New Proposed Realignment - Thoughts on how it affects Vancouver?

[dave babych returns]

Everything's not going to work out perfectly for everyone. First seed might have a chance of tougher travel but what they do have is a guarantee of a worse opponent (based on the standings anyways).

Besides the worse travel is only egregious if you cherry pick the worst examples, if Vancouver gets the "midwest" wildcard and it's Colorado is that a travesty?

 

[opendoor]

I think the re-alignment will be a positive thing for the Canucks. We can point to the balance and strength of the different teams in each proposed conference but that's only a present snapshot of the situation. Great teams can and will fall and terrible teams can and will rise.

Looking at it long term it means less travel for the Canucks and less trips outside of our time zone. It makes sense to have 7 teams in our western "conferences" simply because of geography.

I'm not sure it'll cut on down travel much at all for the Canucks. Here's last year's schedule divided up by time zone:

47 in the Pacific
11 in the Mountain
11 in the Central
13 in the Eastern



Under the realignment plan it'd be something along the lines of:

48-49 in the Pacific
8-9 in the Mountain
9-10 in the Central
16 in the Eastern


Obviously that doesn't tell the whole picture, but even in terms of distance I don't think they're better off. They're getting more games in California, but they're losing roughly the same amount in Alberta which is closer. They'll save a game or two in the Central due to fewer games in Minnesota and Dallas, but then they're adding more in the East.

 

[BrandonL]

I think it benefits the Canucks in the sense that Vancouver will always spend to the salary cap, while most of the other teams in their proposed division likely won't. You have teams like L.A., Phoenix, and Anaheim that will be significantly below the cap. Who knows how things will play out in Edmonton, but this is an organization that is currently well below the cap. Currently both San Jose and Calgary are spending close to the cap, but does anyone realistically believe these teams are "locks" to spend to the cap every year?

It should give the Canucks an inherent advantage going forward, and we all know there is nothing wrong with that

 

[me2]

If NHL gets an expansion in Vegas, I can imagine some "chicken barns" might wanna sponsor the team just like the Greek soccer team below just recently:

The benefits can be enormous for both the players and the city as an attraction for free agents single or not. I can see Vegas becoming a powerhouse very soon if this is the case!

Plus the possibilities of special offers to fans of the team! haha

just imagine the players having to work with the sponsors. Instead of an tv ad with a player using the sponsors product ie drinking a coke/pepsi etc, they'd have ads of players on the job with the ladies.

 

[deckercky]

This is more of a general question, but can someone please explain to me why the NHL couldn't just have WPG and CBJ swap places? Is it still the "We promised DET that the next time we have a realignment, we'll put them in the east" thing? I mean, is that the ONLY thing stopping the most logical move?

As for the new alignment, I don't think it effects us much other than it looks unbalanced on paper (14 team conference vs 16 team conference). Once less team we get to see a decent amount per year.

No. This fixes Detroit, Minnesota, Dallas, Winnipeg and all the travel their locations caused as well.

 

[cutcopy]

Can someone please explain to me the new format for the playoffs? I don't know if I heard this correctly, but I heard from someone the first round can have a west and an eastern team playing against each other? If so, wtf why?

 

[Bleach Clean]

I'm not sure it'll cut on down travel much at all for the Canucks. Here's last year's schedule divided up by time zone:

47 in the Pacific
11 in the Mountain
11 in the Central
13 in the Eastern



Under the realignment plan it'd be something along the lines of:

48-49 in the Pacific
8-9 in the Mountain
9-10 in the Central
16 in the Eastern


Obviously that doesn't tell the whole picture, but even in terms of distance I don't think they're better off. They're getting more games in California, but they're losing roughly the same amount in Alberta which is closer. They'll save a game or two in the Central due to fewer games in Minnesota and Dallas, but then they're adding more in the East.

Yeah, with you there. Travel doesn't seem to have decreased under the new alignment.

To me, it just re-arranges teams in their logical groupings. That's pretty much it. No inherent advantages. Just different teams faced. If anything, it might be a disadvantage overall because of the better competition.

 

[Nuckles]

Can someone please explain to me the new format for the playoffs? I don't know if I heard this correctly, but I heard from someone the first round can have a west and an eastern team playing against each other? If so, wtf why?

With the newest proposed format (two conferences, four divisions), the top 3 teams from each division will make the playoffs.

The remaining 2 spots in each conference will go to the highest placed teams regardless of which division they are in. (but it's within each conference)

So let's say Vancouver, Edmonton, and Calgary are the top 3 teams in their division. However, the 4th (LA) and 5th (Anaheim) placed teams in that division have more points than the 4th ranked team in the other division. That means that 5 teams from that one division will make the playoffs in the Western conference.