The rumors are flying around that the NHL plans to expand in the next few seasons with an additional two teams. The last expansion in 2000 each team could protect 1 goalie, 5 dman, & 9 forwards OR 2 goalies, 3 dman, & 7 forwards. So for fun (and hypothetically) who would you protect on the current flyers roster? IMO It's not that easy...
From in the other thread, seems like ETC and 1st and 2nd year players are exempt. So Technically if we go by the 2000 rules, Read, Schenn and Couturier and fine.
Not sure if I would protect Briere two years from now or even a year from now. I probably would not and if Hartnell is somehow still around I would protect him instead of Briere (I can not believe I am saying it, must be losing my mind) but I doubt anyone will pick up 35 year old briere with that contact.
the league should contract 2 teams instead of expand
and btw, players like Schenn and Couturier wouldnt have to be protected during an expansion draft because they are exempt. they rules of eligibility are floating out there somewhere
Personally id consider not protecting Pronger.. Though i doubt a team would take him because of his contract.
And yours looks about right
Well considerng there is a cap floor to hit and Pronger is a household name in hockey, expansion teams might highly consider grabbing him if unprotected.
Well considerng there is a cap floor to hit and Pronger is a household name in hockey, expansion teams might highly consider grabbing him if unprotected.
But he's on a 35+ contract, so i wouldn't think a floor team would be eager to take on the risk of dead space.
You could probably leave Kimmo unprotected as well, since he would likely retire rather than report to a hypothetical expansion team. The same logic might apply to Jagr, though I'm less certain there.
Personally, I think expanding the league is not a good idea despite the growth of the game. Plus I hate expansion drafts and losing players to them so I suppose I have a personal dislike for the idea but I still think from a business aspect it's not prudent.
The revenue the league gets from the expansion fee is nice one-off but then you get situations like Atlanta and Phoenix and even Columbus where the long term costs of trying to prop up fledgling teams in retarded markets negate the short-term revenue.
Maybe this expansion they would place teams in more sustainable markets but I agree with the commentary below (despite being dated) that the league should look to contract somewhat by simply improving the product like letting Phoenix go to Quebec etc. I'm sure Biron would pay to play for Quebec and would flourish when he played Montreal only...
Quote:
In the wake of a Stanley Cup playoffs that broke records for irrelevance and low ratings, with empty seats in both new and established markets, coming off the infamous “Preakness Game” that highlighted the worst TV package in sports, the worst commissioner in sports and the lingering hangover from two suicidal lockouts, what does the NHL think is the answer?
Expansion.
If this wasn’t the NHL, we’d think it was a joke. But as the Sports Business Journal reported, the league is moving toward adding a 31st and 32nd franchise in those noted hockey hotbeds of Las Vegas and Kansas City.
Yes, that ought to do it.
Hey, instead of trying to fix the apathy in your current markets, why not add new ones. Las Vegas may be good news for Janet Gretzky and Rick Tocchet, but since the NHL can’t beat Law & Order reruns, what chance does it have against The Strip?
Look, if the league wants to further strangle itself with expansion, why not Chicago? It hasn’t had a team since Bill Wirtz disbanded the Blackhawks in the mid-1990s.
Only the NHL could even dream this stuff up. The league needs to contract, not expand. It needs to improve the product, not disperse the talent, dilute rivalries and provide another slap at the game’s tradition.
No offense to Vegas and KC, but we've seen this act before. The few million in expansion fees isn't worth adding a couple more cities that aren’t all that interested in hockey, save the core of 10-15,000 fans who will still be paying attention once the novelty wears off.
As for Commissioner Gary Bettman, well, he hasn’t overseen many good ideas in his first 15 years on the job. At this point our only hope is that his various disasters in leadership were part of a secret 16-year plan and good things are about to happen.
From the article linked to above.. I think it still has some relevancy..
Quote:
This is being driven by the league’s Board of Governors (owners) who could care less about the long-term health of the league as long as they get guaranteed profit and a tax boondoggle.
Forget the best interests of the NHL; the owners want to expand so they can execute a quick money grab.
