Toggle sidebar

Around the NHL 11 - 2023/24

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gm0ney said:
That money would be HRR, so it would find its way to the players as well.

But I think that would overly reward bubble teams that just fail to make the cut. Like, Vegas this year, if they missed the playoffs, would dominate - especially with Stone, Eichel, and the Lord Jesus coming off IR just in time to pound the living snot out of San Jose. Do we really want to hand that team 1st overall?

The Gold Draft still balances things because Vegas might get 1 or 2 games after elimination to accrue points while San Jose has 18 games to rack em up. The weaker teams still should get the most help from this method.
Click to expand...
The Draft Playoff format would strongly discourage the existence of teams like San Jose and Chicago as there would be no more incentive to sell of ALL of your assets to land Bedard and rebuild... it would be a league that is constantly retooling not rebuilding.

It will stop the trade deadline madness as well... and we get more teams having to make their playoff run based on their roster rather than a splashy add - especially will reduce the salary retention we are seeing now because horrible teams are no longer rewarded by dropping in the standings...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gm0ney
WolfHouse said:
Or a loser playoff round to determine who gets first overall - then the tanking would stop
Click to expand...

It will never happen ....But, you want to stop tanking , then introduce a relegation system. If you are the worst team in the NHL , you get the 1st overall pick, but the next season you are playing in the AHL.
 
cbcwpg said:
It will never happen ....But, you want to stop tanking , then introduce a relegation system. If you are the worst team in the NHL , you get the 1st overall pick, but the next season you are playing in the AHL.
Click to expand...
"Yes, here's my $600M expansion fee. What do you mean we could be in the AHL at some point??"

Relegation is never going to happen at this stage when there's so much money involved.

And if it happened to the Jets, would we have 2 AHL teams in Winnipeg? How would the farm system work?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ponds
LucianoBorsato said:
Interesting article about which teams have best chance of grabbing the wildcard spots or winning their divisions based on the tie-breakers. I had no idea the Jets had the most regulation wins in the league, 8 more than the current HFBoards Jets bogeyman, Dallas.

www.sportsnet.ca

NHL Playoff Push: Which teams hold the tie-breaker advantages?

The last day of the NHL's regular season is April 18, meaning we have about a month of games left before matchups lock in for the first round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Rory Boylen breaks down the tie-breaking scenarios.
www.sportsnet.ca www.sportsnet.ca
Click to expand...
I didn't realize Boston had that many OT losses. The Gary point does my head in. I've done my best not to think about it this year but as I'm currently bedridden, I have more than enough time for a rant. (This likely isn't a novel frustration by now)

It's such a farce. Why should a team be given an extra point, just because they went into extra time? The Bruins have lost 15 games in OT and for that they've taken 15 points. What? 15 points for losing is not an inconsequential number here. They sit atop the NHL standings with less wins than 6 teams! Including our Winnipeg Jets. Florida should be ahead of them in the division on merit. Boston is just better at losing though, that's the NHL. If you're good at dragging out a loss, you're rewarded.

A single point swing is way too small a difference for a loss vs a win.

The gulf between 2 or 1 is miniscule compared to 3 or 1. Football has it right, 3 for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss. If I ran the league, that's the first thing I'd implement. A tie after 10 minutes of OT is a fair result. Sometimes a contest just ends in a stalemate. By making it 3 points for a win, you're putting much more value on coming out of a game with a victory. I'd wager, with that system, very few games would end in a tie. And if 3 for a win would make NHL point totals too high, then keep everything the same. Just get rid of the God forsaken loser point.

It should all be so simple, but it never is when Gary and the owners figure out a way to make nonsense profitable. Sometimes I fantasize about holding him upside down over the edge of a fire escape, relentlessly shaking him, making coins drop from his pockets, forever.

The nice thing to take away from all this is Winnipeg gets the job done in 60 minutes, better than any other team in the NHL. That makes me happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ERYX, Jets 31, buggs and 4 others
Gm0ney said:
"Yes, here's my $600M expansion fee. What do you mean we could be in the AHL at some point??"

Relegation is never going to happen at this stage when there's so much money involved.

