[Rumour] NHL plans to allow arguments to be heard on conds of Lucic/Neal trade (arbitration?)

[getbak]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

What is 70/82 of a 3rd round pick?

Here's my solution from earlier in the thread...

Originally Posted by getbak

I was thinking about how they could use the 70/82 ratio that they're using for prorating stats to settle this.

Instead of looking at how far the pick is from the start of the draft, look at it from the end of the draft. Right now, the Oilers 3rd round pick is slotted in at 85th overall (this could change depending on the results of the playoffs). There are 217 total picks, so the pick is 132 prior to the final pick.

If you run the 70/82 ratio on 132, you get 113 (70/82nds) and 19 (12/82nds). So, you give the Flames the 113th pick from the end and the Oilers the 19th pick from the end.

That would give the Flames the 104th overall pick and the Oilers the 198th (or maybe 105 and 199 because you're creating an extra pick as well).

It doesn't really harm the other teams by creating an extra pick in the draft because anyone who has their 7th rounder moved back one spot will also have their 3rd or 4th rounder moved up one.

It's not as good as getting the 85th pick for either team, but it's better than getting nothing, so it seems like a relatively fair compromise.

[Bankai]

Why not just trade the 4th pick of flames for 3rd pick of oilers? Is this not a fair compromise without affecting any other team and their picks?

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Bankai

Why not just trade the 4th pick of flames for 3rd pick of oilers? Is this not a fair compromise without affecting any other team and their picks?

Bumping up a few spots is hardly the same.

Prorate it and give us the pick - toss them a 6th as compensation if needed, but prorating it seems the most natural conclusion here.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bankai

Why not just trade the 4th pick of flames for 3rd pick of oilers? Is this not a fair compromise without affecting any other team and their picks?

Why should the Flames have to lose a pick because of this?

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[stang]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Why should the Flames have to lose a pick because of this?

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

They never earned one to begin with.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, in this scenario do the Oilers get to keep their own third? Or is it surrendered to the Flames and moved to the end of the Round?

I think any instance in which the Oilers draft in the third round is unacceptable. The only way this works is if the pick at the end of the draft is in place of the Oilers's third-round pick.

No.

Flames draft at the end of the 3rd, Oilers draft at the end of the 7th

70/82s and 12/82s of a mid-3rd pick

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by stang

They never earned one to begin with.

says the guy who's team lotteried 4 1st overalls

[pseudoreality]

Originally Posted by getbak

Here's my solution from earlier in the thread...

I'm not sure if I 100% follow this, but I don't see the NHL generating extra picks to help the Flames here. I think the best the Flames can hope for is a 4th or 5th round pick from the Oilers as some kind of prorated deal.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by stang

They never earned one to begin with.

Given that the Oilers only completed 86.5% of their schedule and that this deprived Neil of the opportunity to reach his target, you could just as easily argue that the Oilers failed to earn the right to retain the pick.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

Given that the Oilers only completed 86.5% of their schedule and that this deprived Neil of the opportunity to reach his target, you could just as easily argue that the Oilers failed to earn the right to retain the pick.

Except they didn't need to earn the right to retain the pick. That's not how it works.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Except they didn't need to earn the right to retain the pick. That's not how it works.

The point is that the conditions could not be met because the NHL shut down the season early, and it is not completing the regular season schedule. So, the conditions were not met in part due to the actions of the NHL, not due to whether or not the player would have met the target. Based on the rate at which he scored over the portion of the season that he played, if Neal had continued to perform at the same rate, he would have met the target, but was prevented from doing so by the actions of the NHL.

"How it works" really has no relevance in a season that was shortened unexpectedly by an unprecedented event.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

The point is that the conditions could not be met because the NHL shut down the season early, and it is not completing the regular season schedule. So, the conditions were not met in part due to the actions of the NHL, not due to whether or not the player would have met the target. Based on the rate at which he scored over the portion of the season that he played, if Neal had continued to perform at the same rate, he would have met the target, but was prevented from doing so by the actions of the NHL.

"How it works" really has no relevance in a season that was shortened unexpectedly by an unprecedented event.

You missed my point. The Oilers didn't have to "earn" anything to retain the pick. Certain conditions needed to be met for Calgary to receive the pick. The pick belongs to the Oilers unless those conditions are met.

Whether those conditions have been met is up to the arbitrator to decide. That's the point to be decided.

