Speculation: If season is cancelled, how will the NHL deal with the draft positions?

[JoePreacher]

Page 216 of the CBA. (b) Playoffs Funding Phase. (i).

Link?

Sorry to be a pain, but I’m a big fan of fact checking.

 

[Sun God Nika]

Ottawa always gets f***ed. we will end up with 5 and 6. still good. but we get f***ed.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Something will be done to compensate some teams giving up picks at the TDL I suspect.

This becomes a slipper slope. It's way too difficult to do because there is no way to draw the line over who got screwed at the deadline.

Three big problems I can see with compensating teams for rentals is,

1 - What about teams who kept UFAs as "self rentals" instead of getting picks? Do they get compensation picks as well, because the opportunity cost of keeping that player for the playoffs was draft picks that they otherwise would have taken from another team had they known there would be no playoffs?

2 - How do we designate what a rental is? Tampa gave up significant assets for players with term, but it is pretty clear that they paid what they did partially to kill two birds with one stone. Get a rental for this season, who will still be under contract next season.

3 - What about deals where there were other pieces in the trade? Do the Canucks not get compensation for Toffoli because they got a player back in the deal in Schaeler?

The interesting thing with trades from last season will be whether teams can exercise their conditions that protect picks based on making the playoffs. The Jason Zucker trade is an example of this. Since Pittsburgh technically didn't make the playoffs, can they keep their (currently) 25th overall pick and transfer their 2021 pick to Minnesota?

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Link?

Sorry to be a pain, but I’m a big fan of fact checking.

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/CBA2012/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf

 

[JoePreacher]

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/CBA2012/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf

Thanks

Some really interesting stuff in there that has a direct impact on the Sens. Pg. 208-09

Revenue Performance Standards and Effect on Continued Eligibility to Receive Player Compensation Cost Redistribution Funds.
(i) Any Recipient Club that has per-game Regular Season Gate Receipts (as set forth in the NHL Gate Receipts and Paid Admissions Report) for the most recently-completed League Year less than seventy-five (75) percent of the League-wide average per-game Regular Season Gate Receipts for that same League Year (e.g., $1,000,000 (approx.) x 75 percent, or $750,000 for the 2011-12 League Year) shall be eligible for potential assistance from the Industry Growth Fund, and subject to oversight by the League and the Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee and review of its performance as follows:
(A) Each such Recipient Club shall be required to submit to the League and Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee a forward-looking three-year business plan to establish a framework for improving its financial performance, including but not limited to the steps the Club intends to take in order to achieve an improved and acceptable level of business performance. Industry Growth Fund resources may be used to facilitate the implementation of a Club's business plan, either through grants, loans, or in-kind contributions in accordance with Section 49.7.
(B) The Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee may review and approve such business plan, and evaluate the Club's performance in subsequent League Years against the projections provided by the Club in its business plan. A Club's continuing eligibility to receive Distributions may be conditioned on successfully executing on such plan.
208
ARTICLE 49 49.3-49.3
(C) Based upon the Club's performance, the Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee may require that the Club retain an outside consultant to assess the Club's business and to recommend and implement business recommendations as appropriate.

 

[Gil Gunderson]

Seravalli: How a 68-game rollback might be NHL's most fair standings format - TSN.ca

Holy shit this would suck so much for us.

Edit: We’d finish with 2nd and 4th last.

 

[jhutter]

I'm not sure that he made a very convincing point that rolling back as many as three games is fairer than the points percentage scenario. Games that actually existed being erased seems more extreme to me than simulating games that didn't occur based on a points percentage that was accumulated through playing 85% of the season.

I'm not sure how much stock I put into it anyways. After all, not long ago there were articles about tournament formats where every team made the playoffs.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Seravalli: How a 68-game rollback might be NHL's most fair standings format - TSN.ca

Holy shit this would suck so much for us.

Edit: We’d finish with 2nd and 4th last.

It would suck to drop down from 3rd to 4th, but I think we would have been thrilled if someone at the start of the season told us the San Jose pick would be 4th overall pre-lottery.

I think they need to separate playoff seeding and lottery seeding. That article says that with both a 68-game rollback and point percentage, the exact same teams make the playoffs.

What I am suggesting is that the 16 teams in the playoffs, whatever way they want to seed them, that's fine.

The lottery standings then should be gone over in a complete case by case basis starting from the bottom with Detroit, and moving all the way up to 15.

Teams spots shouldn't be changed if the following things are true, I'll use San Jose as an example for obvious reasons...
1 - The most GP by any team is 71. San Jose has played 70 games. Even if San Jose played 1 more game and won, they would not leap frog any teams that are at a disadvantage because they played 71 games. An example, even if San Jose played 71 games like the 5th from the bottom Ducks, even with a win, they would still be 2 points behind the Ducks.

2 - The team has played the exact same GP as any other team they are directly competing with a spot for. The Kings and the Sharks are directly competing for the 3rd from the bottom spot. They've both played the same amount of games. Why is it fair for there to be a rollback to 68 that results in the Kings being "worse" than San Jose?

So in short, a rollback should only be used on each specific spot as a tie breaker if there is a close-able gap between more than one team, and if any two teams directly competing for a spot haven't played the same amount of games.