the worst thing that could happen. Who the f**k would want to see the same team 8 f**king times in a season? That is 1/10th of the season for crying out load. I want to be able to see all teams play against my team.

And what kind of effect would it have on the final regular season standings? I would argue that we would end up with a few more mediocre teams in the SC semi-finals.

Oh and bring the 1 vs 8 playoffs format the f**k back. Why are teams being punished for being in a strong division? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[dahrougem2]

Yes, absolutely. I know the grass isn't always greener, but I'm looking at the decisions Gary has made throughout his tenure and am not sure one of them has been good for the game. Some will argue the salary cap was good for the league, and I'll somewhat agree. But other than that, I'm sure finding it hard to find one good change that Gary has been responsible for. Somedays I think a monkey in a suit could do a better job, it sure as hell would be more personable.

I think expansion was great for the league. Vegas and Seattle look like two thriving franchises.

I think the salary cap in theory is a good idea but I'd like to see them tweak it to something that resembles the NBA's model. I'd like for there to be no cap on players you draft yourself, while there be a salary cap implemented for UFAs signed and players you are trading for. I think that method would reward teams for drafting and developing their own talent instead of causing cap casualties.

 

[John Mandalorian]

And that would be a management issue not Duchene issue. The fact that management enforced that cap is ridiculous.

I'm addressing the impulse to lump them together when discussing them. It's not the same for Duchene as it was the others.

You can blame mgt if you want. But you'd also be overlooking numerous shrewd decisions mgt has made. And then there's the butterfly effect. Complaining about mgts decision then, precludes you from assuming the Avs would have Makar today.

 

[Pokecheque]

Don't foget Wade. I loved Belak.

Um, I didn't.

 

[LOFIN]

I think expansion was great for the league. Vegas and Seattle look like two thriving franchises.

I think the salary cap in theory is a good idea but I'd like to see them tweak it to something that resembles the NBA's model. I'd like for there to be no cap on players you draft yourself, while there be a salary cap implemented for UFAs signed and players you are trading for. I think that method would reward teams for drafting and developing their own talent instead of causing cap casualties.

Make it so that after the player has been with the team for say 5 years, you can take x amount of cap% off from his hit. And goes up proportionally. Or something like that.

I mean the salary cap achieves exactly what it was designed for. Parity, because good teams are forced to throw players overboard eventually. And it keeps the salaries down, at least for the majority of the players.

From a fan perspective, what you would expect the salary cap to do is to prevent a team like the Leafs or the Rangers to just grab every great player and sign them to some absurd contract no other teams could afford. It does that too, but also the things I described above. It sucks especially now that we are the victims of it, but it was the same for Chicago and Tampa as well. It should not be, that you can't afford to even KEEP your players.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

Um, I didn't.

Sorry about that Poke, my damn chemo brain and eyes are acting up today something fierce and I'm making a fool of myself.

 

[Pokecheque]

Make it so that after the player has been with the team for say 5 years, you can take x amount of cap% off from his hit. And goes up proportionally. Or something like that.

I mean the salary cap achieves exactly what it was designed for. Parity, because good teams are forced to throw players overboard eventually. And it keeps the salaries down, at least for the majority of the players.

From a fan perspective, what you would expect the salary cap to do is to prevent a team like the Leafs or the Rangers to just grab every great player and sign them to some absurd contract no other teams could afford. It does that too, but also the things I described above. It sucks especially now that we are the victims of it, but it was the same for Chicago and Tampa as well. It should not be, that you can't afford to even KEEP your players.

It kept star player salaries down but it did absolutely nothing to control the salaries of the middle-tier guys and role players, their pay skyrocketed.

The PA finally cried foul once escrow became a big problem, now we're starting to see those stars push for higher salaries and essentially say to the players lower on the food chain "I earned this, you're not getting as big a slice of pie anymore" by opting not to exercise the cap inflator. We'll see if that continues. At some point teams need to quit paying through the nose for third line guys and what not.

Sorry about that Poke, my damn chemo brain and eyes are acting up today something fierce and I'm making a fool of myself.

Oh, shit. I'm sorry to hear that. Forget what I said.

 

[dahrougem2]

Make it so that after the player has been with the team for say 5 years, you can take x amount of cap% off from his hit. And goes up proportionally. Or something like that.