[You Need a Thneed]

Again, if stats are being prorated for bonuses, this is not even a question. If stats are being prorated for some things, they MUST be prorated for all things.

If it's determined that the Flames should only get 70/82 of the third round pick that they will earn, then the flames get the Oilers third rounder, and maybe give back a seventh rounder.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

The point is that the conditions could not be met because the NHL shut down the season early, and it is not completing the regular season schedule. So, the conditions were not met in part due to the actions of the NHL, not due to whether or not the player would have met the target. Based on the rate at which he scored over the portion of the season that he played, if Neal had continued to perform at the same rate, he would have met the target, but was prevented from doing so by the actions of the NHL.

"How it works" really has no relevance in a season that was shortened unexpectedly by an unprecedented event.

If Neal hadn't gotten hurt, he could have played 71 games by now (more than the 66 possible if the season weren't cancelled). One could argue that is a bigger factor for the conditions not being met.

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Again, if stats are being prorated for bonuses, this is not even a question. If stats are being prorated for some things, they MUST be prorated for all things.

If it's determined that the Flames should only get 70/82 of the third round pick that they will earn, then the flames get the Oilers third rounder, and maybe give back a seventh rounder.

Including the record books? Obviously not...so they don't have to be done for all things...


I want the pick, but the Oilers have a legit claim, too. This is one of the more complicated conditions ever written for a trade. I don't think there was anything stopping them from adding more details to pro-rate things.

Neal could have scored 22 goals in 41 games. If Lucic scored 13 in 82 games, we wouldn't get the pick.

Ignoring the laundry for a moment, I think the most fair outcome from a league-wide standpoint would be compensatory picks for both teams at the end of the 4th round, flipping a coin to determine the order.

[#-3]

probably not the best case for the flames, but could they just differ to 2021 and add the first 12 games of next season to the stats?

barring that, the end of the 3rd and the end of the 7th does sound like the easiest way to cut this baby in half.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Including the record books? Obviously not...so they don't have to be done for all things...


I want the pick, but the Oilers have a legit claim, too. This is one of the more complicated conditions ever written for a trade. I don't think there was anything stopping them from adding more details to pro-rate things.

Neal could have scored 22 goals in 41 games. If Lucic scored 13 in 82 games, we wouldn't get the pick.

Ignoring the laundry for a moment, I think the most fair outcome from a league-wide standpoint would be compensatory picks for both teams at the end of the 4th round, flipping a coin to determine the order.

You know what I mean. Points obviously aren’t going to be prorated into final points totals for the player.

But For bonuses, trade conditions, etc, either you prorate for everything, or you prorate for nothing. There is no in between. So the NHL & NHLPA must agree on whether to prorate or not, and that decision must be applied in all relevant cases.

If not none or all, who gets to handle the can of worms opened by evaluating every case individually?

If the Neal trade conditions were the only case to be considered, then the Flames likely lose. However, players would never be happy with missing out on bonuses they were on pace to reach. So when they agree to prorate bonuses, you agree to prorate everything - therefore the Flames get the pick.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

If Neal hadn't gotten hurt, he could have played 71 games by now (more than the 66 possible if the season weren't cancelled). One could argue that is a bigger factor for the conditions not being met.



Including the record books? Obviously not...so they don't have to be done for all things...


I want the pick, but the Oilers have a legit claim, too. This is one of the more complicated conditions ever written for a trade. I don't think there was anything stopping them from adding more details to pro-rate things.

Neal could have scored 22 goals in 41 games. If Lucic scored 13 in 82 games, we wouldn't get the pick.

Ignoring the laundry for a moment, I think the most fair outcome from a league-wide standpoint would be compensatory picks for both teams at the end of the 4th round, flipping a coin to determine the order.

Why would both teams get a pick at the end of the 4th? (Emphasis on 'both')

[Geeoff]

Winner of the pre-play-in gets the 3rd

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

Why would both teams get a pick at the end of the 4th? (Emphasis on 'both')

Because both teams have a legitimate claim to the pick. It's my version of 'cutting it in half'. The other 29 teams would have a reasonable beef (though I doubt any would really care) if they got bumped down a slot due to the creation of a new pick (so moving it down a round mitigates that).


The weird thing about this condition is that it was an all or none. Normally conditional picks move forward or back by a round based on XYZ (but that also ties up 2 picks until its resolved).

[browna]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1289371222615166976

Flames get the pick, Oilers decide this year or next.