Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
OBXer

In Season Talk 2019-20

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, wxray1 said:

Holy crap there's a lot of detail they put out regarding this phase 2.  I mean a LOT of very specific detail.  Do you like to read?  Have at it.

 

https://nhl.bamcontent.com/images/assets/binary/317017544/binary-file/file.pdf

 

A few snippets below.  Sadly, they failed to make a statement about cardboard or blow-up fans in the stands:

 

 

My quote didn't quote all the sub quotes you had but in the last section about tissues got me.

 

Do they really think these guys are going to forgo snot rockets onto the floor of the bench for tissues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, legend-1 said:

 

My quote didn't quote all the sub quotes you had but in the last section about tissues got me.

 

Do they really think these guys are going to forgo snot rockets onto the floor of the bench for tissues?

No kidding.  Are they going to have spittoons too?

 

At the end of the document, there is a list of doctors who helped advise for this. Wonder how many even have watched a game.

 

There are all kinds of goodies in that document that are for show and won't be followed by high intensity athletes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wxray1 said:

No kidding.  Are they going to have spittoons too?

 

At the end of the document, there is a list of doctors who helped advise for this. Wonder how many even have watched a game.

 

There are all kinds of goodies in that document that are for show and won't be followed by high intensity athletes.

 

Hey, if MLB can try to get players to refrain from spitting in order to get their season started.... 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://nhl.bamcontent.com/images/assets/binary/317017544/binary-file/file.pdf

 

This is so complicated that each team should have a designated lawyer (word merchant) to ensure compliance.   This sounds like the league is making sure that their butts are covered just in case the virus decides to not play nice ??   I'm sorry but this is so extreme that I am not sure how the executives can look themselves in the mirror and think that they are doing anyone a favor.  It's amazing how money talks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too complicated and yet still does not cover all possible contingencies. The enormity of the logistics of pulling this off with 24 teams over a 2+ month period with zero Covid cases is fragile at best not to mention they mangle the start of the 20/21 season in doing so. Too many what if’s. What happens if one team has 1 or 2 players test positive? That team forfeits and goes home and the other team they were playing moves on to the next round assuming no-one contracted it? Would they simply give the Cup to the team in the finals if the other team had players test positive during the final and had to forfeit? The real winners in this experiment will be the 7 teams that get to stay safe at home but become recipients of the revenue sharing.

Edited by raleighcaniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its 24 teams for ~3 weeks for training and first round. Then its 16, then 8 after ~5 weeks. its those 8 and especially the final four teams that sacrifice the most. After 5 weeks we go from 528 players and support staff to 176 players and a third of the support staff.

 

the first 5 weeks are the most probable of a positive test.  It is still a very low chance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s been 21/2 months already since a game was played. The teams that take the ice in empty arenas in many ways will not be the same teams that stopped playing March 12th. I know this is about money, but surely the revenue generated by playing a 24 team tournament will not come close to what the actual playoffs would have generated, with no live gate, concessions, etc. And in the end, the fans of 30 teams will not consider the champion legitimate, especially if somehow one of the bottom 4 teams that shouldn’t even be in the playoffs somehow rises up and wins. Then there’s the impact on next season, which probably won’t start until December. And that’s not even getting to the most important issue: the safety of the participants. They should just pull the plug and concentrate on starting 20-21 on time, which under any circumstances is not a given. The owners are, by and large, billionaires who can absorb the financial losses. Something like this happening has always been a risk of owning a professional sports team, just like the players risk a life-altering injury or concussion every time they play. Enough already. Call the season off, name Ayres the MVP, and look to next year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bluedevilcane said:

It’s been 21/2 months already since a game was played. The teams that take the ice in empty arenas in many ways will not be the same teams that stopped playing March 12th. I know this is about money, but surely the revenue generated by playing a 24 team tournament will not come close to what the actual playoffs would have generated, with no live gate, concessions, etc. And in the end, the fans of 30 teams will not consider the champion legitimate, especially if somehow one of the bottom 4 teams that shouldn’t even be in the playoffs somehow rises up and wins. Then there’s the impact on next season, which probably won’t start until December. And that’s not even getting to the most important issue: the safety of the participants. They should just pull the plug and concentrate on starting 20-21 on time, which under any circumstances is not a given. The owners are, by and large, billionaires who can absorb the financial losses. Something like this happening has always been a risk of owning a professional sports team, just like the players risk a life-altering injury or concussion every time they play. Enough already. Call the season off, name Ayres the MVP, and look to next year.

