Seattle Changes Everything for the Flyers

[King Knut]

In The Spring of 2020 the Flyers are very likely to lose one of Sanheim, Myers, or Morin in the expansion draft.  Hagg also, but if you could choose between Myers or Sanheim, you're not worrying about Hagg.

It's also slightly possible they could lose Voracek or Simmonds(if he's resigned), less tragic to Flyers fans, but Damn, that's getting a VERY good player for NOTHING. 

It's presumed they'd protect Hart, so that makes me kind of assume we'd have seen and will probably expose Sandstrom by that point, but if not, then Stolarz or whoever they sign in between.   

 

Now if I'm looking at that list, I'm zoning in on the D men.  It will be INCREDIBLY unfair to have to lose one of those three guys.  Hysterically unfair.  So unfair I won't know what to do about it.  

There likely won't be ANYTHING Hextall can do about it other than trade two D men ahead of time rather than losing them for nothing.  This is insanely unfair.  

 

It's unfair to the Flyers, and it's unfair to the fans of other Expansion teams who have simply not had the benefit of such generous draft rules.  I mean it's literally made the expansion team this the cup finalist and favorite to win.

 

Certainly they can ease off a little bit can't they?  Good lord this is unreasonable.  

 

[brelic]

52 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Certainly they can ease off a little bit can't they?  Good lord this is unreasonable.  

 

Totally agree. It's patently unfair. Of course, don't forget that the owners had to vote to accept expansion in the first place, and ratify the rules of expansion. So, there's that. 

 

On the one hand, I get it. The league has a vested interest in making an expansion team competitive as soon as possible even at the expense of other teams. Flyers fans aren't going anywhere - we're well rooted. But Vegas 'fans' might evaporate if they go through 5 years of bad to meh hockey. So I get the 'urgency' in that sense... Although I highly doubt the league imagined this scenario even as their 'best case'.

 

On the other hand, though, my personal feelings are that the league would be better served by contraction rather than expansion. Take away like 6 teams. Coyotoes, Isles, Sabres, Panthers, Stars, Canes. I think overall you'd end up with a much better product on the ice. 

 

All that to say that, yes, in all likelihood we will lose a player we don't want to lose, and we'll be predictably pi$$ed about it lol. But I'm sure Hextall can make some moves between now and then to maximize return on a player we'd likely lose, and get a return that is protected from expansion (prospect, pick, whatever). Fill the slot with an unprotected vet, and voila. Making the best of a crappy situation.

 

 

 

[AJgoal]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

In The Spring of 2020 the Flyers are very likely to lose one of Sanheim, Myers, or Morin in the expansion draft.  Hagg also, but if you could choose between Myers or Sanheim, you're not worrying about Hagg.

It's also slightly possible they could lose Voracek or Simmonds(if he's resigned), less tragic to Flyers fans, but Damn, that's getting a VERY good player for NOTHING. 

It's presumed they'd protect Hart, so that makes me kind of assume we'd have seen and will probably expose Sandstrom by that point, but if not, then Stolarz or whoever they sign in between.   

 

Now if I'm looking at that list, I'm zoning in on the D men.  It will be INCREDIBLY unfair to have to lose one of those three guys.  Hysterically unfair.  So unfair I won't know what to do about it.  

There likely won't be ANYTHING Hextall can do about it other than trade two D men ahead of time rather than losing them for nothing.  This is insanely unfair.  

 

It's unfair to the Flyers, and it's unfair to the fans of other Expansion teams who have simply not had the benefit of such generous draft rules.  I mean it's literally made the expansion team this the cup finalist and favorite to win.

 

Certainly they can ease off a little bit can't they?  Good lord this is unreasonable.  

 

 

On the other hand, this is a good problem to have. Remember last year, trying to figure out who was worth protecting on the Flyers' roster? Next time around, there's going to be a segment of the fanbase that's pissed off no matter who they protect.

