Confirmed with Link: [AZ/OTT] Jakob Chychrun in exchange for a conditional first in ’23, a conditional second in ’24, & a 2nd in ‘26

[GhostofTommyBolin]

Solving the tanking problem should be at the front of the GM meetings next week, but knowing the NHL they probably won't even discuss it.

Sitting guys out due to "potential trades" should be limited to two games at most, but teams will find a way around that, too.

 

[hbk]

Solving the tanking problem should be at the front of the GM meetings next week, but knowing the NHL they probably won't even discuss it.

Sitting guys out due to "potential trades" should be limited to two games at most, but teams will find a way around that, too.

yeah they will lie.

coaches decision.

 

[hbk]

Mark Lazerus wrote a whole article about how evil and pathetic the Coyotes are for their dead cap money - just an absolute over-the-top rant - and then at the end added a parenthetical paragraph saying that even though Chicago's dressing room is more hopeless than ours and Chicago has taken on equal amounts of contractual deadweight, at least their overpaid cap-relief players can actually play (albeit, he fails to mention, they play terribly, which is the franchise's intent in order to be the absolute worst possible team they can be), whereas ours - who don't interact with our young players or even live in Arizona (!) - aren't in a position to affect our team's game in any way.

It was an absolute masterclass in hyperbolic hypocrisy, and I'm sure Lazerus is getting brownie points aplenty from all the traditionalists and Main Board denizens for it. From a peer perspective, though, I have to say it was a shittily-reasoned and -written piece of editorial larceny.

Like i said before. It's genius when they do it. Horrific for the NHL when AZ does it.

These are desperate times for AZ. They are. This is literally a franchise doing whatever it can to stay in a market. It's worse than selling Teemu Selanne off for two prospects.

That being said this is worth it if it results in the franchise not being relocated. AZ has the potential to be a great market for the league. Somehow people just seem to forget that.

 

[rt]

It all comes down to the vote. That’s it

 

[Arizonatah Coyetis]

Solving the tanking problem should be at the front of the GM meetings next week, but knowing the NHL they probably won't even discuss it.

Sitting guys out due to "potential trades" should be limited to two games at most, but teams will find a way around that, too.

Maybe they'll just go back to calling it a healthy scratch and leave out the trade part.

 

[Jakey53]

Like i said before. It's genius when they do it. Horrific for the NHL when AZ does it.

These are desperate times for AZ. They are. This is literally a franchise doing whatever it can to stay in a market. It's worse than selling Teemu Selanne off for two prospects.

That being said this is worth it if it results in the franchise not being relocated. AZ has the potential to be a great market for the league. Somehow people just seem to forget that.

Good market if they win. Fans have had enough. I don't think anyone has forgotten anything. Hardly anyone is AZ cares about the Coyotes because of the past 20 years, and I don't think that will change until they get back to the playoffs, and even then, they will be seeded fourth or lower in AZ.

 

[Sm00chy]

It all comes down to the vote. That’s it

The vote is so much more important than the draft lottery for this franchise.

 

[Sinurgy]

Solving the tanking problem should be at the front of the GM meetings next week, but knowing the NHL they probably won't even discuss it.

Why?

 

[GhostofTommyBolin]

Why?

Because the system is flawed. Because fans pay good money and get screwed.

Take your pick.

Or if you're asking why they won't discuss it, it's because they won't listen to reason and come up with a better system.

 

[Sinurgy]

Because the system is flawed. Because fans pay good money and get screwed.

Take your pick.

Or if you're asking why they won't discuss it, it's because they won't listen to reason and come up with a better system.

I agree the system is flawed, they need to making tanking more effective for shit teams and less effective for everyone else. As it stands now basically no one benefits other than some mostly random team that is often already lucked out (E.g. Edmonton and New Jersey). I don't think the fans are getting screwed though, a tanking team is rarely a secret, a fan spends their money knowingly in that situation.

 

[MIGs Dog]

We've already discussed this to death, but let's do it some more. Tanking is bad for the league because it subverts the underlying reason that sports exist...and that's to win. OK, you may disagree with that. There are other reasons to play sports, particularly for kids; it's good for their physical, mental, and emotional development, but we're talking about a pro league of grown men. The point is to win. Every team should be trying to win.

I, therefore, disagree with the current system of rewarding not trying to win. None of the teams that intentionally built a sub-playoff roster (including the Yotes) should be rewarded with better odds of drafting high. Some will say that giving the worst team the best odds is fair. Nonsense. I prefer equality to equity. I'm not trying to level outcomes, only opportunity. Under a better draft lottery system (or none), every team has the same opportunity to build a championship roster.

The "fairest" system would be to enact a draft position rotation. Every team picks 1OA once per 32 years. Since I know that will never happen, you could also provide every non-playoff team with equal odds of drafting 1OA. Under this system, there would be a 1 in 16 chance of 1OA no matter where each non-playoff team finished. ZERO incentive to tank.

