THN looks at who teams might put in their "protected" lists for a potential expansion draft (based on the rules in place for the 2000 expansion draft).
Regarding the Sharks' potential strategy:
Quote:
SAN JOSE: The Sharks have one of the league’s deepest defense corps, so there was never much doubt they’d protect just one goalie (Antti Niemi) and five d-men. However, we presumed the presence of solid veterans Brent Burns, Dan Boyle, Marc-Edouard Vlasic, Brad Stuart and Douglas Murray on the blueline would leave GM Doug Wilson no choice but to leave youngsters Jason Demers and Justin Braun unprotected. This is another instance in which Wilson very likely would make a transaction or two that allowed him to retain the services of one or both Demers and Braun or landed him a prospect or draft pick. Absent that taking place, this is the way we see things shaking out.
Protected lists do not include any prospects still exempt from waivers (e.g., Stalock, Stalberg, Doherty).
First, Murray and Handzus would be UFAs, IIRC. And I don't know that the Sharks would protect either.
So, if there are a couple of expansion teams (so the league can go to four conferences of 8 teams), who do you think the Sharks would protect? Who might they trade (from exempt prospects) to protect guys?
Why would the Sharks protect Murray or even Stuart for that matter? Replace them with Braun and Demers. Replace Burish and Handzus with Desjardins and Galiardi.
I'm more curious as to which cities would get the expansions. Personally I hope Seattle gets one, I feel like that the region would be prime for such. Plus the cross-border rivalry would be wicked fun to watch grow between Van and Sea
I'm more curious as to which cities would get the expansions. Personally I hope Seattle gets one, I feel like that the region would be prime for such. Plus the cross-border rivalry would be wicked fun to watch grow between Van and Sea
It would probably be Quebec City and Seattle if they go that route but I'd like to see Houston get a franchise too for the natural rivalry between Houston and Dallas.
WRT NHL there are two criteria for expansion, relocation.
First, there has to be an arena ready to go and/or firm plans to break ground on NHL-caliber arena. (Kansas City, Seattle, QC and Markham, ON fit that bill "today". Las Vegas is often mentioned, but there are a lot of hoops politically to jump through to build arena. Portland, OR is mentioned, but NBA owner Allen does not seem to be amenable to sharing his venue with a NHL team.)
Second, you have to an owner. KC is not really interested in adding NHL tenant (they're happy with status quo). There's one who's expressed interest for QC. Haven't seen one for Markham, Seattle. Buckheimer (aka CSI, etc.) has been mentioned as a potential owner for Vegas.
(FTR, there are half a dozen active threads on BOH for the potential locations including "megathreads" for QC, Markham and Seattle.)
The only way I can see expansion being possible is if the core economics of the game vastly changed, and the owners used it as a carrot to get the players to sign a CBA to get them there. It's interesting because you do add more players into the mix, and more player employment has to be a good thing for the Union, but long term you'd have to wonder if it would be cutting too much of the pie away to sustain 32 teams and if it really would be better for the 'greater good'.
Is there actual talk of expansion in lockout talks, or is this just a lockout induced, 'we've got nothing else to talk about' article? It's pretty nifty either way.
The only way I can see expansion being possible is if the core economics of the game vastly changed, and the owners used it as a carrot to get the players to sign a CBA to get them there. It's interesting because you do add more players into the mix, and more player employment has to be a good thing for the Union, but long term you'd have to wonder if it would be cutting too much of the pie away to sustain 32 teams and if it really would be better for the 'greater good'.
Is there actual talk of expansion in lockout talks, or is this just a lockout induced, 'we've got nothing else to talk about' article? It's pretty nifty either way.
The owners won't give away the expansion fees.
It isn't so much the core economics. KevFu has made some very strong points on the BOH forum about there always being havenot teams within the recently expired CBA structure. My wish would be that they would not do as they have in the past. Many talk about watering down playing talent. The real scarcity lies in the hockeyops and business talent in the league. They need GM training and they need to re-evaluate what acceptable arena deals are. And they desperately need to support new owners when they accept their expansion fees.
Sorry, THN. It was a little early for me. Typical THN