And if it happened to the Jets, would we have 2 AHL teams in Winnipeg? How would the farm system work?
Click to expand...
Maybe the Moose get promoted haha
OR WE COULD HAVE 2 NHL TEAMS!!!
 
  • Haha
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: Cypruss, ERYX, WolfgangPuck and 3 others
bustamente said:
If you don't want teams to tank then give the lottery team that has the most points the greater chance at the 1st pick. Last place team get the worst chance to get the 1st pick, tanking no more. Maybe lower the number of lottery teams at the same time
Click to expand...
You could just remove the weighting altogether
 
  • Like
Reactions: hn777
Ponds said:
I didn't realize Boston had that many OT losses. The Gary point does my head in. I've done my best not to think about it this year but as I'm currently bedridden, I have more than enough time for a rant. (This likely isn't a novel frustration by now)

It's such a farce. Why should a team be given an extra point, just because they went into extra time? The Bruins have lost 15 games in OT and for that they've taken 15 points. What? 15 points for losing is not an inconsequential number here. They sit atop the NHL standings with less wins than 6 teams! Including our Winnipeg Jets. Florida should be ahead of them in the division on merit. Boston is just better at losing though, that's the NHL. If you're good at dragging out a loss, you're rewarded.

A single point swing is way too small a difference for a loss vs a win.

The gulf between 2 or 1 is miniscule compared to 3 or 1. Football has it right, 3 for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss. If I ran the league, that's the first thing I'd implement. A tie after 10 minutes of OT is a fair result. Sometimes a contest just ends in a stalemate. By making it 3 points for a win, you're putting much more value on coming out of a game with a victory. I'd wager, with that system, very few games would end in a tie. And if 3 for a win would make NHL point totals too high, then keep everything the same. Just get rid of the God forsaken loser point.

It should all be so simple, but it never is when Gary and the owners figure out a way to make nonsense profitable. Sometimes I fantasize about holding him upside down over the edge of a fire escape, relentlessly shaking him, making coins drop from his pockets, forever.

The nice thing to take away from all this is Winnipeg gets the job done in 60 minutes, better than any other team in the NHL. That makes me happy.
Click to expand...
I generally agree with you. 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, 1 OT loss, sufficiently addresses the problem. (I kind of like the 3v3 pond hockey, at least its still a team game.) But the league wants it to look like the standings are closer than they really are, so that's why we have this dumb system of adding an extra standings point for going into OT.

Personally I'd remove the coin flip shoot outs and just give them 1 point each after 10 minutes of OT. If you can't score within that time, you deserve fewer points, and you'd see far more risks taken in OT (and at the end of regulation).

In the days of 5v5 OT, things were a bit boring, teams were far too conservative not wanting to lose a point.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Ponds, John Agar and kanadalainen
Duke749 said:
Based on the thread on the main board, people are really taking our depth for granted. I mean, with a healthy lineup, our 4th line will consist of Barron-Name-Iaffallo. I mean where can you even fit Perfetti? You can’t.
Click to expand...
It’s funny when I go to other teams threads and the only thing they say is the Jets only won because of Helle. Not realizing the poor quality of shots he faces because the defence is doing their job.

Also the whole “average” offence argument is false. The Jets have 5 players with 20+ goals (2 with 30) and 7 with 10-19 goals. What other people are not seeing is the scoring by committee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ERYX, Jets 31, sipowicz and 2 others
Aggie204 said:
It’s funny when I go to other teams threads and the only thing they say the Jets only won because of Helle. Not realizing the poor quality of shots he faces because the defence is doing their job.

Also the whole “average” offence argument is false. The Jets have 5 players with 20+ goals (2 with 30) and 7 with 10+ goals. What other people are not seeing is the scoring by committee.
Click to expand...
Our goals for are actually quite a bit lower than most teams around us in the standings yet our goal differential is still 3rd best in the league at +54

What some people are ignoring is that our powerplay was complete dogshit for a huge stretch

PLUS, when you allow as few goals as we do, you don't need to score as many to win games. Teams who give up more goals have to push to score more. We had that stretches where we gave up 2 or less and 3 or less, meaning we could get up a goal or two and roll lines
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingBogo, ERYX, Jets 31 and 2 others
FonRiesen said:
So the #17 team gets the #1 pick? Or what would you suggest?