The league isn’t structured where the owners are the only party due to take losses.  This revamp is just as much on the players as the owners. The salary cap and player’s salary growth is determined by league revenues. Players have just as much in play here. Without this playoff revenue, the cap would take a significant hit.  In turn would mean RFA and UFAs would take a big money hit.  Also, the player’s association would have to convince owners that they should agree to Compliance buyouts to fit inside the cap/give FA players a chance to earn good contracts. It is unlikely as most owners don’t have an idea of what is going on next season and recoup the expense.   The players will take some hit already by the cap remaining flat the next 2 seasons but not as big if they don’t complete a playoff this season (also a reason why they forced in Chicago/ Montreal / NY viewing areas in the playoffs.)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gocanes0506 said:

its 24 teams for ~3 weeks for training and first round. Then its 16, then 8 after ~5 weeks. its those 8 and especially the final four teams that sacrifice the most. After 5 weeks we go from 528 players and support staff to 176 players and a third of the support staff.

 

the first 5 weeks are the most probable of a positive test.  It is still a very low chance.  

 

 

But what happens if they make it to 8 teams and suddenly a couple players from those teams start testing positive?  Stop and wait while they quarantine the entire teams for another 2 weeks?  Have the teams carry forward without the positive players?  Or if it's a wave of positives spreading through one of the neutral locations?  Boot the 8 teams in that location and let the other locations carry on?  Ouch.  Not picking at your post, gc, just thinking out loud.  There's no way to plan for every possibility, but there are so many of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, realmdrakkar said:

 

 

But what happens if they make it to 8 teams and suddenly a couple players from those teams start testing positive?  Stop and wait while they quarantine the entire teams for another 2 weeks?  Have the teams carry forward without the positive players?  Or if it's a wave of positives spreading through one of the neutral locations?  Boot the 8 teams in that location and let the other locations carry on?  Ouch.  Not picking at your post, gc, just thinking out loud.  There's no way to plan for every possibility, but there are so many of them.

 

I think this is the biggest challenge.  What to do if someone goes positive.  One guy went positive in the NBA and it caused both the NBA and NHL to shut down.  One could argue that event was also the catalyst to shut down North America.

 

So, yeah, a positive test in a major league athlete will have ramifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where I work if someone test positive, they are out, and the rest go on, even if we've been working with them.

 

In this case, they will contact trace around that person, but even without that, every Covid patient is thought to infect about 3-4 people during the totality of their infectivity, say maybe 10-14 full days, and far less with masks and social distancing. Further in this case constantly testing everyone and immediately removing that guy drops that window even more. If one guy gets Covid, that guy is out for 2 weeks plus whatever is part of the return to play protocol, everyone else continues on. 

 

These guys will be a covid negative pool to begin with. They will take all kinds of precautions during practice and play and socially distance and even isolate away from play. In a lot of ways being in this group of people in this setting has to be dramatically safer than your average Harris Teeter. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t like that the first 8 losers are also in the race for the NHL draft lottery.  It still leaves us capable of missing out of a draft pick this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, gocanes0506 said:

I don’t like that the first 8 losers are also in the race for the NHL draft lottery.  It still leaves us capable of missing out of a draft pick this season.

Ain’t gunna matter. We will take it all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cc said:

Ain’t gunna matter. We will take it all.

 

Lol.  I don't think so.  Goaltending is questionable.  So questionable that I forgot who we had aside from Mzarek and had to look it up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, gocanes0506 said:

I don’t like that the first 8 losers are also in the race for the NHL draft lottery.  It still leaves us capable of missing out of a draft pick this season.

If I have it right, there will be lottery that includes the 8 teams that lose in the play in slotted below those that are out. They will be slotted into 8 sequential "placeholder" spots (below the already out teams) that will be ordered by the records of the losing teams. If the lottery produces a winner in those teams, it will be determined by who slots where and revealed later. (I've also heard that they might do another lotteryl for those remaining teams if one wins a top three slot). Thus, if we, or I'm guessing Toronto, or maybe both? go out in the play in round, we would have a small chance of winning or getting a top 3 pick. 

