WordsOfWisdom Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 PROOF: Something I didn't know until watching last night's Leafs game, the 30th place team in the NHL may not be guaranteed the #1 overall pick, but they can't pick any lower than #2!!! WTH is that? That means the 30th place team is GUARANTEED to get a future franchise player in the upcoming draft. If it isn't #1, it's #2. So Buffalo or Edmonton will get McDavid or Eichel? guaranteed. It's no small wonder that the Sabres have lost 14 straight games. The Sabres are tanking. The Oilers are tanking. I have never seen an NHL team lose 14 straight games. I call BS on this one. The competitive balance and integrity of the NHL product has been compromised this season, and it's all thanks to Gary Bettman and his idiot partners that constructed this bogus draft system. The NHL is the only pro sports league that has made losing more important than winning. So looking ahead to the upcoming playoff races.... who gets to play the Buffalo Sabres and Edmonton Oilers the most down the stretch? Those are guaranteed wins, so someone is going to be getting shafted out of a playoff spot this year because they don't get to play the Sabres and Oilers as much as another team does. (End rant.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 #tankenvy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 The NHL is the only pro sports league that has made losing more important than winning.The NBA is a thing that exists, even in Tronno.The record streak is 17 - "achieved" twice.They changed the lottery rules a while back and it's not every year that there are two standouts like this one.The Flyers got JVR #2 to Patrick Kane, for example.The sabres have been losing, but they have not quit. They have jettisonned a huge part of the team and are at what one hopes is rock bottom. I do think they have a nice core to build on, but they are Very Young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 PROOF: Something I didn't know until watching last night's Leafs game, the 30th place team in the NHL may not be guaranteed the #1 overall pick, but they can't pick any lower than #2!!! WTH is that? That means the 30th place team is GUARANTEED to get a future franchise player in the upcoming draft. If it isn't #1, it's #2. So Buffalo or Edmonton will get McDavid or Eichel? guaranteed. It's no small wonder that the Sabres have lost 14 straight games. The Sabres are tanking. The Oilers are tanking. I have never seen an NHL team lose 14 straight games. I call BS on this one. The competitive balance and integrity of the NHL product has been compromised this season, and it's all thanks to Gary Bettman and his idiot partners that constructed this bogus draft system. The NHL is the only pro sports league that has made losing more important than winning. So looking ahead to the upcoming playoff races.... who gets to play the Buffalo Sabres and Edmonton Oilers the most down the stretch? Those are guaranteed wins, so someone is going to be getting shafted out of a playoff spot this year because they don't get to play the Sabres and Oilers as much as another team does. (End rant.) The Coyotes had one goalie who could stop a puck...... And traded him. THAT is tanking. The Oilers? They just stink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 You'll never get professional players to tank. What have been the numerous questionable moves to justify this rant? I don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDevil Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 That depends on what you consider tanking. Is it selling off assets when it's clear you're not making the playoffs? Going into full rebuild mode? Most of the teams in the McEichel sweepstakes weren't expected to be any good to begin with. Buffalo is rebuilding. Carolina hasn't been good for years. Arizona probably didn't expect to be as bad as they are, but now that they're not going anywhere are in sell mode. Edmonton isn't tanking, they're just horribly mismanaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 #tankenvy LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 There's really only one way to solve this. Equal odds for all teams in the 1st round draft, no matter where you finish. 30 teams, 1 ball each. There's a cap now so the rich vs poor argument doesn't hold anymore. And if you're too poor to be in the league, get out. Seriously, enough with the revenue sharing. I'd rather have 15 amazing teams than 30 diluted ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 There's really only one way to solve this. Equal odds for all teams in the 1st round draft, no matter where you finish. 