Forced parity sucks.
- Scoob

Most of the parity is actually a mirage. I'm convinced the 3 point system is designed to make it seem like there is more parity. The salary cap is about one thing, holding down player salaries.

It's a tough call , but I will do my best with my opinion/preference(s). Anyone feel free to chime in to agree/disagree.

Bellows: can play center or left wing. Power forward with scoring abilities and good puck battler

Jones: another power forward on the left side. Heavy shot with a great physical game that fits flyers mold nicely Imo. He's only 18 and has mean size.

Tufte: BIG winger (6'5) on the left side who may not be done growing either. Not as physical as Bellows or Jones, but his size could be a nice addition with some of our smaller-speedier wingers. Skates well too.

Gauthier: flip it to the right side for another big-skilled winger. (I rank LW more of a priority than RW). I'd flip him with Jones if he was a natural LW. Size, skilled with puck, and can score.

Kunin: has fallen victim of being the player I know the least about. He's also the smallest of the bunch, and I'd like us to add more size to our prospect pool. Having said that, I haven't heard or read anything about about his play.
- arichardson22

I think the safest pick would be Jones. He will make it in the NHL. The question is does he become a player in the Simmonds, lesser Jamie Benn, Hartnell mold, or does he end up a Justin Abdelkader, Matt Martin, Tom Wilson mold.

Julien Gauthier scares me a bit. I thought he would produce at a much higher level. The goal scoring was there, especially earlier on, but someone as big and gifted should have truly dominated the Q especially. He does have high end talent though. He is a sink or swim prospect in my mind.

Keifer Bellows is intriguing because he has been extremely dominant at the USNT/DP level. He isnt a big player, but plays big. He works extremely hard. He is going to either Boston U or College and I dont feel like looking it up. He is probably my second favorite at that spot.

Kunin could be a very good player. Loves to shoot the puck, and scores goals accordingly. He played really well last year as a young Freshman for Wisco, and should really elevate his game next year.

That Game 5 was as depressing as it gets as a Flyers fan.

Oh man, yeah... they were tied, late in the 3rd period, and were 4-0 in OT that playoff year. 45 seconds away from OT, and then... the biggest gut punch as a Flyers fan until maybe game 7 vs. NJ in 2000, or for sure 2010 (I take it I need not elaborate further). And to think that Detroit laid an egg in the SCF in '95... that game 5 vs. NJ might have cost us the Cup.

"Punish" big markets. Comical. I love how he blames the league for the mistakes of Rangers management. I guess that hack would be happy if the league allowed more compliance buyouts to protect the "elite" teams from themselves. Such arrogance.
- madmike71

He is a hack and the Rangers have made their share of mistakes. If a team can afford it, who cares if they get compliance buyouts? Is that any worse than certain teams who have tanked several times in recent memory to ensure #1 draft picks several years in a row and are now contending/winning titles?

It helps (supposedly) teams like Phoenix and the like stay afloat, which means more teams can be competitive(again, supposedly). That's what the league feels is best.
- jmatchett383

I thought it was funny when the Flyers offer sheeted weber and Nashville matched yet I believe Nashville gets money from teams like the Flyers due to revenue sharing.

Most of the parity is actually a mirage. I'm convinced the 3 point system is designed to make it seem like there is more parity. The salary cap is about one thing, holding down player salaries.
- MJL

Exactly.

Adding teams through expansion, and placing caps on the higher teams is only a way to generate more money. Even if a team like Arizona struggles to sell to 2/3rds capacity, they are still selling.

The cap just prevents players from ballooning their contracts.

As for the 3 point system, I agree to an extent. If you change it around it makes very little difference in playoff picture, but does change how close the bottom teams are to being fringe teams.

Evidence suggests it's not working as planned and therefore may not be in the best interest of the league. They've already got enough trouble staying part of the "big 4" sports leagues and headlines about financially failing teams can't be helping.

Idiotic decisions by the board and other powers that be also aren't helping.
- Scoob

What if those financially failing teams, had to spend even more on player salary? I think Hockey, regardless of what they do, will always be #4.

"Punish" big markets. Comical. I love how he blames the league for the mistakes of Rangers management. I guess that hack would be happy if the league allowed more compliance buyouts to protect the "elite" teams from themselves. Such arrogance.
- madmike71

Brooks writes that same article practically every year. He's a joke.

Most of the parity is actually a mirage. I'm convinced the 3 point system is designed to make it seem like there is more parity. The salary cap is about one thing, holding down player salaries.
- MJL

Should they go to a system like soccer uses, with 3 points for a win, one for a tie and none for a loss?