 

Of course the most ideal thing would be that Toronto goes out and wins a top 3 slot, and we win the cup, and presumably get a top 3 pick too. 

 

This is the fairest thing to do IMO. If you get bounced in the play-in, you're technically not in the playoffs and should get something for that. 

 

Since teams that lose int the first round are treated in the draft as non playoff teams, this has the potential to bump us up a bit, even if we don't win the lottery slot, (since both Toronto and Us would have picked below 15 even with a first round exit, but now could end up higher,if either goes out in round one), but I haven't worked out all of the possibilities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, remkin said:

If I have it right, there will be lottery that includes the 8 teams that lose in the play in slotted below those that are out. They will be slotted into 8 sequential "placeholder" spots (below the already out teams) that will be ordered by the records of the losing teams. If the lottery produces a winner in those teams, it will be determined by who slots where and revealed later. (I've also heard that they might do another lotteryl for those remaining teams if one wins a top three slot). Thus, if we, or I'm guessing Toronto, or maybe both? go out in the play in round, we would have a small chance of winning or getting a top 3 pick. 

 

Of course the most ideal thing would be that Toronto goes out and wins a top 3 slot, and we win the cup, and presumably get a top 3 pick too. 

First off the Toronto pick is top 10 protected. The best case for us is 11th with their pick, i.e they lose in the first round and the lottery but jump up 3 picks in the selection.

 

first lottery is last 7 with 8 placeholders. If a placeholder is chosen in the first 3 then they do another lottery after the play in round. It would include the first 8 out and all the non previous lottery winners from the original 7 as well. If the last 7 win all three lottery spots then the 2nd lottery doesn’t happen. 

 

its a weird system.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bluedevil58 said:

 

Lol.  I don't think so.  Goaltending is questionable.  So questionable that I forgot who we had aside from Mzarek and had to look it up.  

  Glad I'm not the only one to think so. People talk about having a 1a 1b, seems, IMO, more like the canes have a 1B 1C. Been hoping for a while now for a goalie upgrade.

So just curious whos everyones favourite canes goalies ? For me I'm thinking Burke, Irbe, Ward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AmxCanes said:

  Glad I'm not the only one to think so. People talk about having a 1a 1b, seems, IMO, more like the canes have a 1B 1C. Been hoping for a while now for a goalie upgrade.

So just curious whos everyones favourite canes goalies ? For me I'm thinking Burke, Irbe, Ward. 

 

I think Burke was the best goalie to ever lace up for the Cabes followed by Irbe and then Ward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gocanes0506 said:

First off the Toronto pick is top 10 protected. The best case for us is 11th with their pick, i.e they lose in the first round and the lottery but jump up 3 picks in the selection.

 

first lottery is last 7 with 8 placeholders. If a placeholder is chosen in the first 3 then they do another lottery after the play in round. It would include the first 8 out and all the non previous lottery winners from the original 7 as well. If the last 7 win all three lottery spots then the 2nd lottery doesn’t happen. 

 

its a weird system.  

Good point about the Toronto pick. That takes that fantasy off the board. We'd have to go out and then win it.

 

I guess they just adjust the relative odds in the second drawing. It would be easier in theory to just have that winner sealed, and unseal after the losers are seeded, but then they have to keep that secret and there would be conspiracy theories abounding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gocanes0506 said:

First off the Toronto pick is top 10 protected. The best case for us is 11th with their pick, i.e they lose in the first round and the lottery but jump up 3 picks in the selection.

 

first lottery is last 7 with 8 placeholders. If a placeholder is chosen in the first 3 then they do another lottery after the play in round. It would include the first 8 out and all the non previous lottery winners from the original 7 as well. If the last 7 win all three lottery spots then the 2nd lottery doesn’t happen. 

 

its a weird system.  

 

I'm pretty sure that if a placeholder (qualifying round loser) wins one of the first 3 picks, the second lottery for that pick only includes the 8 teams that lost in the play-in round.  The way I think of it is that the 8 play-in losers form a "pool" with respect to the first lottery.  If that pool wins a top 3 pick, each of the 8 teams in the pool has an equal chance (12.5%) of winning the second lottery to actually get that pick.