30 teams, 1 ball each. I wouldn't go that far. Maybe equal odds for non-playoff teams? No way the Cup Winner (Finalists, Conference Finalists, etc.) should get the #1 pick. None. Seriously, enough with the revenue sharing. That's a good point. No successful league has ever had revenue sharing. Certainly not the single most profitable and successful sports league in the history of the Western Hemisphere... Of course, no other league has the NFL's teevee contract... If the league and its owners want to have hockey in places like Florida, Arizona and Manitoba, they're going to have to have some sort of revenue sharing. Fans' mileage may vary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I wouldn't go that far. Maybe equal odds for non-playoff teams? No way the Cup Winner (Finalists, Conference Finalists, etc.) should get the #1 pick. None. Why not? They had the same cap to play with. Non-playoff teams would be a start, but I would seriously go all the way. It removes any and all incentive to throw games. That's a good point. No successful league has ever had revenue sharing. Certainly not the single most profitable and successful sports league in the history of the Western Hemisphere... Of course, no other league has the NFL's teevee contract... If the league and its owners want to have hockey in places like Florida, Arizona and Manitoba, they're going to have to have some sort of revenue sharing. Fans' mileage may vary... I guess that's kind of my point - I personally don't want hockey in Florida, Arizona, Manitoba, and anywhere else where they can't be bothered to spend the money required to field competitive teams. It's not about me, though Capitalism always wants more and more; growth for the sake of growth. But more isn't always better. What % of regular season games would say are snoozefests? Pretty high, I'd say. Drop down to 12-14 teams, make the season 40 games, and, damn, it's going to be exciting hockey all the time. I realize that would never ever happen, so that's an ideal scenario in my world. As for your reference to the NFL, I'll take your word for it. But you couldn't pay me to watch football, which probably makes me part of the minority. I understand the concept of revenue sharing and why it would be desirable - heck, it's just the welfare state for sports. What I'm saying is that the NHL product as currently constructed won't be fixed by sharing more revenue or adding more teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Why not? Because it is in the best interests of the league to maintain at least the semblance of a competitive balance. Quite frankly, I'd rather see a robust relegation/promotion system a la the Premiere League before I'd go to mucking about with the draft that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Because it is in the best interests of the league to maintain at least the semblance of a competitive balance. Quite frankly, I'd rather see a robust relegation/promotion system a la the Premiere League before I'd go to mucking about with the draft that way. I think it would flush out the cheap owners, because you'd be forced to spend to be competitive. Everyone has the same limit. No more sitting at the cap floor hoping to cash in on some prospects to ice a team on the cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I think it would flush out the cheap owners, because you'd be forced to spend to be competitive. Everyone has the same limit. No more sitting at the cap floor hoping to cash in on some prospects to ice a team on the cheap. Sure, but the problem is that the NHL doesn't have an entire roster of "rich" owners. Hell, they were without an owner for one of their franchises for years. I absolutely concur that it would be better to contract the league and have fewer teams. That's not at all the direction that the league and the owners are going. I think if Carolina, Arizona, etc. were threatened with relegation to the AHL, it would have more of an impact. Neither thing is likely to happen. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 PROOF: Something I didn't know until watching last night's Leafs game, the 30th place team in the NHL may not be guaranteed the #1 overall pick, but they can't pick any lower than #2!!! WTH is that? That means the 30th place team is GUARANTEED to get a future franchise player in the upcoming draft. If it isn't #1, it's #2. So Buffalo or Edmonton will get McDavid or Eichel? guaranteed. It's no small wonder that the Sabres have lost 14 straight games. The Sabres are tanking. The Oilers are tanking. I have never seen an NHL team lose 14 straight games. I call BS on this one. The competitive balance and integrity of the NHL product has been compromised this season, and it's all thanks to Gary Bettman and his idiot partners that constructed this bogus draft system. The NHL is the only pro sports league that has made losing more important than winning. So looking ahead to the upcoming playoff races.... who gets to play the Buffalo Sabres and Edmonton Oilers the most down the stretch? Those are guaranteed wins, so someone is going to be getting shafted out of a playoff spot this year because they don't get to play the Sabres and Oilers as much as another team does. (End rant.) I'm guessing the fans/owners/players in Buffalo/Carolina/Edmonton would rather a Cup than the #1 pick. Having no shot at the former even before the season starts I have no problem with them (or any team ) tanking building for the future. If you are going to suck with that veteran winger in the last year of his deal then you trade that veteran winger - even if he's your leading scorer - to aquire an asset that will help you in the future. And if that happens to "help" you land the #1 or #2 pick? So be it. None of those teams are tanking. They are rebuilding and with that tends to come lottery picks. That's every sport - not just the NHL. Heck - the NFL doesn't even have a lottery. Worst is "first". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 It's not about me, though Capitalism always wants more and more; growth for the sake of growth. But more isn't always better. What % of regular season games would say are snoozefests? Pretty high, I'd say. Drop down to 12-14 teams, make the season 40 games, and, damn, it's going to be exciting hockey all the time. It's an interesting thought but as you noted - zero chance that happens. That puts half the league out of work. Even the NHLPA could win that battle. I don't see contraction happening ever. The NHL made that bed. Now they have to lie in it. The only real way to fix the problem is relocation. We now that is something the league is willing to allow and I'm sure it will happen again (Florida, maybe Carolina). And at the end of the day - if there are a handful of teams who can't draw - who cares? 24 of 30 teams draw to at least 90% capacity. 3 more are 85%+. So you have 3 who don't draw. It happens. http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance That's better than the NBA which is the only real "comparison" for the NHL. For a winter sport with 41 home dates of which most are on weeknights with real expensive ticket prices.....that ain't bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 It's an interesting thought but as you noted - zero chance that happens. That puts half the league out of work. Even the NHLPA could win that battle. I don't see contraction happening ever. The NHL made that bed. Now they have to lie in it. The only real way to fix the problem is relocation. We now that is something the league is willing to allow and I'm sure it will happen again (Florida, maybe Carolina). Agreed - contraction won't happen unless there are extreme circumstances. I believe you would end up with a much stronger product in the end, but it would be seen as 'failure' instead of what it really is - a 'lean' business. And at the end of the day - if there are a handful of teams who can't draw - who cares? 24 of 30 teams draw to at least 90% capacity. 3 more are 85%+. So you have 3 who don't draw. It happens. That's true in terms of attendance - but too many teams are not turning a profit.http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2012/09/18/nhl-lockout-is-all-about-the-benjamins-and-who-doesnt-have-them/ The NHL’s problem is the widespread disparity in profits for its 30 teams. We estimated that 18 teams lost money during the 2010-11 season in our annual look at the business of hockey. Several other teams barely eked out a profit, but the league’s most flush teams made a killing. The Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers and Montreal Canadiens had an operating profit (in the sense of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $171 million combined. The other 27 NHL teams lost a collective $44 million. If you add the Vancouver Canucks and Edmonton Oilers to the fat cats ledger, profits hit $212 million with the remaining 25 teams posting a loss of $86 million. So if that many teams are not making money, you end up with a substantial number of franchises who simply cannot or will not spend the money required to get the resources they need to be competitive. Some will get lucky, but they will be few and far between. Mainly, they will languish in mediocrity, basically duping their fanbase into spending their hard earned dollars for a low-value product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Agreed - contraction won't happen unless there are extreme circumstances. I believe you would end up with a much stronger product in the end, but it would be seen as 'failure' instead of what it really is - a 'lean' business. By stronger you mean...? Just want to make sure I understand you point. Stronger as in a less "watered down" product? Fewer unstable franchises? That's true in terms of attendance - but too many teams are not turning a profit.http://www.forbes.co...esnt-have-them/ It's an old article but I get your point. However, if you limit a league like the NHL to only the "profitable" team then you have no league. A twelve team NHL - maybe even a 20 team NHL - would never survive. You would have market presence in too few geographies which means fewer TV and advertising dollars which means less revenue which means lower salaries (not to mention the lost jobs). This is where revenue sharing comes in. The league as a whole is making money. I have no problem if some of my team's revenue is used to prop up a franchise elsewhere. So if that many teams are not making money, you end up with a substantial number of franchises who simply cannot or will not spend the money required to get the resources they need to be