2016-2017 NHL Thread

[herman]

https://streamable.com/nas9f

Subban is pretty awesome.

 

[Kin]

From the "Some Rookies cool off" files, I guess we're all feeling a little better about the Leafs passing on potentially taking Travis Konecny these days.

 

[herman]

https://www.nhl.com/goldenknights/news/golden-knights-sign-reid-duke-to-entry-level-contract/c-287435242

VGK signs their first player: Reid Duke of the Brandon Wheat Kings (hmm)

I hope they continue to sign everyone with an even remotely feudal/Medieval name.

 

[Kin]

Sort of interesting idea put forth by Lamoriello at the GM meetings: Do away with points, just do Wins and Losses:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/should-nhl-completely-get-rid-of-standings-points-153007392.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw

What?s interesting about Lamoriello?s suggestion is that outside of a couple dramatic swings ? the Flames and Ducks in the West, the Penguins dropping to the wild card in the East ? this doesn?t exactly reshuffle the standings deck. The same 16 teams that are in the playoffs under the current system would still be there in a Wins/Losses format, albeit shuffled around a bit.

Interesting thoughts from Lamoriello, especially when you consider how clarity in the standings has been mentioned as an obstacle for fans trying to get into the sport. (?Mommy, what?s a ROW??)

Of course, this format would NEVER happen. Not just because the NHL loves its current state of forced parity, but because the NHL really, really doesn?t love the truth of it all: That instead of seven teams under ?.500? in the current system, there are actually 16 under Lou?s.

 

[Bullfrog]

I like that idea quite a bit.

In this scenario, there would have to be a winner every game. So I assume the current 3v3 + shootout remains?

 

[bustaheims]

In this scenario, there would have to be a winner every game. So I assume the current 3v3 + shootout remains?

That's what I don't like about it. If you go pure wins and losses, you gotta dump the shootout and go with infinite OT.

 

[Kin]

I like that idea quite a bit.

In this scenario, there would have to be a winner every game. So I assume the current 3v3 + shootout remains?

That's my understanding of it. You could still use ROW as a tie-breaker but outside of that I assume the idea is to keep things as they are in place. I understand busta's instincts above but there's a little bit of King Canute-ism in complaining about the shootout at this point.

 

[L K]

I'm still struggling at what is so wrong with a 3-point system.

3 points for a regulation win.  2 points for an OT/Shootout.  1 point for an OT loss.

Every game is worth 3 points now instead of some games being worth 2 and others worth 3.  Your score table is pretty simple.

Wins  OTW  OTL  L

How is 4 columns too confusing?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'm still struggling at what is so wrong with a 3-point system.

3 points for a regulation win.  2 points for an OT/Shootout 1.  1 point for an OT loss.

Every game is worth 3 points now instead of some games being worth 2 and others worth 3.  Your score table is pretty simple.

Wins  OTW  OTL  P

How is 4 columns too confusing?

 

[Kin]

I'm still struggling at what is so wrong with a 3-point system.

3 points for a regulation win.  2 points for an OT/Shootout 1.  1 point for an OT loss.

Every game is worth 3 points now instead of some games being worth 2 and others worth 3.  Your score table is pretty simple.

Wins  OTW  OTL  P

How is 4 columns too confusing?

Compared to Wins and Losses?

Regardless though, the issue here is that it's more of the same problem. I get people don't like the shootout but the NHL does. Adopting the four column standings is expecting the NHL to say "Shootouts and 3 on 3 overtime are a perfectly fine way to determine a winner and a loser but shootout and overtime wins shouldn't really count the same as a regulation win because they're not really fair ways to determine a winner and loser."

You can't expect the NHL to be a little bit pregnant on the subject of the shootout. Either they like it or they don't.

 

[Kin]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/gary-bettman-coyotes-must-new-arena-location-succeed/

If Arizona gives the Coyotes money for a new arena...I give up.

 

[Bates]

Phoenix, and i would bet AZ, are going to do this for the Suns in a few years.  Might be a little more prudent to act now and build a place that could meet the needs of both?? 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/gary-bettman-coyotes-must-new-arena-location-succeed/

If Arizona gives the Coyotes money for a new arena...I give up.

 

[Kin]

Phoenix, and i would bet AZ, are going to do this for the Suns in a few years.  Might be a little more prudent to act now and build a place that could meet the needs of both??

