Irishjim Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Reports are flying all over the place that the NHL will be adding up to 4 teams by 2017 in Seattle (yay!), Las Vegas (eh!), Toronto (sure!), and Quebec (why not!). This will net the owners 1.4 billion dollars in expansion fees, which is nice for them and I'm sure they'll use that money for something other than buying orphans to drink their blood. B-Positive.Anyways, intrepid commenter Arenacale pointed out that, if this comes to fruition, we'll have an EXPANSION DRAFT! Expansion drafts are fun because you get to protect some amount of players on your team and make the new teams pick from your less-good players. The most recent expansion draft, in 2000, had rules as such: read the full article here----> http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2014/8/27/6073695/nhl-expansion-draft-seattle-quebec-toronto-las-vegas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 @Irishjim If those rules are they way they go this time around, it becomes imperative that the Flyers put Stolarz in net 10 times this year. Same for many teams, this would assure kids like Subban in Boston, Gibson on the Ducks etc, etc, all get a 10 game try out, which could drive up the goals for in the coming season in theory. I'm sure a LOT of teams would want to get a look at their young tenders of the future, see what they have at the NHL level and give them options for protecting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I know the commish and his cronies don't like to have news leak out, but in fairness to the teams, the owners need to know ahead of time what the expansion draft rules are so that they have time to prepare for it. The goalie rule of the last one is a perfect example of why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 What. The. ****. How about contraction?1) Florida Panthers (I'd prefer a relocation of this franchise to be honest)2) Phoenix/NHL/Glendale/Arizona Coyotes3) Tampa Bay Lightning (Again, I'd prefer a relocation)4) Ottawa Senators5) Buffalo Sabres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 How about contraction? 4) Ottawa Senators *readies crossbow* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 *readies crossbow* Meh. Fill your arena and buy more stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 What. The. ****. How about contraction?1) Florida Panthers (I'd prefer a relocation of this franchise to be honest)2) Phoenix/NHL/Glendale/Arizona Coyotes3) Tampa Bay Lightning (Again, I'd prefer a relocation)4) Ottawa Senators5) Buffalo Sabres I don't think ottawa and Buffalo belong on that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I don't think ottawa and Buffalo belong on that list. They really don't. I didn't look at Buffalo's attendance stats, but I checked attendance percentage for Ottawa as far back as ESPN had the stats, which was (I think) 2005-06. Last season, our home attendance was 94.5%. That was the lowest number of any season. Many teams would LOVE to have that as their high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I don't think ottawa and Buffalo belong on that list. It was a little bit of a stretch, but I wanted five to spite the NHL's +4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 It was a little bit of a stretch, but I wanted five to spite the NHL's +4. I will wholeheartedly agree that 4 new teams is too many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 They really don't. I didn't look at Buffalo's attendance stats, but I checked attendance percentage for Ottawa as far back as ESPN had the stats, which was (I think) 2005-06. Last season, our home attendance was 94.5%. That was the lowest number of any season. Many teams would LOVE to have that as their high. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Under+Eugene+Melnyk+Senators+have+lost+million/8799118/story.html But some members of the syndicate had decided to get out of the business of lending to sports teams and others were concerned by the extent of the Senators’ debt load, which is approaching 50 per cent of the estimated $300-million value of the team and the arena. This is high, even by the standards of the NHL On Melnyk’s decade-long watch, they say, the team has generated a grand total of just $6 million on operations — that is, total revenues minus the costs associated with paying and moving the players, advertising and managing the arena. After subtracting items unrelated to operations — such as interest on the team’s debt and capital expenditures to keep the arena up-to-date — Melnyk has had to absorb cumulative cash losses of $94 million. In short, he is losing an average of $9 million to $10 million a year. And this excludes the additional interest and fees related to the debt extensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 4 doesn't make a lot of sense, as you only need two to give each division the same number of teams. What I think is going on is a likely relocation of 2 / addition of 2, with the two new teams balancing out the conferences. It was all but stated definitively when realignment happened that there would be two new teams to balance it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Under+Eugene+Melnyk+Senators+have+lost+million/8799118/story.html I'm not going to defend Melnyk one bit. I can't stand the man. He has treated the team as little more than a play thing since he bought it. I'm also not a fan of Bryan Murray as GM. I want a new owner and GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I'm not going to defend Melnyk one bit. I can't stand the man. He has treated the team as little more than a play thing since he bought it. I'm also not a fan of Bryan Murray as GM. I want a new owner and GM. It's not just Melnyk, it's the health of the franchise over the last 10+ years. 