Most of the parity is actually a mirage. I'm convinced the 3 point system is designed to make it seem like there is more parity. The salary cap is about one thing, holding down player salaries.
- MJL

I'd ditch the 3 point system yesterday if I could.

Exactly.

Adding teams through expansion, and placing caps on the higher teams is only a way to generate more money. Even if a team like Arizona struggles to sell to 2/3rds capacity, they are still selling.

The cap just prevents players from ballooning their contracts.

As for the 3 point system, I agree to an extent. If you change it around it makes very little difference in playoff picture, but does change how close the bottom teams are to being fringe teams.
- jak521

That's the entire point of it, it doesn't change a lot as far as making the playoffs, but teams that aren't in the playoffs, the 3 point system makes it seem like they're closer than they really are, and are still in the hunt. If not for that, the 3 point system doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think the safest pick would be Jones. He will make it in the NHL. The question is does he become a player in the Simmonds, lesser Jamie Benn, Hartnell mold, or does he end up a Justin Abdelkader, Matt Martin, Tom Wilson mold.

Julien Gauthier scares me a bit. I thought he would produce at a much higher level. The goal scoring was there, especially earlier on, but someone as big and gifted should have truly dominated the Q especially. He does have high end talent though. He is a sink or swim prospect in my mind.

Keifer Bellows is intriguing because he has been extremely dominant at the USNT/DP level. He isnt a big player, but plays big. He works extremely hard. He is going to either Boston U or College and I dont feel like looking it up. He is probably my second favorite at that spot.

Bellows is starting to be my top choice at 18 if there. Supposed to have one of the top shots and plays a tough game.

Also I am starting to get a little higher on Rubstuv. The more I read and watch him I almost get a feel he might be a Datsuyk style. Not as stylish with the puck but strong 2 way game for russian player.

Kunin could be a very good player. Loves to shoot the puck, and scores goals accordingly. He played really well last year as a young Freshman for Wisco, and should really elevate his game next year.
- jak521

Should they go to a system like soccer uses, with 3 points for a win, one for a tie and none for a loss?
- aantny88

Hard to do with the shootout.

Regulation/OT win = 3 points
SO win = 2 points
SO loss = 1 point
Regulation/OT loss = 0 points

Of course, most OT segments would be boring with a team not wanting to lose a point.

Hard to do with the shootout.

Regulation/OT win = 3 points
SO win = 2 points
SO loss = 1 point
Regulation/OT loss = 0 points

Of course, most OT segments would be boring with a team not wanting to lose a point.
- jmatchett383

I would just go:

Regulation/OT win: 3pts
SO win: 1 point

No loser point.

Make winning a priority in regulation and OT. Also it would try to limit the importance of SOs.

just my thought

There are a group of sports fans that like that sort of thing, where the good teams stay the good teams and the bad teams stay the bad teams. Some folks love the extended run of excellence of a dynasty (i.e.-- Jordan's Bulls, for example).

I don't care for that, myself, but some do. One of the things I like about the NHL is that an underdog team can get hot and take out a goliath.

The best the NBA can do is have OKC huff and puff and not be able to finish Golden State.

And I don't consider the NBA to be all that interested in parity, despite having a salary cap. You practically need a law degree to keep up with all of the exceptions the NBA carries around with their cap rules.
- johndewar

Exactly, and I would be fine with the Warriors being a modern day Bulls team, but I want to see some other teams at least have a shot at beating them, or another team without Lebron give it a shot. The East is an absolute joke and even the West no one really had faith in any team taking down the Warriors, even when they were down 3-1 to the Thunder.

I just hate that the NHL is struggling to keep teams afloat, which in turn hurts the strong teams with the cap, when those teams have a legit chance of doing damage in the playoffs if they get in. See: Flyers 2010.

Brooks writes that same article practically every year. He's a joke.
- johndewar

Agreed, though watching him get into it with Fonzie at pressers was must see tv

I would just go:

Regulation/OT win: 3pts
SO win: 1 point

No loser point.

Make winning a priority in regulation and OT. Also it would try to limit the importance of SOs.

just my thought
- J35Bacher

What you really want is all games to give an equal amount of points. That's the issue with the current system. Some games give are worth 2 points, and some are worth 3.

I would just go:

Regulation/OT win: 3pts
SO win: 1 point

No loser point.