competitive. Some will get lucky, but they will be few and far between. Mainly, they will languish in mediocrity, basically duping their fanbase into spending their hard earned dollars for a low-value product. Cart vs. horse argument. Are they losing money and thus not spending or are they losing money because they are spending? (This is where I miss Cap Geek!) I get what you are saying...maybe even more revenue sharing is needed? I wouldn't be opposed to that. It's the NFL model which we all know works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 By stronger you mean...? Just want to make sure I understand you point. Stronger as in a less "watered down" product? Fewer unstable franchises? I guess by stronger I mean a more competitive product - you would have 12-14 truly world class teams in terms of talent. So, yeah, less 'watered down'. Basically, if you eliminated all 3rd and 4th lines, and 3rd defensive pairings, those are the players you'd be left with. It would be some top notch hockey. As for unstable franchises, you raise a good point that such a small league would have a much smaller revenue base. So what would that look like in practice? I'm not sure. Salaries would have to drop precipitously. You would probably lose a lot of players to other leagues. At the end of the day, in the current market, the wage bill is unsustainable. Plain and simple. You know, it's like when a province (or state or country) operates in a deficit mode, well, it's spending more than it earns. And the single largest expense for NHL teams (I would guess?) is the wage bill. That's not going to roll back, so they have to keep adding stuff (gimmicks, media events, merch, Winter Classic, Stadium Series, Heritage Classic, TV contracts, etc), and trying anything they possibly can to grow revenue just to cover the wage bill. On the flip side, if you don't look at the NHL as individual teams but as a collective (and the teams are just operating units or branches), then it is doing fine. It has cost certainty by having wages tied to a percentage of revenue. So they are willing to take losses in the individual operating units for the sake of the whole, which is profitable. And seen in that light, maybe everything is A-ok. It's an old article but I get your point. However, if you limit a league like the NHL to only the "profitable" team then you have no league. A twelve team NHL - maybe even a 20 team NHL - would never survive. You would have market presence in too few geographies which means fewer TV and advertising dollars which means less revenue which means lower salaries (not to mention the lost jobs). This is where revenue sharing comes in. The league as a whole is making money. I have no problem if some of my team's revenue is used to prop up a franchise elsewhere This was also kind of my point on the capitalism thing. Not everything needs to be 'huge' and 'epic'. What's wrong with a small, profitable 12 team league that might have a small TV contract, but strong local presence, much smaller salaries? There are many leagues like that in the world. But, as you say, the league as a whole is making money, and maybe that's the be all and end all of it. You buy a franchise for the prestige, not to make money, right? Cart vs. horse argument. Are they losing money and thus not spending or are they losing money because they are spending? (This is where I miss Cap Geek!) I get what you are saying...maybe even more revenue sharing is needed? I wouldn't be opposed to that. It's the NFL model which we all know works. I'm not sure - I would think they're losing money because they're not spending enough to be competitive? Part of it may be the wrong personnel in the front office making decisions, scouting, etc. There's also big business politics, taxation, currency fluctuations, injury/insurance payments, infrastructure and capital spending, etc. Let's say you pitch more revenue sharing at an owners' meeting. How do you think Philly, NYR, Toronto, and Montreal would respond? They're among the biggest money makers in the league. So they have to give up their hard earned profits to prop up a team even more than they are now so they can be better, which makes it more difficult for their own profitable franchises? I wonder what the rich owners/teams really think about the leeches of the league. Do they see them as necessary to secure their own wealth (as you mentioned above, larger audience, TV exposure, etc)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I'm not sure - I would think they're losing money because they're not spending enough to be competitive? Who's not spending? There is a cap floor that teams need to hit. There's a spread of $20M from the Flyers (top spending payroll - $77.1M) and the Senators ($57.979M) and the Sens are two points behind the Flyers with two games in hand (nhlnumbers). Spending money isn't a direct correlation to franchise financial success. Nor, really, is location. Anaheim is tied for best record in the West and they're 24th in the league in payroll ($64.4M). They're tied with Nashville, who is actually spending less