Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Significantly Insignificant

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 206
1
General NHL News & Views / Re: 2019-2020 NHL Thread
« on: December 31, 2019, 12:23:56 PM »
Wilson threw a hit last night on Jakob Lilja from Columbus. I'm not sure how to feel about it. It was a clean hit, but there's no way for the player to escape injury on a hit like that.
He's a player in the vein of a Scott Stevens. Essentially a predatory hitter who is out to hurt you as much as humanly possible while barely remaining "legal". Maybe he'll regret ending your career but probably not.

I'm always a bit surprised that the NHLPA doesn't give a bit more push-back on players like Wilson since he poses a serious threat to others on the ice. One day someone is going to be killed by a "legal" check like that and they'll trot out the "it's a dangerous game" speech and shake their heads at the sad "accident." When that happens I hope someone sues them for all they're worth.

Yeah, at what point did a hit go from a tool that could be used to separate a player from the puck, to something that was used as an intimidation tactic?  The 70's with the Broad Street Bullies?

2
Minnesota has a really good home record.  Hope the Leafs can pull off a win tonight.

3
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Leafs 2019/2020 Schedule in 10 game chunks
« on: December 31, 2019, 11:56:09 AM »




These next ten games should be a good test.  No back to backs, and some stiff competition in there. 

4
Marner apparently didn't see the end of the Lafrenière goal yesterday.

5
Doesn't that run counter to your thesis then? If you can have a good team without a #1 overall pick, why bother worrying about it at all? If a team is horrible enough to keep getting that pick, so be it...it's obviously not helping them.

I mean, that's not what I said. I said to be good teams didn't need 3 first overall picks in 5 years. The Leafs turned things around quickly with just the one, as did teams like Washington and Tampa and Chicago and so on and so forth(even Pittsburgh only technically won the one draft lottery).

Now, of course, some teams have turned things around without any 1st picks but my point was never about good teams, it was about providing less incentive for failure and eliminate there being an upside to being terribly run.

So what if we solved the problem a little differently.  Rather than move the pick to another team, what if the cap rules for the player taken with that pick changed based on a sliding scale.  So the first time you take a player with the first overall pick, the rookie cap is in effect for that player.  If a team gets the first pick in a second year, then there is an escalator clause that increases the rookie cap level for the player taken at first overall.  So if there is a player that you like, you take them, but you may have to pay them more.  Or you trade out of the spot and take a player later in which case the normal rookie cap rules apply for the player taken first overall and the player that you are taking.  Third time you draft first overall, if you draft a player with the first pick, then that player has no rookie cap, and if you can't sign them by such a date then, maybe they become a free agent, or something along those lines.  It gives the team that is being poorly run a chance to make a good choice.  They probably won't, but at least they have a chance.  They can take the player, but there is a cap implication, or they can trade out of the spot and let some other team take the player.   

I find the draft pretty arbitrary, which is why I think changing where a team drafts based on past draft history to be somewhat hit or miss.  It may be a pretty bad deterrent one year, but not that bad in another year.  Also I could totally see a scenario in the future, if this were implemented, where the Leafs get two picks first overall which are duds, and then miss out on a McDavid like talent in the third year after switching over their management team in an effort to get better.  I mean, why do you hate Eichel so much that you would make him play in Edmonton?

As an aside, don't the NFL and MLB have some sort of escalators for the contracts based on where a player is taken?  I've seen articles where teams don't take certain players with the first pick because they know the contract is going to be problematic, but I never really dove in to the details on how that works.

6
Well, I'd like to think that a good and well managed team wouldn't have made those the RNH draft and the Yakupov drafts but rather would have used the picks better but again we come back to...so? If that's the case then the ultimate cost is they're building around Laine instead of Matthews? Or the Oilers have Eichel instead of McDavid?

I lived through the banking crisis of 2008. There's a really, really good reason to have a system where poor decisions by terrible management have real consequences.

There are consequences though.  The consequences are lost revenue from not making the playoffs.  The GM will potentially lose his job.  Players won't want to play for the team and request trades or not sign there in the off season.  As we have seen with the Oilers, even giving them the first round pick year after year did not fix their management.  So punishing them isn't going to fix the problem.  In fact, it may even reward that ineptitude further.  Say they lose the 1st, and there is an universal #1, and a universal #2.  What happens if that #2 ends up better than the #1?  You just rewarded that ineptitude even further by taking the decision out of their hands, and handing them the better player because another team made a mistake. 

By implementing this in to the draft system you could also be punishing a team that is trying to do the right thing, but because of other circumstances they now lose one of the tools at their disposal.     

I'm not against punishing ineptitude, I just think this isn't a great solution.  It doesn't stop teams from being inept.  It doesn't even stop them for being rewarded for being inept because they could still end up with the better pick long term just by the virtue of removing choice from the equation.