 

From TheHockeyNews:

"Where things get tricky is if a placeholder wins one or more of the Phase 1 lottery. In that case, there will be a Phase 2 lottery between the eight qualifying round losers – and only those eight teams. In this lottery, each team has the same odds."

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LakeLivin said:

 

I'm pretty sure that if a placeholder (qualifying round loser) wins one of the first 3 picks, the second lottery for that pick only includes the 8 teams that lost in the play-in round.  The way I think of it is that the 8 play-in losers form a "pool" with respect to the first lottery.  If that pool wins a top 3 pick, each of the 8 teams in the pool has an equal chance (12.5%) of winning the second lottery to actually get that pick.

 

From TheHockeyNews:

"Where things get tricky is if a placeholder wins one or more of the Phase 1 lottery. In that case, there will be a Phase 2 lottery between the eight qualifying round losers – and only those eight teams. In this lottery, each team has the same odds."

That sort of makes sense I guess. One would think it would still go by points percentage and an adjusted expansion of their relative odds, but that does get a bit complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, LakeLivin said:

 

I'm pretty sure that if a placeholder (qualifying round loser) wins one of the first 3 picks, the second lottery for that pick only includes the 8 teams that lost in the play-in round.  The way I think of it is that the 8 play-in losers form a "pool" with respect to the first lottery.  If that pool wins a top 3 pick, each of the 8 teams in the pool has an equal chance (12.5%) of winning the second lottery to actually get that pick.

 

From TheHockeyNews:

"Where things get tricky is if a placeholder wins one or more of the Phase 1 lottery. In that case, there will be a Phase 2 lottery between the eight qualifying round losers – and only those eight teams. In this lottery, each team has the same odds."

Thanks the correction. I misunderstood what CanesCountry put out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, remkin said:

That sort of makes sense I guess. One would think it would still go by points percentage and an adjusted expansion of their relative odds, but that does get a bit complex.

 

One theory as to why they opened up a chance at a lottery pick for the play-in losers is to "balance" the unfairness of them having to win a series to make the playoffs given that some of them had a very high probability of making it if the season hadn't been interrupted. 

 

You could argue that if they end up losing in the play-in, 5th seeded teams like Edmonton and Pittsburgh should have lower odds at a lottery pick than teams like Montreal and Chicago, should they lose.  But you could just as easily make the argument that Edmonton and Pittsburgh, highly likely playoff qualifiers if the season had completed, are being "penalized" by having to play in, whereas Montreal and Chicago are being more or less gifted a shot at the playoffs.  The theory is that the modified draft rules that reduce the lottery odds for teams like Montreal and Chicago and increase them for teams like Pittsburgh and Edmonton help balance the inequities of the play-in structure.  

 

If I did my ciphering correctly, each of the 8 play-in losers has a 3% chance at winning the first overall pick.  Can you imagine the uproar if that turns out to be a team like Edmonton or Pittsburgh?

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, LakeLivin said:

 

One theory as to why they opened up a chance at a lottery pick for the play-in losers is to "balance" the unfairness of them having to win a series to make the playoffs given that some of them had a very high probability of making it if the season hadn't been interrupted. 

 

You could argue that if they end up losing in the play-in, 5th seeded teams like Edmonton and Pittsburgh should have lower odds at a lottery pick than teams like Montreal and Chicago, should they lose.  But you could just as easily make the argument that Edmonton and Pittsburgh, highly likely playoff qualifiers if the season had completed, are being "penalized" by having to play in, whereas Montreal and Chicago are being more or less gifted a shot at the playoffs.  The theory is that the modified draft rules that reduce the lottery odds for teams like Montreal and Chicago and increase them for teams like Pittsburgh and Edmonton help balance the inequities of the play-in structure.  

 

If I did my ciphering correctly, each of the 8 play-in losers has a 3% chance at winning the first overall pick.  Can you imagine the uproar if that turns out to be a team like Edmonton or Pittsburgh?

The uproar for me would be if it was Toronto winning the lottery. In fact, I'm not sure what would happen exactly. Since we get the best of the two picks, if it's down to ours this year or Toronto's next year? No way to know which is the better pick until next year's draft, but can't wait for that either since someone has to pick this year. :letssee:. Am I missing something on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...