2003 was the bankruptcy year IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 @ScottM From what I understand, one of the big problems the Sens are facing is the location of their new arena. It's a decent drive for most fans, not convenient at all....which is kinda what you are shooting for, no? This is a tragic mistake that cannot be undone. People are creatures of habit, and most are not in the habit of driving a few hours out of their way to attend a game....the ride home would be a huge hassle, and it makes it so the die hards can't drink at the games either....which does not help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 The management has been bad for many years; I will freely admit that, and building the arena in Kanata was a terrible idea.This is another one of those things I don't know the answer to, (as far as fixing the mistakes that have been made), but I don't think you can just not have a team in Ottawa. I know a new owner and general manager would not completely solve the problem, but I think that replacing both of them would help. By the way, I may not be doing a very good job of it, but I seriously am trying to be as unbiased as I can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Edit: I accidentally double posted. I was fighting with my phone trying to get it to post with the 4G cutting in and out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0e Th0rnton Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Here's a question. Do players with No trade clauses and No movement clauses HAVE to be protected? Or do they become fair game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0e Th0rnton Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 As to the original question, I would pick 1 goaltender, 5 defensemen and 9 forwards. The 2 goaltenders, 3 defensemen and 7 forwards sounds stupid. Honestly, who has 2 dynamite goalie prospects so good they would do that? Since this is 2017 we are talking about, ill assume everyone in the Sharks prospect pool worth a damn will qualify by then. Anyone with 2 year's pro experience can be nabbed. Which sucks. But with that in mind(Assuming the prospects I list have begun to blossom and none of the vets fall off a cliff in the next 2 years), 9 Forwards I would Protect, Thornton, Couture, Pavelski, Hertl, Nieto, Goldobin, Wingels, Tierney and Marleau. 5 defensemen I would protect are Burns, Vlasic, Braun, Demers, Mueller Goalie, Stalock. Duh. So much can change in 2 years though. Free agents of 2017 are probably happy. They can't be drafted and can resign with anyone after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Here's a question. Do players with No trade clauses and No movement clauses HAVE to be protected? Or do they become fair game? Here's the restriction on a no-move clause from the CBA: "A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim. A no-move clause, however, may not restrict the Club's Buy-Out and termination rights as set forth in this Agreement." Elsewhere in the CBA, expansion drafts are specifically mentioned in regards to player transfers. Since it's not mentioned here, it could be argued that they may, in fact, be exposed in the expansion draft. However, You couldn't leave them unprotected in previous drafts (unless they agreed to it), so it'll probably stay that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 who has 2 dynamite goalie prospects so good they would do that? Right off the top of my head, Boston and Anaheim, but there may be more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Assuming that we're looking at expansion in two years (summer 2016), here's how I would go. With the current forward core, the Flyers are pretty much trapped into only protecting one goalie. I'm assuming players with NMC/NTCs will need to be protected, and that RFAs will be re-signed: Goalie (1): Protect: Mason Exposed: Stolarz, Zepp Defense (5): Protect: Coburn (UFA), Pronger, Hagg, Gostisbehere, MacDonald/Alt Exposed: Schenn (UFA), Grossmann (UFA), Streit, MacDonald/Alt Hagg and Ghost are going to have two pro years under their belts. Coburn is currently the Flyers' best Dman. Pronger has an NMC. There's one spot left for MacDonald, Alt or someone else that may come along. Forwards (9): Protect: Giroux, Lecavalier, Simmonds, Umberger, Voracek, Couturier, Schenn, Read, Laughton Exposed: Raffl, Akeson, Rinaldo, Cousins, Leier Umberger and Vinny's NMCs hurt, because the Flyers will be forced to protect them, and make decisions regarding Akeson, Raffl, Schenn, Read, and Laughton. I kept the players I felt have the best upside (Schenn, Read, Laughton), but I'd rather move or buy out Vinny and Umberger after this season if Akeson and Raffl shine and keep all five. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0e Th0rnton Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Right off the top of my head, Boston and Anaheim, but there may be more.Look at the reverse though.Only being able to protect 3 defensemen and 7 forwards? Including those in the system with more than 2 years pro experience? Instead of 5 defensemen and 9 forwards? You are essentially leaving 4 players unprotected for the price of 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0e Th0rnton Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Assuming that we're looking at expansion in two years (summer 2016), here's how I would go. With the current forward core, the Flyers are pretty much trapped into only protecting one goalie. I'm assuming players with NMC/NTCs will need to be protected, and that RFAs will be re-signed: Goalie (1): Protect: Mason Exposed: Stolarz, Zepp Defense (5): Protect: Coburn (UFA), Pronger, Hagg, Gostisbehere, MacDonald/Alt Exposed: Schenn (UFA), Grossmann (UFA), Streit, MacDonald/Alt Hagg and Ghost are going to have two pro years under their belts. Coburn is currently the Flyers' best Dman. Pronger has an NMC. There's one spot left for MacDonald, Alt or someone else that may come along. Forwards (9): Protect: Giroux, Lecavalier, Simmonds, Umberger, Voracek, Couturier, Schenn, Read, Laughton Exposed: Raffl, Akeson, Rinaldo, Cousins, Leier Umberger and Vinny's NMCs hurt, because the Flyers will be forced to protect them, and make decisions regarding Akeson, Raffl, Schenn, Read, and Laughton. I kept the players I felt have the best upside (Schenn, Read, Laughton), but I'd rather move or buy out Vinny and Umberger after this season if Akeson and Raffl shine and keep all five.Could he waive it from retirement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 He's not retired, and can't or else the Flyers take his cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.