As Eric Duhatschek points out in Canada’s Globe and Mail, the rumored expansion fee is $150 million per franchise and the owners don’t have to share that revenue with the players.
This sounds like a lot, but per owner it is only about $10 million before taxes. For the mega rich – some of these guys are billionaires – that’s nothing. Besides, rampant expansion to small and non-traditional markets is what forced the league to have to fight for the salary cap that shut down the entire 2004-05 season and helped create this mess. The expansion money was Fool’s Gold then. It’s no different now.
The inherent problem is the NHL is owned and run by too many people with no respect for the game or the fans.
From the article linked to above.. I think it still has some relevancy..
Does all of this still apply right now? Please correct me if I am wrong but Nashville and Chicago have fans coming to their games now. Florida fans are starting to show up since they are winning. Dallas and Columbus should attract more fans to the games and get higher TV ratings with the new realignment. Once the Islanders finally approve a new stadium they should be fine. I completely agree that Phoenix needs to move because even though they have a playoff team, the stadium is only filled to 62.3% capacity. What happens if they start playing terribly? Clearly, no one is interested in hockey in Phoenix. Move them to Quebec where they will thrive, case closed.
If Bettman's goal is to make hockey popular while making the most profit, then it's in the NHL's best interest to expand to as many markets as possible. Versus will be re-named to NBC Sports Network in a month and I believe there will be much more/better coverage of hockey on the network. This should lead to higher ratings. Kansas City has a brand new stadium to use and I could see either Vegas or Seattle building a new stadium for the NHL. Move Columbus to our division and you've got 4 equal divisions of 8 based on geographic locations:
Pacific: Seattle/Las Vegas
Central: Kansas City
Atlantic: Columbus
Northeast: Quebec
The only downfall I see is the dilution of talent and winning the cup becomes harder. Other than that, I'm all for expansion.
Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the NHL making the most money it's ever made and has the highest ratings ever right now? If so, what's to stop the league from expanding?
Last edited by MrHockey1982: 12-07-2011 at 10:35 AM.
Reason: Added question
Does all of this still apply right now? Please correct me if I am wrong but Nashville and Chicago have fans coming to their games now. Florida fans are starting to show up since they are winning. Dallas and Columbus should attract more fans to the games and get higher TV ratings with the new realignment. Once the Islanders finally approve a new stadium they should be fine. I completely agree that Phoenix needs to move because even though they have a playoff team, the stadium is only filled to 62.3% capacity. What happens if they start playing terribly? Clearly, no one is interested in hockey in Phoenix. Move them to Quebec where they will thrive, case closed.
If Bettman's goal is to make hockey popular while making the most profit, then it's in the NHL's best interest to expand to as many markets as possible. Versus will be re-named to NBC Sports Network in a month and I believe there will be much more/better coverage of hockey on the network. This should lead to higher ratings. Kansas City has a brand new stadium to use and I could see either Vegas or Seattle building a new stadium for the NHL. Move Columbus to our division and you've got 4 equal divisions of 8 based on geographic locations:
Pacific: Seattle/Las Vegas
Central: Kansas City
Atlantic: Columbus
Northeast: Quebec
The only downfall I see is the dilution of talent and winning the cup becomes harder. Other than that, I'm all for expansion.
Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the NHL making the most money it's ever made and has the highest ratings ever right now? If so, what's to stop the league from expanding?
While you make good points and yes as I noted the article is dated but I still think some of his points have relevancy considering we're not exactly in the best of economic times. Hockey of course is more of a niche market and caters to people of better means and that helps but just feel the NHL would do better to consolidate their gains as they are doing (realignment helps) rather than possibly dilute them. A team in Las Vegas would be utterly assanine and typical of what has been going own with the casino economy we have these days. Just my opinion. I like the NHL as is (even with realignment) and would like the league to ensure its sustainability...
While you make good points and yes as I noted the article is dated but I still think some of his points have relevancy considering we're not exactly in the best of economic times. Hockey of course is more of a niche market and caters to people of better means and that helps but just feel the NHL would do better to consolidate their gains as they are doing (realignment helps) rather than possibly dilute them. A team in Las Vegas would be utterly assanine and typical of what has been going own with the casino economy we have these days. Just my opinion. I like the NHL as is (even with realignment) and would like the league to ensure its sustainability...