than the Buffalo Sabres this year. The Preds "made" money. The Ducks didn't. Look at the Wild, in the "State of Hockey" Minnesota. The Wild are 19th in the league in spending and in your link above lost $5.4M. The woeful Oilers are 17th in spending ($68.2M) and (your link again) made $22.3M despite not having made the playoffs since the year after the lockout. That said, every single Canadian franchise is "making money" and no Canadian team has won the Cup since 1993. Seems like "winning" isn't absolutely necessary for franchise financial success, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Spending money isn't a direct correlation to franchise financial success. Agreed. It's not even a guarantee of hockey success, as we know all too well! Nor, really, is location. This I would say is more debatable. Toronto, Philly, New York, Montreal could probably achieve financial success with much more ease than, say, Arizona, Raleigh, Sunrise, and East Lansing, regardless of management. Would you agree with that? That said, every single Canadian franchise is "making money" and no Canadian team has won the Cup since 1993. Seems like "winning" isn't absolutely necessary for franchise financial success, either. Again, agreed. So why does the league have anywhere between 40-60% unprofitable franchises? In any other business, you would probably cut the unprofitable ones loose pretty early. Or maybe you don't - the 'brand' recognition and overall revenue are more important than a number of unprofitable franchisees, right? There's always the danger you reach a saturation point (by expanding or diluting your product so much that the value is diminished), I suppose. I mean, I would think the simple answer is that the league is fine with half of their franchisees being unprofitable, because as a whole, they bring in a $3B+ pie to divvy up. That's some nice coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blocker Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 You'll never get professional players to tank Agreed. They're not going to lose so that the team can replace them with a draft pick. Who would intentionally give up a million dollar job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 That means the 30th place team is GUARANTEED to get a future franchise player in the upcoming draft. If it isn't #1, it's #2. Unless your Philly and get JvR at # 2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 Eliminate tanking by installing a draft system that makes it impossible. Here's another one: Odds of drafting #1, #2, or #3: 16 playoff teams: 0%, 14 non-playoff teams: EQUAL. The worst place to finish in the NHL standings should be 17-30, not 17th. It's so obvious that's why the NHL hasn't done it. Just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Some interesting propositions in this article http://grantland.com/the-triangle/how-to-fix-the-nhls-disastrous-tanking-situation/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Some interesting propositions in this article http://grantland.com/the-triangle/how-to-fix-the-nhls-disastrous-tanking-situation/ Some interesting ideas, yes, but they seem to all come back to: Don’t like it, bad teams? Make some moves and don’t finish dead last. and glosses over (while admitting) And even those who’d agree that this year’s silliness is a bad look for the league might argue that that’s mainly a result of a fairly unique set of circumstances — i.e., two blue-chip franchise players in the same draft. That’s a reasonably rare situation — the last time we’ve seen this sort of top two was probably back in 2004, when Alexander Ovechkin and Evgeni Malkin came in — so maybe there’s no need to panic over a problem that won’t be anywhere near as pronounced most seasons. This is a situation that has happened all of twice in the past 15 years. This is not a "problem" that needs "fixing". What "moves" could Buffalo or Arizona or the Oilers made that would stop them from coming in last this season? Someone has to come in last every year. There is no way around it. No amount of "moves" that "bad teams" make is going to change that. Because it can't change reality. Those three teams were going to be legit terrible regardless and there's not a whole lot any of them could have done to prevent it. Sure, Buffalo traded away some players. Arizona dealt Yandle (finally). "Dealing players for picks" happens all the time in the NHL and not necessarily strictly for "tanking" teams, either. Sabres dealt away five pending UFAs. That's what teams do at the deadline, and - again - not just to "tank."There are all of three teams with less than 60 points this season, with Tronno making a late run at it. Does anyone really think that the Leafs entered the season expecting to be in the McDavid sweepstakes? Did the Leafs make any blatant "moves" to get worse and into the conversation? There are only two more with fewer than 70 points. This isn't a situation where half the league is trying desperately to lose. This simply isn't a "problem" in need of a "solution." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.