SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

Hurricanes_WPG

More Finns More Wins
Member Since
Jul. 6, 2018
Favourite Team
Carolina Hurricanes
2nd Favourite Team
Winnipeg Jets
Forum Posts
508
Posts per Day
0.2
Forum: NHLMar. 20 at 11:35 a.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>HockeyScotty</b></div><div>I am 100% behind this idea too for the draft pick.

The negatives I heard in the NHL media was that it would diminish the trade deadline; but I think the opposite is true. The teams at the bottom would become very active buyers too in order to improve their team and try and win games.

What this would do I think is reduce the chances of good players taking "bargain deals" to play for a bottom tier team hoping to get dealt at the deadline. Vets might sit out the summer free agency and then pick and choose which team to sign with after a few months of the regular season to ensure they picked a contender. This would only be a handful of players every year (ala Zach Parise) so don't think it's a big concern.

But teams like Chicago, San Jose, etc could then go after high salary guys that are "cap dumps" from contenders more often to increase their chances of winning games. It would almost be like players getting "loaned" to them. For example, Washington could have loaned Kuznetsov to San Jose at full cap hit instead of retaining and then used that cap space bring in someone like Tomas Hertl to help their own playoff chances.

Fans of tanking teamswould have renewed enthusiasm for the back half of the season and I think we would see less "strip it to the studs" rebuilds and more remodels/retool types of roster construction by GMs.</div></div>

I'm in favor of anti-tanking measures but having the bottom teams fight for points further disadvantages the worst teams.

My idea is weighting lottery odds by quarter. The final quarter would have the least impact on draft position.
Prevents bubble teams or teams that are heavy sellers, from bombing down to the bottom of the pack after the trade deadline.
Teams that were bad since the first game of the season would have higher odds earned through the earlier part of the season.

Another idea is to link lottery odds with cap usage. If you didn't spend to the cap because you never intended to compete this season, your lottery odds would be lowered.
That may result in some extravagant payments on 1 year terms to avoid those lottery penalties, but it also limits how much a team is willing to sell off at the deadline without taking cap back.
Calgary was a cap team and tried to make the playoffs all season. They moved out a few players and significant salary. They already gained draft capital and prospects from those moves.
They don't need the added benefit of better lottery odds if they bottom out after the fact.

Some minor adjustments to lottery odds can be used as anti-tanking measures without completely basing draft position on post-deadline performance.
The idea has never been to reward incompetence, but to buoy teams who need the talent most.
The most evident methods of tanking are not spending competitively and unloading players so you are less able to ice a competitive team.
Those are the things that should negatively impact your lottery odds.
Forum: NHLMar. 20 at 4:13 p.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Hurricanes_WPG</b></div><div>This also spreads out the excitement of the draft lottery (30 minutes even when it's dragged out as reality TV) across the entire stretch run at the end of March/early April.

Teams at the top of the standings take a much earned rest, or play for seeding, but fans of bad teams are scoreboard watching, invested in other games, just as they would if they were fighting for a playoff spot.

Anyways, take the worst team to complete a season (sorry 2019-20 Wings) in the post-lockout NHL: The 2016-17 Avalanche
Even in a very strange year, standings-wise, where the West had a large gap between the 8 playoff teams and the 6(!) non-playoff teams, so all Western teams were being eliminated unusually early, that Colorado team still picks 4th, exactly where they picked under the lottery system, even though they had a dreadful 0.219 points percentage after their elimination, <strong>the truly awful teams get eliminated early enough to accumulate enough points to pick high in the draft anyways, and there is never an incentive for the GM to tank.</strong>
Winnipeg's 6 game winning streak to end the season after they had been eliminated, instead of actively hurting them by lowering their draft pick from 8 to 13 (after lotteries and Vegas), would have given them the first overall pick. Conversely, Vancouver's 1-8-0 performance after elimination should not have helped them move up the draft board.