OK so what two teams would you retract? Phoenix and Columbus? What happens to the players of teams that contract?
Wouldn't necessarily retract...that word maybe applied back when that guy made his commentary. Like I said I would consolidate the gains at this point and not try to overshoot. Moving teams as opposed to introducing new ones would be more prudent IMO. I like the realignment for the most part..just against expansion.
Wouldn't necessarily retract...that word maybe applied back when that guy made his commentary. Like I said I would consolidate the gains at this point and not try to overshoot. Moving teams as opposed to introducing new ones would be more prudent IMO. I like the realignment for the most part..just against expansion.
Yea but the realignment only works ifeventually eventually all the divisions have an equal amount of teams. Otherwise it's unfair to make the playoffs in certain divisions
If we move pheonix to seattle(west conference) add kc to the detroit conference add quebec to boston conference and move cbj to our conference thats 8-8-8-8.
... maybe i should run for republican nominee. "8-8-8-8"
If we move pheonix to seattle(west conference) add kc to the detroit conference add quebec to boston conference and move cbj to our conference thats 8-8-8-8.
... maybe i should run for republican nominee. "8-8-8-8"
I explained this earlier. Only that Phoenix would have to move to Quebec since they are the only city with a suitable stadium for hockey currently.
Edit: Actually Kansas City has a suitable stadium too
Last edited by MrHockey1982: 12-07-2011 at 12:52 PM.
Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the NHL making the most money it's ever made and has the highest ratings ever right now? If so, what's to stop the league from expanding?
They said the same thing back when the rangers won the cup, about the same time the cheaper teams were starting to trap the game into oblivion and then we got more expansion and relocation of teams to non-hockey markets, then another lockout. Theoretically the cap and the new rules should prevent this, but you are still diluting a product.
With the failure of the thrashers, it seems they have backed away from the if you built it fans will come, to show me the fans and then we'll come. Which means more teams back in canada, which is great, and they don't have the exchange rate issues of the pre-collapse days. Hamilton(comcast) and quebec do make sense.
The rumors are flying around that the NHL plans to expand in the next few seasons with an additional two teams. The last expansion in 2000 each team could protect 1 goalie, 5 dman, & 9 forwards OR 2 goalies, 3 dman, & 7 forwards. So for fun (and hypothetically) who would you protect on the current flyers roster? IMO It's not that easy...
With the failure of the thrashers, it seems they have backed away from the if you built it fans will come, to show me the fans and then we'll come. Which means more teams back in canada, which is great, and they don't have the exchange rate issues of the pre-collapse days. Hamilton(comcast) and quebec do make sense.
Exactly..such a scenario of expansion would be a bit more sustainable but Kansas and Las Vegas...puhhhleeeze! Vegas is a basket case of sorts ever since the RE market collapsed out there. Their economy wasn't diversified..too much emphasis on RE and entertainment. Not much else productive....Vegas can use less "circuses" heck this goes for the whole country where it seems our growth industries for revenue are casinos and prisons...
Exactly..such a scenario of expansion would be a bit more sustainable but Kansas and Las Vegas...puhhhleeeze! Vegas is a basket case of sorts ever since the RE market collapsed out there. Their economy wasn't diversified..too much emphasis on RE and entertainment. Not much else productive....Vegas can use less "circuses" heck this goes for the whole country where it seems our growth industries for revenue are casinos and prisons...
OK guys but what chance is there that that Phoenix does NOT relocate? I can't see them staying in Phoenix. In that case, there will have to be a new team in a US city unless they just move to Quebec and have 15 teams in each conference which will leave the divisions unbalanced. I don't see that happening.
I would be psyched on expansion. I think if they do add two teams they should put them in real markets though. No more experiments. But if they try and put a team in Vegas or KC I'd be ok with that too. As far as who I would keep in an expansion draft, I think it would be pretty much the same guys everyone is saying.