I think a better solution would be to give players more choice earlier on in their career, so you lessen the impact of the draft altogether.  Allow a player to move teams with his current contract, or something along those lines.  The players that want to win will go to a situation where they can win, and that is usually where there is a strong base that has been built up by good management.   

They originally rigged the draft because they didn't want teams tanking on purpose.  They do that anyway, so that wasn't the right solution.  I think by manipulating the draft you aren't solving ineptitude because even strong teams can make poor choices and the draft is a crap shoot.  I think you need to put tools in place that allow strong management teams turn their team around as quickly as possible.  The cap has removed a couple of those tools in free agency and trades, so really the only thing left is the draft.  There is too much emphasis on the draft when it comes to team building.       

7
True, but that could come down to actually developing the prospect correctly, which means not having them in your lineup, which means they aren't making an impact for a year or so anyways.  That would mean that the team probably isn't making a significant move in the standings anyway.  It's possible that if Makar or Pettersen had been taken first overall and placed in the league at 18 that they may not have been as successful as they are now.

Again, if the "punishment" here is that instead of the Devils getting to pick #1 again they have to pick #2 or #3, does that mean they've been terribly hard done by the cruel wheel of fate? Why should their ineptitude be rewarded with not only a path to eventual success but an easy, effortless path?

If by keeping Hughes(or Pettersen or Makar or whoever) down a year for their eventual emergence means you don't instantly get better...well, tough? You can still draft high and accumulate assets, you just maybe don't get to also add yet another guy with the best possible chance at becoming a franchise player.

I'm sorry guys but objecting to this really does sound like complaining about the lousy squash courts and mediocre lemonade at your minimum security prison.

I think there are too many variables to just simply claim that a team is getting multiple firsts because they are inept, so I am complaining about the squash courts because I shouldn't even be in jail.  I think in the case of the Devils they won the lottery when they were supposed to get the 7th pick.  That's just luck of the draw in that case.  Should they maybe be exempt from winning the first overall pick in the next draft if you jump that high?  Perhaps, but I also think that the Oilers are an outlier of ineptitude.  The Leafs were bad for 13 years and didn't end up with a first overall until they actually tried to be bad.  They were more inept when they were trying to be good, and then when they actually bottomed out they seemed to be on the right path and making the right decisions.  Lets say they got the first in the Yakapov draft and the RNH draft?  Would they have missed out on Matthews because they were inept in those years and therefore being punished when they were trying not to be inept?   

8
How does that factor in that not all draft classes are created equal though?  You may not get a game changer at 1st overall because there may not be one.  I would take McDavid, Eichel, and Marner before I took Hischier or Hughes.

It doesn't factor that in but I don't think that you need a game changer to use a #1 pick to improve yourself or that being that bad for that long isn't about more than just who you take at #1. The fact that the Oilers "only" got guys like Hall or RNH with their #1 picks and not, say, other available guys there like Mark Scheifele or Seguin certainly was a factor in them being bad for so long but so was the fact that basically all of their picks outside of the 1st round were duds as well despite good players being available.

And again, you think Hischier was a so-so pick? Ok but guys like Makar and Pettersen were in that draft. Why should the Devils be rewarded for incompetence at team building compounded by making bad draft picks?

True, but that could come down to actually developing the prospect correctly, which means not having them in your lineup, which means they aren't making an impact for a year or so anyways.  That would mean that the team probably isn't making a significant move in the standings.  It's possible that if Makar or Pettersen had been taken first overall and placed in the league at 18 that they may not have been as successful as they are now.

9
While they haven't outlawed the possibility of multiple first overall picks happening for a team in a short span of years, I suspect any hard cap would open up a nasty can of worms considering potential unusual cases of failed picks, injury, trades, etc.

I think that if you're "missing" on picks to the extent that you could land three first overall picks in a short span that incompetence is a much more likely explanation than any of the above.

How does that factor in that not all draft classes are created equal though?  You may not get a game changer at 1st overall because there may not be one.  I would take McDavid, Eichel, and Marner before I took Hischier or Hughes.

10
Sure Matthews is happy about that. Wasn't there something about not wanting Kappy on his line?

Yeah, but maybe that was another one of those rankings that Babcock asked for.

11
This is problematic.

12
"Chased by a Lucic" might be a good band name.

14
Anyone think Dany Heatley wanted out of Ottawa because Clouston tried to use the Dan Snyder incident as a "motivational" tactic?

15
I wonder if we might see Johnsson shipped out for a competent back up (and maybe a veteran D man). I'm not sure Johnsson really fits anywhere in the top 6 on this team and they have some viable bottom 6 options. Kerfoot, at the same cap hit, can slide into his spot on left wing or play centre and you're shedding more cap with moving him out over Hyman (while probably getting more quality in return too).
A competent backup is not worth anything close to Johnsson.

Rumour had it that the Leafs were interested in one of the backups that the Penguins have.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 206