Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

mll

Members
  • Posts

    19,856
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mll

  1. I doubt the NHL wanted one of the placeholders to win the lottery. Feels more like they didn't fully understand the maths and that it could lead to such an absurd result.
  2. Teams 8 to 15 pooled their combinations to make 1 mega-pool with a 24.5% chance at 1st overall - more than Detroit's 18.5%. Any of the 8 placeholder teams winning the lottery wins it for the group. The team that won it for them was team E that had a 2.5% chance of winning the lottery (had they not pooled their combinations). Now that they've won the lottery the 8 teams eliminated in the play-ins will get a 12.5% shot at 1st overall.
  3. They are going to reseed instead of going by bracket. Canucks could end up being seeded 5, 6 or 7 depending on which teams make it through the play-ins. They can't end up being #8 because Calgary-Winnipeg play each other and both have a lower point percentage than the Canucks. Every other play-in matchup has a team below in the standings and one higher in the standings. Edmonton, Nashville make it through Canucks will be #7 but if Chicago, Arizona win they will be #5.
  4. Won't necessarily be Colorado. The 4 bye-teams are playing each other to determine seeding for the playoffs.
  5. 17th if the extended season is cancelled. 1-7 teams already eliminated from the extended season 8-15 the 8 teams that get to draw for 1st overall with CBJ and Florida ahead of Calgary/Vancouver as it's 4 lowest ranked teams by conference. 16 Calgary 17 Vancouver
  6. The placeholders had a 24.5% chance of winning the lottery and it's team E with a 2.5% chance that won it for them. Going by point percentage of the bottom-4 of each conference the Jets would have been team E.
  7. Are they changing it for the subsequent rounds too. Vancouver and Calgary pick ahead of Panthers and CBJ or after them for the 2nd round onwards?
  8. Columbus Blue Jackets are 0.579 Calgary 0.564 Canucks 0.565 with 27 wins in regulation. Panthers 0.565 with 30 wins in regulation. Isn't correct if the NHL stat page have their numbers right. Should be Calgary and Canucks over CBJ and Florida. Should have read the previous pages before posting.
  9. Canucks are among the remaining bottom-8 in points percentage. Montreal to NYR go from 0.500 to 0.564 - 7 teams. Canucks, Florida, Nashville are at 0.565 but Canucks have the least wins in regulation.
  10. In point percentage that's the ranking. 7 teams below the Canucks 0.565. Nashville and Florida also at 0.565 but the Canucks only have 27 wins in regulation while Nashville has 28 and Florida 30.
  11. They are. There are 3 teams tied at .565 for the 8th spot and the Canucks have the least regular wins of the 3.
  12. in points percentage: Montreal Chicago Arizona Minnesota Winnipeg Calgary NYR Vancouver
  13. Lafrenière has taken only 39 face-offs in 52 games this season in the Q. He's more likely to stay at wing.
  14. Which fanbase is going to cheer the most for their team to lose for a 12.5% chance at Lafrenière.
  15. Reading LeBrun's tweets it sounds like players are debating the 2nd hub. Vegas is still believed to be a hub. When discussing Vancouver as hub, Thomas Drance assured that players don't care when games are played and would even prefer earlier in the day than 7pm. With no fans in the stands he thought it wouldn't matter at all to start games earlier for the eastern conference. He didn't address starting games later for Western spectators though should they be based in the East. A 7pm game for Vancouver audience would be 10pm at night in Toronto. Seems more problematic for players. The league in an earlier interview said their preference would be for the home team not play in their home city. Vegas was discussed for the East and Toronto for the West. If both hubs are in the West that won't be possible but the league now assures that it wouldn't be problem as arenas will be completely neutral.
  16. The insurance companies have to be willing to cover the risk. Wimbledon is manageable for an insurance company. Losses in billions not necessarily. They'll probably have to use a re-insurance company and who knows if they would even accept the risk.
  17. Wimbledon is a 2 week competition in just one location. It's not the same magnitude.
  18. The NHL does not have a coverage for a pandemic. Insurance companies need the premiums to be able to cover the claims/ the amounts owed in case of a damage. The premiums would be exorbitant to cover a pandemic. If one league is affected it affects all the others. Insurance companies need to receive the necessary premiums to build up the reserves to cover the claims otherwise they'll go bankrupt.
  19. Players will likely be far safer in the NHL bubble. There have been 11 players infected while the NHL had no control over them. If these players had not joined phase 2 who knows how long until they would have been diagnosed and how many more people in the general population would have been in contact with them.
  20. They don't plan on decreasing the cap - that's why they don't feel the need to offer compliance buyouts. They are talking of dealing with the losses through an adjustment of escrow. Owners don't want the additional cost of compliance buyouts per Friedman. Players probably don't want them either - allowing for compliance buyouts would increase their escrow even more.
  21. If the league goes dark they might struggle to regain those market shares. With the new US TV deal up it puts them in a weak bargaining position. Resuming the season is also to keep hockey on the map. Players have considerable amounts to pay back to the league. The escrow they've already paid is by far insufficient to cover their portion of the losses.
×
×
  • Create New...