LeftCoaster
|
|
 |
Location: Valley Of The Sun Joined: 07.03.2009
|
|
|
I wanted his waiver pick up this morning too  - SMP8719
I've got a good starter in Varlomov and three backups, just thought I'd inquire - no soup for me!!! |
|
Nucker101
Vancouver Canucks |
|
 |
Location: Vancouver, BC Joined: 09.26.2010
|
|
|
Not to me they're not, you don't (frank) yourself on the other ten cats to get better at five? - LeftCoaster
Yeah, I'd still take an elite forward over an elite goalie. Apparently I have 2 of the more injury-prone goalies in the league.
Plus trading a good player or two for a goalie on a bad team seems stupid to me as well, you'll likely get hurt in G.A.A. so it really only helps you in 4 cats(plus bad teams barely get shutouts so really just 3 cats). |
|
LeftCoaster
|
|
 |
Location: Valley Of The Sun Joined: 07.03.2009
|
|
|
Those were picks traded during the draft, we had to process them after. - Nucker101
Oh - ok thanks…I was just looking thru the transactions and it looked odd. |
|
Nucker101
Vancouver Canucks |
|
 |
Location: Vancouver, BC Joined: 09.26.2010
|
|
|
Oh - ok thanks…I was just looking thru the transactions and it looked odd.  - LeftCoaster
My team sucks so far
Edit: I'm willing to move Spezz or Staal for a solid goalie or upgrade at wing or defense. On full game nights I always have to bench one of Staal/Spezza. |
|
hillbillydeluxe
Vancouver Canucks |
|
 |
Location: I didn't read it , BC Joined: 09.21.2013
|
|
|
The NHL needs to do something to stop this race to the bottom and the McDavid Cup. In one night, one team sets the record for fewest shots against and the other goes zero for October.
Shenanegans. - Beatle_john
I was wondering if goals were up this year compared to the last few years for the start of a season and if there was any relation to parity or teams tanking? Better scoring talent in the league than most years? Worse defense?
You have to consider that even if Buffalo gets McDavid it is still not an instant fix which is good for other teams when Buffalo visits, another reason to go see a terrible team- a generational player.
I don't like the idea of tanking teams being rewarded but have to wonder what is better for the league? Always nice to have that one team anyone can beat and look great doing it. |
|
vancity787
Vancouver Canucks |
|
 |
Location: My Parents Basement, BC Joined: 07.14.2008
|
|
|
My team sucks so far 
Edit: I'm willing to move Spezz or Staal for a solid goalie or upgrade at wing or defense. On full game nights I always have to bench one of Staal/Spezza.  - Nucker101
I have a decent defensive core if you want to take a look. |
|
bazz
Vancouver Canucks |
|
Location: ON Joined: 02.21.2007
|
|
|
|
|
bezz44
Vancouver Canucks |
|
 |
Location: Inside the scroatee, BC Joined: 05.29.2014
|
|
|
Boy that "Lord of the Rinks" guy drives a hard bargain. He wants some of the best players in the league (Toews/Johansen) for his average goaltending…bugger!!  - LeftCoaster
That is mighty unreasonable. I myself am a fair man. All I want for my average goaltending is one of the best players in the league  Elliott for Toews? |
|
numbear
Calgary Flames |
|
 |
Location: vancouver, BC Joined: 06.24.2011
|
|
|
There have been multiple ways of making tanking less profitable. They did change the odds to help with it. I think they should put every team that misses the playoffs in a lottery ball machine with even odds. Maybe only pick the top 3-5 teams from that then go by finishing position. That would stop it right there.
Right now if you finish in the top 2 spots you are guaranteed a top 3 pick. That is enough incentive to tank still.
The money lost by the team for the tanking years when no one wants to watch has to hurt franchises that are not wealthy. - SMP8719
Maybe choose the bottom 8 teams at trade deadline as eligible for the draft lotto. And the best record from trade deadline to end of season determines draft rank.