The problem with that sort of thing these days is that it's very hard to build a place that meets the needs of two teams if controlling the arena they play in is a need of most teams.

 

[Bates]

Agree but City gets the best result with 2 teams and Coyotes are hanging by a thread. Not sure if something along the lines of very little rent for Coyotes while giving arena control to the Suns would work?? Only other hope for the Coyotes staying is the Native Tribe building them an arena.  [quote autho r=Nik the Trik link=topic=4060.msg290398#msg290398 date=1488938746]

Phoenix, and i would bet AZ, are going to do this for the Suns in a few years.  Might be a little more prudent to act now and build a place that could meet the needs of both??

The problem with that sort of thing these days is that it's very hard to build a place that meets the needs of two teams if controlling the arena they play in is a need of most teams.
[/quote]

 

[Kin]

Agree but City gets the best result with 2 teams and Coyotes are hanging by a thread. Not sure if something along the lines of very little rent for Coyotes while giving arena control to the Suns would work?? Only other hope for the Coyotes staying is the Native Tribe building them an arena.

I'm not all that sure that the Coyotes sticking around makes all that much of an economic difference to the city vs. 40 extra arena dates a year for concerts, etc

 

[Bates]

The economic impact from the team to the City and the State are rather large. And from what I see down here there aren't exactly a line up of events for the arena these days.  But I'm still not sure building a new arena for the Coyotes makes sense in any way??

Agree but City gets the best result with 2 teams and Coyotes are hanging by a thread. Not sure if something along the lines of very little rent for Coyotes while giving arena control to the Suns would work?? Only other hope for the Coyotes staying is the Native Tribe building them an arena.

I'm not all that sure that the Coyotes sticking around makes all that much of an economic difference to the city vs. 40 extra arena dates a year for concerts, etc

 

[Kin]

The economic impact from the team to the City and the State are rather large.

I'm not sure what you're basing that on. Most studies say that the economic impact of sports teams tends to be very small, especially if public money is required to keep them around.

But I'm still not sure building a new arena for the Coyotes makes sense in any way??

I don't think it does.

 

[Bates]

Income tax, taxes paid on events and things bought at events.  There is no way they are small.  I'm not including any money to build, just money coming into City and State. I doubt State breaks even for a long time if ever.  That's why I suggested building for NHL and NBA because the Suns are getting a new building so cost to include Coyotes not that much extra. 

The economic impact from the team to the City and the State are rather large.

I'm not sure what you're basing that on. Most studies say that the economic impact of sports teams tends to be very small, especially if public money is required to keep them around.

But I'm still not sure building a new arena for the Coyotes makes sense in any way??

I don't think it does.

 

[Kin]

Income tax, taxes paid on events and things bought at events.  There is no way they are small.

On a large scale sense? It absolutely is. The academic literature on it is pretty solid:

https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/business/are-pro-sports-teams-economic-winners-cities

There are a lot of things economists disagree about, but the economic impact of sports stadiums isn't one of them.

?If you ever had a consensus in economics, this would be it," says Michael Leeds, a sports economist at Temple University.  "There is no impact."

Leeds studied Chicago ? as big a sports town as there is, with five major teams.

?If every sports team in Chicago were to suddenly disappear, the impact on the Chicago economy would be a fraction of 1 percent,? Leeds says. ?A baseball team has about the same impact on a community as a midsize department store.?

 

[Bates]

There is $60 or $70 million in salaries paying State income tax, that's not a small number. The taxes on ticket sales, merchandise, hotel room, and so on is a sizable number.  You seem to want me to be saying it's significant in terms of City and State revenue. I'm not saying any such thing.  Simply saying that the dollar number is significant.  And it is. 

Income tax, taxes paid on events and things bought at events.  There is no way they are small.

On a large scale sense? It absolutely is. The academic literature on it is pretty solid:

https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/business/are-pro-sports-teams-economic-winners-cities

There are a lot of things economists disagree about, but the economic impact of sports stadiums isn't one of them.

?If you ever had a consensus in economics, this would be it," says Michael Leeds, a sports economist at Temple University.  "There is no impact."

Leeds studied Chicago ? as big a sports town as there is, with five major teams.

?If every sports team in Chicago were to suddenly disappear, the impact on the Chicago economy would be a fraction of 1 percent,? Leeds says. ?A baseball team has about the same impact on a community as a midsize department store.?