I mean the salary cap achieves exactly what it was designed for. Parity, because good teams are forced to throw players overboard eventually. And it keeps the salaries down, at least for the majority of the players.

From a fan perspective, what you would expect the salary cap to do is to prevent a team like the Leafs or the Rangers to just grab every great player and sign them to some absurd contract no other teams could afford. It does that too, but also the things I described above. It sucks especially now that we are the victims of it, but it was the same for Chicago and Tampa as well. It should not be, that you can't afford to even KEEP your players.

Yeah, teams should not be punished for drafting/developing their good players.

With that said, there are so many trades that happen before a player rises to prominence where you think they're part of the developmental system of that team. Kris Versteeg for example was a cap casualty in Chicago but was actually drafted by Boston. Andrew Ladd was a cap casualty for them, too but was drafted by Carolina.

What hurt them the most was probably losing Byfuglien (even though they won 2 more Cups after he left).

I think a system like the one I proposed would help the Avs tremendously. The ability to pay MacKinnon/Landeskog/Rantanen/Makar/Byram/Newhook whatever necessary in order to be able to afford the pieces brought in like Nichushkin/Lehkonen/Toews/Girard and the departed Kadri/Burakovsky would be so helpful.

 

[Balthazar]

This geographical schedule is the worst thing that could happen. Who the f**k would want to see the same team 8 f**king times in a season? That is 1/10th of the season for crying out load. I want to be able to see all teams play against my team.

And what kind of effect would it have on the final regular season standings?

Really bad.

Team A is playing 8 times against the Ducks and Team B is playing 8 times against Boston.

That's f***ed.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

I'm not convinced that eliminating the cap for drafted players is the right move. I get the incentive behind it, but seriously, how much cap would we have to be able spend this summer if we didn't have to include MacKinnon, Rantanen, Landeskog, Makar and Byram. That's just too much. I would like it to be more like a franchise contract...each team is allowed to have one contract bestowed upon their "Franchise Player" and that one player's contract doesn't count toward the cap. In order to be labeled a "Franchise Player", the player must have been drafted by the team declaring him a "Franchise Player".

 

[EdAVSfan]

It could impact the draft, that would be a decision each GM has to make for themself. But the point is, don't reward trying to lose...you stomp that shit out everywhere you can, and you'll make the games more enjoyable.

I don’t disagree, like I said.

Yes, I hate it too. Don’t reward losing. But the key to the method chosen is that it needs to motivate the current players. Because in general I don’t think they give a crap about where they draft.

While I don’t love Henchy’s idea of expanding the playoff teams, it is a viable strategy. Because it will keep teams afloat in the playoff race, and it will keep the players motivated to keep trying to win.

At the same time, it could motivate ownership to fight for a playoff spot. Playoff revenue is pure profit, so there’s definite reason to push from an ownership standpoint.

 

[LOFIN]

I'm not convinced that eliminating the cap for drafted players is the right move. I get the incentive behind it, but seriously, how much cap would we have to be able spend this summer if we didn't have to include MacKinnon, Rantanen, Landeskog, Makar and Byram. That's just too much. I would like it to be more like a franchise contract...each team is allowed to have one contract bestowed upon their "Franchise Player" and that one player's contract doesn't count toward the cap. In order to be labeled a "Franchise Player", the player must have been drafted by the team declaring him a "Franchise Player".

Oh I don't think totally eliminating the cap hit is the way to go, but shave percentage X out of it. For the fan, the biggest objective of the salary cap should be to prevent big teams from hounding all the free agents. It would make sense to give some relief for players you have drafted or have stayed on the team for like over 7 years or something.

But obviously this is not the objective of the salary cap, so no tweaks will occur. Bettman and co. are just fine with the idea that there won't be dynasties. Even the best organizations can really sustain a supreme contender window for a few years. After that they might still be relevant, but are far from the favourites. And eventually, they too will go into a rebuild (at least if the GM is smart).

 

[redacted]

They want to keep the regular season meaningful and having 24 teams making the playoffs vs 8 teams that don't make them goes against that. Especially since once the postseason starts everyone is on the same page.

I'm with Bettman on this.

I'd say the regular season is way too long to be meaningful already. We've seen the shortened seasons have a bunch more meaningful games because it is always like a post deadline push the whole season. But the NHL can't afford to cut games.

I don't know if I'm personally on the side of playoff expansion... but if you want to eliminate tanking, that is the best path.