Stops teams from dumping players. And have to actually win to get the pick |
|
bezz44
Vancouver Canucks |
|
 |
Location: Inside the scroatee, BC Joined: 05.29.2014
|
|
|
Maybe choose the bottom 8 teams at trade deadline as eligible for the draft lotto. And the best record from trade deadline to end of season determines draft rank.
Stops teams from dumping players. And have to actually win to get the pick - numbear
How about we just torture everyone under contract in the organization that wins 1OA. I think if the choice comes down to McDavid or losing both of your thumbs, you go with your thumbs. |
|
bezz44
Vancouver Canucks |
|
 |
Location: Inside the scroatee, BC Joined: 05.29.2014
|
|
|
Nucker101
Vancouver Canucks |
|
 |
Location: Vancouver, BC Joined: 09.26.2010
|
|
|
Maybe choose the bottom 8 teams at trade deadline as eligible for the draft lotto. And the best record from trade deadline to end of season determines draft rank.
Stops teams from dumping players. And have to actually win to get the pick - numbear
I highly doubt the owners/GM's will be on board. It kind of screws everyone. The contenders won't be able to pickup playoff rentals, and the struggling teams will have a more difficult time rebuilding because they won't be able to sell without hurting draft position. Less trades as well which means less fan interest at the TDL. |
|
roland_hazard
Vancouver Canucks |
|
 |
Location: tucson, AZ Joined: 08.17.2014
|
|
|
Maybe choose the bottom 8 teams at trade deadline as eligible for the draft lotto. And the best record from trade deadline to end of season determines draft rank.
Stops teams from dumping players. And have to actually win to get the pick - numbear
I think there should be a limit (2-3 at most) of 1st overall picks you are allowed to acquire, before your team isn't eligable for the draft and gets shuffled to the back. If you can't take three number 1 picks, and translate that to success, you suck (can I say suck without getting MOD'd?) as a general manager and should be relived of your duties.
Not to beat a dead horse, but look at Mac T. You have, and HAVE HAD, the assets to liquidate and translate to success three years running; but you are like the selfish kid who wants someone to play with, but won't share the toys. RNH alone would have gotten you two quality defensemen, and a second round pick, or a prospect.
Eh, you all know this.
I like rewarding the fans, god knows the Edmonton loyal deserve better, but rewarding someone for doing a one dimensional crappy job is rubbish..
|
|
Nucker101
Vancouver Canucks |
|
 |
Location: Vancouver, BC Joined: 09.26.2010
|
|
|
I think there should be a limit (2-3 at most) of 1st overall picks you are allowed to acquire, before your team isn't eligable for the draft and gets shuffled to the back. If you can't take three number 1 picks, and translate that to success, you suck (can I say suck without getting MOD'd?) as a general manager and should be relived of your duties.
Not to beat a dead horse, but look at Mac T. You have, and HAVE HAD, the assets to liquidate and translate to success three years running; but you are like the selfish kid who wants someone to play with, but won't share the toys. RNH alone would have gotten you two quality defensemen, and a second round pick, or a prospect.
Eh, you all know this.