Gary Bettman recently said, “Nobody tanks because we have a weighted lottery," which is the dumbest thing I've heard recently. Teams tank BECAUSE it's weighted. Remove the weighting = no tanking.

Also, It's possible to build a good team without drafting high; happens quite frequently.

Under my preferred draft system, rebuilds would still occur. Trading current assets for future assets would still happen. Thus, "less good" teams would still happen. However, fans would not be hoping for their team to lose, which creates a toxic mess of contradictions.

 

[PainForShane]

We've already discussed this to death, but let's do it some more. Tanking is bad for the league because it subverts the underlying reason that sports exist...and that's to win. OK, you may disagree with that. There are other reasons to play sports, particularly for kids; it's good for their physical, mental, and emotional development, but we're talking about a pro league of grown men. The point is to win. Every team should be trying to win.

I, therefore, disagree with the current system of rewarding not trying to win. None of the teams that intentionally built a sub-playoff roster (including the Yotes) should be rewarded with better odds of drafting high. Some will say that giving the worst team the best odds is fair. Nonsense. I prefer equality to equity. I'm not trying to level outcomes, only opportunity. Under a better draft lottery system (or none), every team has the same opportunity to build a championship roster.

The "fairest" system would be to enact a draft position rotation. Every team picks 1OA once per 32 years. Since I know that will never happen, you could also provide every non-playoff team with equal odds of drafting 1OA. Under this system, there would be a 1 in 16 chance of 1OA no matter where each non-playoff team finished. ZERO incentive to tank.

Gary Bettman recently said, “Nobody tanks because we have a weighted lottery," which is the dumbest thing I've heard recently. Teams tank BECAUSE it's weighted. Remove the weighting = no tanking.

Also, It's possible to build a good team without drafting high; happens quite frequently.

Under my preferred draft system, rebuilds would still occur. Trading current assets for future assets would still happen. Thus, "less good" teams would still happen. However, fans would not be hoping for their team to lose, which creates a toxic mess of contradictions.

That's an interesting idea (ie for every non-playoff team to have a 1/16 chance of 1OA). I also like what the NBA does -- top 3 worst teams have equal chance at 1OA at only 14% (around 1 in 7 which is still low). There was also some MIT analytics guy who basically argued for, "sort the draft order by the number of points that teams get after being mathematically eliminated in the playoffs" -- I really like that idea.

Anyway hopefully they change the draft process but until then tanking can make long term sense depending on individual teams' circumstances (imo certainly makes sense for us rn). To use an older saying that I haven't heard in decades, don't hate the players, hate the game

 

[rt]

I think the rules are fine.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

That's an interesting idea (ie for every non-playoff team to have a 1/16 chance of 1OA). I also like what the NBA does -- top 3 worst teams have equal chance at 1OA at only 14% (around 1 in 7 which is still low). There was also some MIT analytics guy who basically argued for, "sort the draft order by the number of points that teams get after being mathematically eliminated in the playoffs" -- I really like that idea.

I think that's known here as the "Shane Doan" option. It would be different for sure, but I guess the way to go about it would be to *Really* tank hard *early* to get eliminated, *then* start trying. (which gives the good teams something else to complain about "team X got to play those chumps in October while we had to play them in March!")

 

[Jakey53]

I think the rules are fine.

It doesn't matter what you and I think, or anyone else, the NHL teams and governors have agreed that this is the best for all teams, and they also think the rules are fine. IF we would have won the lottery and got McDavid we would change our tune, and if we win the lottery this year, we all will be happy with the rules.

 

[Jakey53]

Because the system is flawed. Because fans pay good money and get screwed.

Take your pick.

Or if you're asking why they won't discuss it, it's because they won't listen to reason and come up with a better system.

There has been plenty of discussion about the draft and it's rules, and the rules have changed over the years. They won't change the rules because you think there is a better system.

 

[AZviaNJ]

Mark Lazerus wrote a whole article about how evil and pathetic the Coyotes are for their dead cap money - just an absolute over-the-top rant - and then at the end added a parenthetical paragraph saying that even though Chicago's dressing room is more hopeless than ours and Chicago has taken on equal amounts of contractual deadweight, at least their overpaid cap-relief players can actually play (albeit, he fails to mention, they play terribly, which is the franchise's intent in order to be the absolute worst possible team they can be), whereas ours - who don't interact with our young players or even live in Arizona (!) - aren't in a position to affect our team's game in any way.

It was an absolute masterclass in hyperbolic hypocrisy, and I'm sure Lazerus is getting brownie points aplenty from all the traditionalists and Main Board denizens for it. From a peer perspective, though, I have to say it was a shittily-reasoned and -written piece of editorial larceny.

Lazerus has been more of a supporter than hater over the years…could be his relationship with Craig. So this article is a double disappointment and yeah talk about living in glass houses!