Make winning a priority in regulation and OT. Also it would try to limit the importance of SOs.

just my thought
- J35Bacher

I like this

I think the safest pick would be Jones. He will make it in the NHL. The question is does he become a player in the Simmonds, lesser Jamie Benn, Hartnell mold, or does he end up a Justin Abdelkader, Matt Martin, Tom Wilson mold.

Julien Gauthier scares me a bit. I thought he would produce at a much higher level. The goal scoring was there, especially earlier on, but someone as big and gifted should have truly dominated the Q especially. He does have high end talent though. He is a sink or swim prospect in my mind.

Keifer Bellows is intriguing because he has been extremely dominant at the USNT/DP level. He isnt a big player, but plays big. He works extremely hard. He is going to either Boston U or College and I dont feel like looking it up. He is probably my second favorite at that spot.

Kunin could be a very good player. Loves to shoot the puck, and scores goals accordingly. He played really well last year as a young Freshman for Wisco, and should really elevate his game next year.
- jak521

That's what slightly worries me with Jones. That he becomes a Tom Wilson for us. But if he brings that Wilson physicality with more scoring and less dumb penalties then I'm ok with that. Same goes for Gauthier as in a worry... From what I've read over the last couple of months there is a bit of a question mark or a sense of hesitation with him at 18 for us. I've seen him selected the most out of all the mocks for the last 5+ months probably. I'd love Bellows, and would love it even more if we got him and then did a trade for another 1st and get one of Jones or Tufte for the LW. And if Benson's stock drop slides him into the 2nd, I'm itching on hoping up some spots in the 2nd to get him. And obviously I mean 1 or the other for the additional 1st or Benson in 2nd.

[quote=J35Bacher]
I have been a big fan of his for a while now. Me and Jsaq talked about him earlier in the season. I think he has great two way potential, but might not turn into a top liner offensively. I could only imagine how people here would trash the guy. That being said.. maybe a trade down scenario.

I think he might be one of those guys who gets drafted later this year, and next year a lot of teams kick themselves. If we can trade back and get him around 23 for a additional pick I am all on board.

I would just go:

Regulation/OT win: 3pts
SO win: 1 point

No loser point.

Make winning a priority in regulation and OT. Also it would try to limit the importance of SOs.

just my thought
- J35Bacher

But then you have an uneven number of points for games, which is the issue right now. I never had an issue with a tie. There are 2 points awarded every game. You can't have some games worth more points than others.

He is a hack and the Rangers have made their share of mistakes. If a team can afford it, who cares if they get compliance buyouts? Is that any worse than certain teams have tanked several times in recent memory to ensure #1 draft picks several years in a row and are now contending/winning titles?
- aantny88

Yes it is worse. Because it forces teams to be strong through the entire organization. Management included. What you call tanking is what I call rebuilding. If you haven't noticed the "capped" leagues typically require building through the draft and being shrewd with contracts. It's been the landscape of the league since 2005.

Philly is on board. So is TO. The Hawks have been masterful. LA, Ducks etc. I find it funny that the NHL is now "punishing" large markets because the New York Rangers have dished out awful contracts the last several years.

Agreed, though watching him get into it with Fonzie at pressers was must see tv
- BiggE

That tells you how bad Brooks is when you side with John Tortorella on....well.....anything.

Yes it is worse. Because it forces teams to be strong through the entire organization. Management included. What you call tanking is what I call rebuilding. If you haven't noticed the "capped" leagues typically require building through the draft and being shrewd with contracts. It's been the landscape of the league since 2005.

Philly is on board. So is TO. The Hawks have been masterful. LA, Ducks etc. I find it funny that the NHL is now "punishing" large markets because the New York Rangers have dished out awful contracts the last several years.
- madmike71

It allows allows teams to be weak throughout the organization and be okay with it because the stronger teams have to give them money.

Yes it is worse. Because it forces teams to be strong through the entire organization. Management included. What you call tanking is what I call rebuilding. If you haven't noticed the "capped" leagues typically require building through the draft and being shrewd with contracts. It's been the landscape of the league since 2005.

Philly is on board. So is TO. The Hawks have been masterful. LA, Ducks etc. I find it funny that the NHL is now "punishing" large markets because the New York Rangers have dished out awful contracts the last several years.
- madmike71

Tanking is completely different from rebuilding. Tanking is intentionally trying to lose. The Flyers did not tank, they made the playoffs.

The part about punishing big market teams, is that teams like the Rangers, Toronto, Flyers, could afford to spend more money on player salaries than the current upper limit of the salary cap, and they probably would.