You just don't want to go back to teams sucking for a decade at a time... Then again, I'd be okay with Edmonton never making the playoffs...
Click to expand...
No, sorry. Just randomize it wth no weighting (lottery teams). I should have been more clear
 
FonRiesen said:
I generally agree with you. 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, 1 OT loss, sufficiently addresses the problem. (I kind of like the 3v3 pond hockey, at least its still a team game.) But the league wants it to look like the standings are closer than they really are, so that's why we have this dumb system of adding an extra standings point for going into OT.

Personally I'd remove the coin flip shoot outs and just give them 1 point each after 10 minutes of OT. If you can't score within that time, you deserve fewer points, and you'd see far more risks taken in OT (and at the end of regulation).

In the days of 5v5 OT, things were a bit boring, teams were far too conservative not wanting to lose a point.
Click to expand...
I hadn't heard/considered that being their motive. It makes me disagree with the system even more. I just cannot support a point awarded for a loss, it lacks integrity.

I'm completely cool with 3v3 OT. It blows 10 minutes of 5v5 out of the water in entertainment value and with determining a winner. I agree and like that it's still very much a team game, which is the reason I've never been into shootouts. Too much of a dog and pony show.

If they wanted to keep the standings somewhat closer I'd be fine with 2 for a win, 1 for a tie (if no result by the end of OT), and 0 for a loss of any kind. Argument could be made that a 3 to 1 differential offers more incentive to go for the win, but thinking about it, the openness of 3v3 lends itself to finding a winner. It would also be more noticeable if a team were to sit back in an attempt to run out the clock for a tie. No matter what, bin shootouts and the loser point in whatever dream scenario the league has come to their senses. Both are whack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FonRiesen
Buffdog said:
Part of me struggles to understand how boxers, NFL players, MMA fighters and hockey enforcers can all of a sudden be surprised that their CHOSEN profession put them at risk for brain damage

Nobody put a gun to Chris Simon's head and told him to go out and fight. He was free to walk away and retire at any point. Instead he chose to engage in bare knuckle boxing on the ice
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are a lot of people who are struggling who would gladly risk CTE in exchange for setting up their families for generations by making millions playing a recreational sport. I personally make enough money to give my family a modest but comfortable living, but even I would be pretty tempted by the prospect of being able to set my family up like that.

There are lots of people who work at arguably more dangerous jobs for a lot less pay. Soldiers come first to mind, they make a tiny fraction of what Chris Simon brought home, but they risk death, PTSD, etc.Yet there seems to be way more attention paid to guys who made millions playing a game. But aside from soldiers, mining can be dangerous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FonRiesen, Jets 31, Ponds and 2 others
ERYX said:
I'm sure there are a lot of people who are struggling who would gladly risk CTE in exchange for setting up their families for generations by making millions playing a recreational sport. I personally make enough money to give my family a modest but comfortable living, but even I would be pretty tempted by the prospect of being able to set my family up like that.

There are lots of people who work at arguably more dangerous jobs for a lot less pay. Soldiers come first to mind, they make a tiny fraction of what Chris Simon brought home, but they risk death, PTSD, etc.Yet there seems to be way more attention paid to guys who made millions playing a game. But aside from soldiers, mining can be dangerous.
Click to expand...
Loggers and electricians have the highest fatality rates *I think*

After watching a few biographies and reading a few more from these guys, they all say that the stress of having to fight was the worst. They'd get into a city and look at the line up and knew that at some point they'd have to drop the gloves with the other goon. That anticipation can be really stressful

That led to lots of substance abuse which never helps mental health either
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ponds
sipowicz said:
Pretty obvious why the charade in the Arizona desert still plays out with the ownership now pretending to build an arena on land they may or may not get in an auction!

Bottom line is that is as long as the team sits there, expansion fees for a new team in SLC, Atlanta or Houston are still in play!
Click to expand...
Desert is a great place to launder money
 
  • Like
Reactions: sipowicz
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom