The Continuing Chronicles Of Jay Feaster's Incompetence

[Hewey]

THE MAPLE LEAFS ARE IN THE PLAYOFFS THE MAPLE LEAFS ARE IN THE PLAYOFFS LIFE IS WORTH LIVING AGAIN GLORY HALLELUJAH

If you guys end up in 5th and played Montreal, I'd bet on Leafs, but if you get Boston, that is gonna be tough. Glad you guys made it, though. Always cool to see some different teams in there.

[Plubby]

Slow your roll there, Pens fan You only have two more cups since 1966 than Toronto!

[Ruki]

I need a Leafs name. James vanRuksdyke?

[Hewey]

Slow your roll there, Pens fan You only have two more cups since 1966 than Toronto!

After this year, add a third one.....

Unless we self destruct and Fleury freaks out.......

Oh fuck........

Edited April 21, 2013 by Baby Hewey

[Toe]

...and boom goes the dynamite.

Nice to see the Leafs punch their tickets early. Now, they can use the remaining games to make a run at fourth and home ice advantage.

[Ruki]

I want Montreal in the first round. I want them so bad.

Also, how good is James Reimer? Damn, I love me some Reimer.

...remember how we almost traded for Kipper?

[Gabriel]

I really wish that the way the Draft works would have changed with the new CBA. I mean, more substantially than it did.

It's really shitty that finishing last rewards a team, especially because it promotes the idea of purposely trying to lose games that could knock other teams out of contention.

I think it should work one of two ways. The first way being complete randomness. The first 14 picks belong to the 14 teams that miss the playoffs. Who drafts where is based completely on a draw. The next 16 picks belong to the playoff teams, and again, decided based on randomly choosing the teams.

The second way, and this is the one I like better, is that the first 14 picks still belong to teams outside of the playoffs, but there's no lottery, and the first overall pick goes to the team with the most points who missed the playoffs. The 14th overall pick ends up going to the last place team. After that, the final 16 picks continue to operate the way they currently do. 15-22 go to the teams eliminated in the first round. 23-26 go to teams eliminated in the second. 27 and 28 go to the teams knocked out of the conference finals. 29 goes to the runner up, and 30 goes to the Cup winner.

There needs to be something for non-playoff teams to play for. There needs to be a reason why "losing-out" isn't an option. I think that rewarding the team that falls just short of the post-season by giving them first overall would make the stretch drive even more exciting.

[Plubby]

The option that's been floated in MSM/social media alike that I like best is that the first overall pick goes to the team that gets the most points in the standings AFTER they've been mathematically eliminated. So if you get eliminated with 1 game to go, chances are you'll pick 12th-14th overall (like you should)...but it stops teams tanking more.

[Sweet Holy Moses]

The second way, and this is the one I like better, is that the first 14 picks still belong to teams outside of the playoffs, but there's no lottery, and the first overall pick goes to the team with the most points who missed the playoffs. The 14th overall pick ends up going to the last place team. After that, the final 16 picks continue to operate the way they currently do. 15-22 go to the teams eliminated in the first round. 23-26 go to teams eliminated in the second. 27 and 28 go to the teams knocked out of the conference finals. 29 goes to the runner up, and 30 goes to the Cup winner.

This. So very much totally this. I hate that teams are rewarded for being terrible. I understand that they want to create balance and parity and all. But a race to the bottom is not a way to do that. Plus, this method would also reduce the mid-season firesale phenomenon, I think. I hate seeing firesales. It would just suck to be a fan of a team that could be in a fight for a playoff spot just throw away all the good parts of a team just because they've decided they're not in it any more this year.

This way would also make trade deadline day even less interesting than it currently is, though. So no real harm done on that front, I guess.

[Drock007]

You live in Calgary? Interesting.

Also, fuck the Leafs. Why do they have to suck when they have a chance to clinch?!

Not in Calgary im about 2 hours away in a small town, also ill play your guys play off game

[snowbird]

I need a Leafs name. James vanRuksdyke?

Joffrey Rukul? Nikolai Rukimin?

[Toe]

Mikhael Rukbovski

[snowbird]

Is it pronounced "Rouk-ee" (first syllable rhymes with Luke) or "Ruck-ee"? Because that is relevant.

[Ruki]

Is it pronounced "Rouk-ee" (first syllable rhymes with Luke) or "Ruck-ee"? Because that is relevant.

Roo-Key.

Also, for the draft, I like Plubby's idea. This:

The second way, and this is the one I like better, is that the first 14 picks still belong to teams outside of the playoffs, but there's no lottery, and the first overall pick goes to the team with the most points who missed the playoffs. The 14th overall pick ends up going to the last place team

I would hate. The team finishing last would almost always finish last. They would never get top caliber young players!

[TGWL]

Yeah, If I'm being honest, think that idea is pretty stupid. We shouldn't reward a team in last place with a shot at getting better, but we should reward a team who barely missed the playoffs the number 1 pick for coming close? In that case, just give everybody an equal shot at the #1 pick. To keep it competitive and profitable those bottom teams have to get better, eventually.

[Gabriel]

I liked the amendment made.

Once your team is mathematically eliminated, the points you accrue go towards the race for 1st overall in the draft. Giving the worst teams the best chance if they don't just give up on the season, but also dissuading teams from phoning it in so that they can have a better draft pick. Either that way, or maybe just take the points accrued from the final 41 games of the season to make up a standings list for the non-playoff teams? (Or even the last 20 games, or last 10.)

I think you need to help the bad teams get better, but not at the expense of competitive hockey throughout the regular season. I think that needs to be a huge focus moving forward.

[SeanDMan]

The biggest problem right now is that tanking to get top draft picks actually works. See when Chicago tanked to get Toews and Kane, when Pittsburgh tanked to get Malkin and Crosby, when Ottawa tanked to get Daigle and Bonk. The list goes on and on.

The NHL needs to follow more of a fantasy hockey rule when it comes to rookies, because right now, it's too easy to get 1-2 brilliant players, NHL ready guys, on an ELC and fill the rest of the team out with free agents. For guys who are top 10 picks they should get top line NHL money, like how the NFL draft works. Right now, a lot of NFL teams try and trade down, because they can't afford to pay players lottery draft pick money UNLESS that guy is THE guy in the draft. THAT is how you discourage tanking; with a financial cost attached to it.

[Plubby]

when Ottawa tanked to get Daigle and Bonk.

I see what you did just thar.

[Maxx]

The biggest problem right now is that tanking to get top draft picks actually works. See when Chicago tanked to get Toews and Kane, when Pittsburgh tanked to get Malkin and Crosby, when Ottawa tanked to get Daigle and Bonk. The list goes on and on.

The NHL needs to follow more of a fantasy hockey rule when it comes to rookies, because right now, it's too easy to get 1-2 brilliant players, NHL ready guys, on an ELC and fill the rest of the team out with free agents. For guys who are top 10 picks they should get top line NHL money, like how the NFL draft works. Right now, a lot of NFL teams try and trade down, because they can't afford to pay players lottery draft pick money UNLESS that guy is THE guy in the draft. THAT is how you discourage tanking; with a financial cost attached to it.

That's not actually true anymore, now that they've got the rookie wage scale.

[caucasianheat]

2009 THN article with appropriately dusty references, but it sort of puts the lie to 'tanking' as a lot of fans conceive of it:

Here's another thing a lot of people don't realize when they suggest a team tank the season. Unless you deliberately fill your roster with sub-par players, you're never going to be able to do it because the players and coaches who put their reputations on the line every time they perform couldn't care less about the prized prospect the team will get next season.

Tell proud veterans such as Doug Weight, Bill Guerin or Brendan Witt that the plan is to tank the season to get the first overall pick, then let us know how that black eye heals up for you.

Being bad for an extended period of time is not an acceptable way to build a team. That doesn't mean it doesn't work from time to time, but it sure takes a long time to get the stink off your organization. Teams that are ultimately successful in the long run wouldn't think of employing that kind of strategy.

They generally go the more conventional route. You know, make good trades, draft and develop players well and manage the salary cap. What a concept.

So nevermind that no dignified player would ever have a hand in it. No smart manager would ever really do it either knowing that it devalues all their assets and probably won't actually improve things. Pittsburgh and Chicago won cups because they had all the pieces together - first round drafting was just one small dimension of it.

LA gambled and cashed in their young prospects last year to build a team that could go the distance. Ottawa picked in the top 5 for five straight years with three first overalls. The best player they got with any of those picks by orders of magnitude went in the sixth at 130-something.