I like rewarding the fans, god knows the Edmonton loyal deserve better, but rewarding someone for doing a one dimensional crappy job is rubbish.. - roland_hazard
Honestly, the simplest solution is to even out the odds a bit more and have a lottery for more than just the first pick(have the top 5 done by lottery balls with all 14 non-playoff teams in it, but with weighted odds) and use standing to determine the rest. Kinda like how the Crosby draft was after the lockout. |
|
vancity787
Vancouver Canucks |
|
 |
Location: My Parents Basement, BC Joined: 07.14.2008
|
|
|
Lying in bed at physio right now with four ice packs on my shoulders and two doctor ho pulsating things on each shoulder. So uncomfortable. Fukk I hate physio. |
|
bazz
Vancouver Canucks |
|
Location: ON Joined: 02.21.2007
|
|
|
Honestly, the simplest solution is to even out the odds a bit more and have a lottery for more than just the first pick(have the top 5 done by lottery balls with all 14 non-playoff teams in it, but with weighted odds) and use standing to determine the rest. Kinda like how the Crosby draft was after the lockout. - Nucker101
Or what about if a team has had 2 or 3 number one picks or a certain number of top five picks over the past ten years, they don't get a top five pick that draft year. |
|
Nucker101
Vancouver Canucks |
|
 |
Location: Vancouver, BC Joined: 09.26.2010
|
|
|
Or what about if a team has had 2 or 3 number one picks or a certain number of top five picks over the past ten years, they don't get a top five pick that draft year. - bazz
Just don't think that would fly. |
|
CubanBuffet
Vancouver Canucks |
|
 |
Location: Whine Country Joined: 08.29.2014
|
|
|
Honestly, the simplest solution is to even out the odds a bit more and have a lottery for more than just the first pick(have the top 5 done by lottery balls with all 14 non-playoff teams in it, but with weighted odds) and use standing to determine the rest. Kinda like how the Crosby draft was after the lockout. - Nucker101
Uh, already solved this guys... |
|
bazz
Vancouver Canucks |
|
Location: ON Joined: 02.21.2007
|
|
|
Just don't think that would fly. - Nucker101
Probably not, but it would have been a more interesting draft last year, if a couple if the bottom feeders were kicked out of the top five and the Canucks had a shot at higher pick. Also teams like Tampa that go up and down like yo yos over a ten year period wouldn't get their Stamkos, Hedmans and Drouins as easily. |
|
|
|
Bruce Dowbiggin was on the marek vs wyshynski podscast today ...was pretty interesting talking about gillis , coho trade , Schneider trade , the whole sleep doctor methods they were using etc ...worth a listen ...just have to get past their Sabres tanking bit |
|
belcherbd
Vancouver Canucks |
|
 |
Location: Nanaimo Joined: 02.16.2007
|
|
|
I don't understand why it is such a big deal that the worst teams get the best chance at the best players. The draft is a crapshoot anyways, if it wasn't for McDavid no one would be complaining. No one said last year, change the rules so that Buf/FLA/EDM dont get Ekblad and he is one of most hyped Dman in years, but still not seen as a generational talent.
There is a reason its called generational and when these players come around the female doging begins, remember how Pittsburgh " Rigged " the Crosby sweepstakes because they were in financial trouble. |
|
|
|
Just don't think that would fly. - Nucker101
I have an entertaining idea.
Have equal odds for all non playoff teams. Do the draft lottery on the day of the draft. Have Bettman give a President Coriolanus Snow speech "May the odds forever be in your favor"
The proceed to the lottery. team selected will have 15 mins. Either make a trade or pick. Do that for 1-14 picks. This will create some great entertainment value. I would actually tune in to watch the draft as well. It will force teams to have great scouting as they will need instant access to reports and trajectory to make a decision in 15 mins. |
|
SMP8719
Vancouver Canucks |
|
 |
Location: ALDY , BC Joined: 02.24.2012
|
|
|
Maybe choose the bottom 8 teams at trade deadline as eligible for the draft lotto. And the best record from trade deadline to end of season determines draft rank.
Stops teams from dumping players. And have to actually win to get the pick - numbear
Problem with making it a plus to win is the bad teams just can't win that often so you are hurting parody in the league.
|
|
SMP8719
Vancouver Canucks |
|
 |
Location: ALDY , BC Joined: 02.24.2012
|
|
|
Honestly, the simplest solution is to even out the odds a bit more and have a lottery for more than just the first pick(have the top 5 done by lottery balls with all 14 non-playoff teams in it, but with weighted odds) and use standing to determine the rest. Kinda like how the Crosby draft was after the lockout. - Nucker101
yeah I agree with that or something based off of that. Surprised they haven't done anything similar yet.
|
|