 

[MIGs Dog]

IF we would have won the lottery and got McDavid we would change our tune, and if we win the lottery this year, we all will be happy with the rules.

Not me. How many on here are actively hoping the Coyotes lose? The draft lottery perverts what it means to be a fan.

I'd also argue that the fans do have the power to force change if they are vocal enough.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

I'd also argue that the fans do have the power to force change if they are vocal enough.

Not here with a team historically 2 steps from relocation.

 

[Sinurgy]

We've already discussed this to death, but let's do it some more. Tanking is bad for the league because it subverts the underlying reason that sports exist...and that's to win. OK, you may disagree with that. There are other reasons to play sports, particularly for kids; it's good for their physical, mental, and emotional development, but we're talking about a pro league of grown men. The point is to win. Every team should be trying to win.

I, therefore, disagree with the current system of rewarding not trying to win. None of the teams that intentionally built a sub-playoff roster (including the Yotes) should be rewarded with better odds of drafting high. Some will say that giving the worst team the best odds is fair. Nonsense. I prefer equality to equity. I'm not trying to level outcomes, only opportunity. Under a better draft lottery system (or none), every team has the same opportunity to build a championship roster.

The "fairest" system would be to enact a draft position rotation. Every team picks 1OA once per 32 years. Since I know that will never happen, you could also provide every non-playoff team with equal odds of drafting 1OA. Under this system, there would be a 1 in 16 chance of 1OA no matter where each non-playoff team finished. ZERO incentive to tank.

Gary Bettman recently said, “Nobody tanks because we have a weighted lottery," which is the dumbest thing I've heard recently. Teams tank BECAUSE it's weighted. Remove the weighting = no tanking.

Also, It's possible to build a good team without drafting high; happens quite frequently.

Under my preferred draft system, rebuilds would still occur. Trading current assets for future assets would still happen. Thus, "less good" teams would still happen. However, fans would not be hoping for their team to lose, which creates a toxic mess of contradictions.

I definitely disagree with your premise that the reason sports exist is to win but even if that was the case, you're ignoring the fact that teams that tank ARE trying to win, they're just looking at the big picture while you're looking at the small picture. Very different perspectives but both are praying to holy gods of winning.

 

[MIGs Dog]

I definitely disagree with your premise that the reason sports exist is to win but even if that was the case, you're ignoring the fact that teams that tank ARE trying to win, they're just looking at the big picture while you're looking at the small picture. Very different perspectives but both are praying to holy gods of winning.

Under my brilliant draft lottery system , rebuilding through the draft by trading current assets for future assets would still occur. Thus, some GMs (like ours) would acknowledge that they are not expecting to field a playoff roster. However, there would be no additional incentive to be "league-worst." Fans would not actively root for their team to lose (like some on here are.) I think I am looking at the big picture. The current system creates an unhealthy fan environment.

 

[Arizonatah Coyetis]

Sitting guys out due to "potential trades" should be limited to two games at most, but teams will find a way around that, too.

Are you against healthy scratches in general, because that's all that really was to me. They happen all the time.

 

[Arizonatah Coyetis]

Under my brilliant draft lottery system , rebuilding through the draft by trading current assets for future assets would still occur. Thus, some GMs (like ours) would acknowledge that they are not expecting to field a playoff roster. However, there would be no additional incentive to be "league-worst." Fans would not actively root for their team to lose (like some on here are.) I think I am looking at the big picture. The current system creates an unhealthy fan environment.

There's 32 spots in the standings and all of them have to be filled. Does how they get there really matter that much?

I just don't want the same teams picking top 3 all the time, like we saw before the last set of changes to the rules. Otherwise, I think the current system is fine, myself. The two top prizes in the NHL are the Stanley Cup and a top 3 pick in the draft. It only makes sense that teams are going to fight for one of them, depending on their lot in life.

 

[MIGs Dog]

There's 32 spots in the standings and all of them have to be filled. Does how they get there really matter that much?

I just don't want the same teams picking top 3 all the time, like we saw before the last set of changes to the rules. Otherwise, I think the current system is fine, myself. There's two prizes in the NHL, the Stanley Cup and a top 3 pick in the draft. It only makes sense that teams are going to fight for one of them, depending on their lot in life.

Under my preferred lottery system I'd still be in favor of an "Edmonton Rule"; something like "no team can win the lottery more than twice in a five year period."

 

[Jagged Ice]

Under my preferred lottery system I'd still be in favor of an "Edmonton Rule"; something like "no team can win the lottery more than twice in a five year period."

Isn't that what the board of governors enacted in 2021?

"Limits on lottery wins. Beginning this season, no team will be able to move up the draft board by winning a lottery more than two times in a five-year period. In the last decade, the Edmonton Oilers, New Jersey Devils and Buffalo Sabres have won lotteries for the first overall pick multiple times in five-year spans.""