Around the League '15-'16: PP Points Don't Count Edition

[Vamos Rafa]

21-page (and counting) thread about Doughty. When Quick, Kopi, and Doughty get their own thread regarding their status as ellite players, it ends up being a heated debate.

 

[King'sPawn]

I wish there was an ignore forums option. I want to avoid the main board, but I sometimes can't look away, it's like a train wreck.

Just FYI, guys... Doughty has had a sheltered career.

 

[CowMix]

The main board has taught me that the only elite player on the Kings is Gary Bettman

 

[Sleeping Dog]

The main board has taught me that the only elite player on the Kings is Gary Bettman

That, combined with puck luck. That's the only reason we've won two Cups.

 

[Martyros]

Guys, Karlsson is better because he plays on a worse team.

There's no comparing. Kings have the absolute best defensive core and fantastic d-partner in Scuderi.

 

[CowMix]

Eichel's OT goal was oh so sexy

 

[cyclones22]

Those guys are deluded. A couple of guarantees come playoff time 1) an analyst on NHL network or NBCSN will call Doughty the best defenseman in the NHL and 2) nobody will call Karlsson that. Gotta make the playoffs to be a subject of discussion.

 

[TonySCV]

Eichel's OT goal was oh so sexy

This is just great.

 

[Reclamation Project]

Jeanneret is so grating.

 

[deeshamrock]

GM Meeting and topics to be covered:


http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/1...enge-expansion-rules-docket-week-gms-meetings

Write up by Pierre LeBrun on what topics the GM's will be discussing at this week's meetings

Among them the coaches challenge rule which is a 'hot topic' among GMS' for a few reasons:

about only 21 percent of goalie-interference reviews have been overturned this season, while the numbers is around 39 percent for offside reviews. There's also frustration among some teams as to what exactly is goalie interference.

and this I agree is a good idea, team challenging gets a 2 min minor if they lose the call

One Eastern Conference GM, who shall remain nameless for now because he wasn't sure if he would bring this up or not at the meetings, floated the idea to me last week about whether there should be an automatic two-minute delay-of-game penalty to the team that loses a coach's challenge. The GM's thinking here is that it would reduce the number of challenges because now coaches would be so willing to toss out all those 50-50 calls because all that is at stake is a timeout. They might think otherwise if there's a penalty attached to a losing decision

other topics what the new expansion draft rules will be and some GM's who are in favor of changing the draft lottery system so that teams can't win back to back lotteries or limit the amount in a certain number of years. They need to do that so the situation Edmonton created can't be continued.

For me, I've always felt it unfair to continue to punish good teams for being good and there should a chance that one of the top 4 5 or 6 teams gets a lottery shot to get a top 7 pick say. Some way to tweak the system to give them a chance .

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I'm not sure I like the two-minute penalty, but I don't know what's an appropriate deterrent between a time out and a literal penalty; I DO agree that frivolous and "why not?" throwing-up-a-prayer challenges should be cut out, but I'm sure there are some legitimate challenges that just don't get upheld, and it would be a shame to punish a 'legitimate' challenge the same way as the BS challenges.

I agree with you on all the lottery stuff; I think you need to protect teams from themselves to some extent there, and it would be cool to shuffle the lottery odds a bit, though it would make those first-rounder more valueable and less tradebait

 

[KingsFan7824]

More rules and technology require more rules and technology. The price we pay for increased complexity.

 

[King'sPawn]

I disagree with the lottery changes. Teams who are poorly managed will stay poorly managed. But if a team wins the lottery, gets freak injuries the next season, why should they be punished with the back to back lottery exemption?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I disagree with the lottery changes. Teams who are poorly managed will stay poorly managed. But if a team wins the lottery, gets freak injuries the next season, why should they be punished with the back to back lottery exemption?

I think they could still get 2nd OA, just not 1st OA repeatedly. And it's very rare that that actually happens unless you're the Avs; I think the protection is more frequent than the rarity.

 

[King'sPawn]

I think they could still get 2nd OA, just not 1st OA repeatedly. And it's very rare that that actually happens unless you're the Avs; I think the protection is more frequent than the rarity.

Here's the thing though; people have thought of this rule because Edmonton has won the lottery multiple times. Aside from Edmonton being completely mismanaged where they continually suck despite the first overalls, how many other teams have continually sucked with their first overalls?

2015 - Edmonton: sucks, but they are better than last year.
2014 - Florida: A playoff team two years later
2013 - Colorado: won the division the following year/made the playoffs
2012 - Edmonton: Sucks. We know that.
2011 - Edmonton: Sucks. We know that
2010 - Edmonton: ... I know. Sucks
2009 - New York Islanders: Made the playoffs four years later. But never once were they ever as bad as their record as when they got the first overall
2008 - Tampa Bay: had a worse performance the following year, but made the playoffs (and Eastern Conference Semifinal) two years after that
2007 - Chicago: Are a dynasty
2006 - St. Louis: Made the playoffs two years later, missed the playoffs two years after that, but then has since been a regular in the playoffs since.

Like I said, teams who are managed poorly will stay poor. The only team, aside from Edmonton, who took four years to make the playoffs was the Islanders, and they never performed as badly as when they got the first overall. Tampa Bay actually did play worse the following year, but still jumped to the playoffs shortly after.

So aside from other teams wanting to improve their chances of getting a first overall pick, because they aren't as mismanaged as poorly as Edmonton has been, I'd say one team in 30 continually being terribly run is a lot more rare than any team getting hammered with injuries.

People keep arguing the system "rewards sucking," but Edmonton, missing the playoffs again and again and again, don't look like they're really benefiting from the system.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Here's the thing though; people have thought of this rule because Edmonton has won the lottery multiple times. Aside from Edmonton being completely mismanaged where they continually suck despite the first overalls, how many other teams have continually sucked with their first overalls?

2015 - Edmonton: sucks, but they are better than last year.
2014 - Florida: A playoff team two years later
2013 - Colorado: won the division the following year/made the playoffs
2012 - Edmonton: Sucks. We know that.
2011 - Edmonton: Sucks. We know that
2010 - Edmonton: ... I know. Sucks
2009 - New York Islanders: Made the playoffs four years later. But never once were they ever as bad as their record as when they got the first overall
2008 - Tampa Bay: had a worse performance the following year, but made the playoffs (and Eastern Conference Semifinal) two years after that
2007 - Chicago: Are a dynasty
2006 - St. Louis: Made the playoffs two years later, missed the playoffs two years after that, but then has since been a regular in the playoffs since.

Like I said, teams who are managed poorly will stay poor. The only team, aside from Edmonton, who took four years to make the playoffs was the Islanders, and they never performed as badly as when they got the first overall. Tampa Bay actually did play worse the following year, but still jumped to the playoffs shortly after.

So aside from other teams wanting to improve their chances of getting a first overall pick, because they aren't as mismanaged as poorly as Edmonton has been, I'd say one team in 30 continually being terribly run is a lot more rare than any team getting hammered with injuries.

People keep arguing the system "rewards sucking," but Edmonton, missing the playoffs again and again and again, don't look like they're really benefiting from the system.

I agree to some extent and I also think that part of the reason this is suddenly an issue is because of Edmonton 'stealing' McDavid from Buffalo and screwing Arizona in the process, and it some ways it may be a fix for something that isn't truly broken, but I think the argument in favor of change is one that says give a chance for other teams to be rewarded rather than one 'punished'. Obviously it's just a matter of perspective in that case but I think the idea is fine. I'm not upset about it one way or the other, to be frank, but as we just had this debate in our fantasy football league, it's easy for me to see both angles

the REAL byproduct that I don't like so much is that it may discourage deadline trade deals a bit, or at least revolve them around 2nd rounders and players rather than potential lottery picks.

 

[Trolfoli]

I don't have a problem with one team going first overall more then once. Buffalo was trying everything possible to tank for that 1st spot. Even trading their goalie (after Miller) because he hit a hot streak and was keeping them in games. So a team like Buffalo who was actively trying to suck should be rewarded over a team that's just terrible? There's the argument against the Oilers, but what's the point in rewarding teams like Buffalo/Toronto, who are icing **** teams, to out suck the Oilers?

The other thing that is going to happen, sooner then later, is that the Oilers won't be able to afford that much high end talent and some of those picks will need to be moved. Teams salary structure won't support RNH/McDavid/Draisaitl down the middle in a couple of years.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I don't have a problem with one team going first overall more then once. Buffalo was trying everything possible to tank for that 1st spot. Even trading their goalie (after Miller) because he hit a hot streak and was keeping them in games. So a team like Buffalo who was actively trying to suck should be rewarded over a team that's just terrible? There's the argument against the Oilers, but what's the point in rewarding teams like Buffalo/Toronto, who are icing **** teams, to out suck the Oilers?

The other thing that is going to happen, sooner then later, is that the Oilers won't be able to afford that much high end talent and some of those picks will need to be moved. Teams salary structure won't support RNH/McDavid/Draisaitl down the middle in a couple of years.

It's pretty true that the salary cap and people wanting to leave is a pretty good long-term deterrent against stupid management, heh.

I'm sure Chiarelli will be whipping them into shape soonish though and McDavid is far beyond what any of those other 1OA picks have become (though their development is a different argument).

 

[Omni Owl]

You know **** is bad with your franchise when the GM's try to make a rule where you can't acquire another top player. Its honestly too late, and I would laugh if the ****ing Oilers get Matthews, just for how absurd it would be.

 

[kingsholygrail]

The Hail Mary challenge wouldn't work if the refs were properly equipped and trained.

 

[Reclamation Project]

It's amusing to hear all the people who said Jones was a system goalie now say he's so good.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

It's amusing to hear all the people who said Jones was a system goalie now say he's so good.

Especially when goalies leave here and have better years as Bernier has, too.

They fall apart a year or two later but I put that on local goalie coaching

 

[Trolfoli]

It's pretty true that the salary cap and people wanting to leave is a pretty good long-term deterrent against stupid management, heh.

I'm sure Chiarelli will be whipping them into shape soonish though and McDavid is far beyond what any of those other 1OA picks have become (though their development is a different argument).

Other part of this is that they're going to end up trading some high end talent for pieces to balance out the team. I'm really hoping the Kings can swoop in on some nice pieces by moving some redundant players on this team. Cup wining experience is Voodoo around the league. Look at Washington going after Williams/Richards. Lombardi brought in a bunch of guys who had won before and made deep playoff runs.

The Hail Mary challenge wouldn't work if the refs were properly equipped and trained.

The off sides challenge is easy to fix. Multiple camera views with a clock on each one of the views. Determine the time at which the puck goes over the line then punch that time up and bring up the still frame of the guys foot from the other cameras. Should take about 1-2 mins max. If can't be determined in 1-2 mins it's inconclusive.

Especially when goalies leave here and have better years as Bernier has, too.

They fall apart a year or two later but I put that on local goalie coaching

Poor Bernier has PTSD from playing behind the TO defense.

 

[The Pale King]

Poor Bernier has PTSD from playing behind the TO defense.

I like your other points, but why is Reimer so much better this year then? Their SV%'s earlier in the year were closing in on some of the biggest discrepancies between teammates for a full season (though it's unlikely anyone will ever touch Hasek-Fuhr at .930 and .883 in 93-94).

Reimer has fallen off a bit since, but they were closer to 40 points apart as late as January.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The off sides challenge is easy to fix. Multiple camera views with a clock on each one of the views. Determine the time at which the puck goes over the line then punch that time up and bring up the still frame of the guys foot from the other cameras. Should take about 1-2 mins max. If can't be determined in 1-2 mins it's inconclusive.

it sounds like they're working towards that as well with the cameras embedded on the boards on the blue lines. Same with the cameras in the posts.