2017 Draft Order, Gold System, not including Vegas or lotteries in comparisons
Winnipeg, up from 11th (12 points in 6 games)
Arizona, steady at 2nd (9 points in 10 games)
Los Angeles, up from 9th (9 points in 7 games)
Colorado, down from 1st (7 points in 16(!) games)
Dallas, up from 7th (6 points in 7 games)
Detroit, steady at 6th (5 points in 6 games)
New Jersey, down from 4th (4 points in 8 games)
Florida, steady at 8th (4 points in 5 games)
Philadelphia, up from 12th (4 points in 3 games)
Carolina, steady at 10th (3 points in 4 games)
Vancouver, down from 2nd (2 points in 9 games)
Buffalo, down from 5th (2 points in 5 games)
Tampa Bay, steady at 13th (2 points in 1 game)
Islanders, steady at 14th (2 points in 1 game)</div></div>

🎯

Very well said, I get people's hesitancy about the PWHL draft system because it's such a large departure from the system we've all grown accustomed to, but it's clearly the superior way of doing things.

The PWHL rules ruleset is so so good
Forum: NHLMar. 20 at 2:50 p.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ricochetii</b></div><div><strong>I'm in favor of anti-tanking measures but having the bottom teams fight for points further disadvantages the worst teams.</strong>

My idea is weighting lottery odds by quarter. The final quarter would have the least impact on draft position.
Prevents bubble teams or teams that are heavy sellers, from bombing down to the bottom of the pack after the trade deadline.
Teams that were bad since the first game of the season would have higher odds earned through the earlier part of the season.

Another idea is to link lottery odds with cap usage. If you didn't spend to the cap because you never intended to compete this season, your lottery odds would be lowered.
That may result in some extravagant payments on 1 year terms to avoid those lottery penalties, but it also limits how much a team is willing to sell off at the deadline without taking cap back.
Calgary was a cap team and tried to make the playoffs all season. They moved out a few players and significant salary. They already gained draft capital and prospects from those moves.
They don't need the added benefit of better lottery odds if they bottom out after the fact.

Some minor adjustments to lottery odds can be used as anti-tanking measures without completely basing draft position on post-deadline performance.
The idea has never been to reward incompetence, but to buoy teams who need the talent most.
The most evident methods of tanking are not spending competitively and unloading players so you are less able to ice a competitive team.
Those are the things that should negatively impact your lottery odds.</div></div>

Its really not though. The worst teams in the league are the ones that get eliminated from playoff contention first. Those first few teams have a tremendous headstart on other teams. I detest the idea of having to watch ~20 games of a team that has literally zero reason to be playing
Forum: NHLMar. 12 at 11:10 a.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>jonh514</b></div><div>1) Change the draft lottery to favor compensating the teams who just miss the playoffs more than the teams who tank, or at least compensate them all equally</div></div>

I think competitive balance interests should keep the same order (worst to best)...but lottery chances should be ordered by two-year point percentage (teams will less likely tank for two seasons). So lotteries will more likely be won by teams that deserve it.


<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>jonh514</b></div><div>2) Lower the maximum compensation for offer sheets to 3 1st round picks so we get more superstar offer sheets (lower everything by about 25% across the board)</div></div>

I think pick compensation is fine as is...but teams should be allowed to negotiate an alternative (once player signs offer-sheet, the original team has a week to match or send pick...or request an alternative compensation).

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>jonh514</b></div><div>3) Implement a 1 series waiting period for players on LTIR to rejoin their teams in the playoffs</div></div>

Or just make cap applicable in playoffs. Based on daily number...cannot be more than 110% of cap on any day in playoffs.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>jonh514</b></div><div>4) Find a way to factor the local effective tax rate into the Salary Cap. Currently the system is extremely biased</div></div>

Giving higher cap to high-tax areas would be a disaster. And league would never do that.
(And low taxes should also be rewarded)
If there is any adjustment, it could be on bonus/salary ratio to allow players to mitigate taxes better.
Forum: NHLMar. 11 at 10:43 a.m.
Forum: NHLMar. 8 at 1:19 p.m.