 

ETA: I think if I'm the Flyers, I would definitely consider utilizing the 8/1. Protect Giroux, Couturier, Patrick, Konecny, Myers, Sanheim, Ghost, Provorov, Hart. 

[King Knut]

14 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

Totally agree. It's patently unfair. Of course, don't forget that the owners had to vote to accept expansion in the first place, and ratify the rules of expansion. So, there's that. 

 

On the one hand, I get it. The league has a vested interest in making an expansion team competitive as soon as possible even at the expense of other teams. Flyers fans aren't going anywhere - we're well rooted. But Vegas 'fans' might evaporate if they go through 5 years of bad to meh hockey. So I get the 'urgency' in that sense... Although I highly doubt the league imagined this scenario even as their 'best case'.

 

On the other hand, though, my personal feelings are that the league would be better served by contraction rather than expansion. Take away like 6 teams. Coyotoes, Isles, Sabres, Panthers, Stars, Canes. I think overall you'd end up with a much better product on the ice. 

 

All that to say that, yes, in all likelihood we will lose a player we don't want to lose, and we'll be predictably pi$$ed about it lol. But I'm sure Hextall can make some moves between now and then to maximize return on a player we'd likely lose, and get a return that is protected from expansion (prospect, pick, whatever). Fill the slot with an unprotected vet, and voila. Making the best of a crappy situation.

 

I'm with you on contraction.  My only hope is that they'll readjust the draft rules a tad.  I don't know that the league intended to make Vegas this good this quickly and they might ease off a bit for Seattle.  Maybe they'll let teams protect a 4th D man or protect 9 players outright or something like that.

 

It's bad enough that we got stuck with Neuvirth for two more years because of the expansion draft, I can't imagine losing a good D man under 25 to an effing expansion team that probably shouldn't exist.

 

I'm still not sure how Quebec got leap frogged again other than that they're in the east (send Columbus and Detroit packing to the west for goodness sakes, who cares?)

 

If nothing changes and all those D men are looking promising, the Flyers could simply choose to protect 8 players outright in order to keep as many of them as possible.

 

But that leaves 3-4 spots for forwards and a goalie and Giroux has to be one of them, so if they choose to protect their good young D men and Hart, then they can only really protect 3 forwards (Presumably, Coots, TK and Patrick at this point) but that exposes Lindblom in addition to Jake, Simmer (if resigned) and whatever 3C they sign this off season.

 

IMHO, this almost requires that Frost doesn't make the NHL this year no matter how good he is.  at least then if he doesn't rookie until 2019, he won't be eligible and hence won't need to be protected.

 

The crazy wacky thing I'm thinking now is this:

What if they say "To Hell With It!" and trade one or two of the young D men for Karlsson, sign Tavares and trade whatever other pieces they need to to make the cap work, try to acquire Crawford from the blackhawks and just go all in on the cup NEXT YEAR.

 

 

 

 

[ruxpin]

If it's like last time, is there some minimum games played or time served or something for eligibility?  Seems dumb to me to wait on Hart solely for this purpose, but I don't know whether he'll be ready for 19-20 anyway. So keep him down and protect Sandstrom. Is that even plausible? 

 

In any case, the timing will be horrible for the defense. I don't remember how it works well enough to even suggest an out. But years of work will be undermined just about the time we're ready to see fruits just because the league wants to over bloat itself some more. 

 

And yes, I'm still in favor of contraction. 

[elmatus]

25 minutes ago, brelic said:

But Vegas 'fans' might evaporate if they go through 5 years of bad to meh hockey

 

You mean they will evaporate. I suppose it's possible Vegas can buck the trend, but it would be doing just that. Tampa Bay has been a remarkably successful team for the better part of two decades now, and they can barely fill the seats many evenings during the season.

 

Is Vegas different? No other pro sports teams? Tourist vibes? I don't know, but it wouldn't be silly to assume they'll be more like Arizona than LA.

 

The league wants expansion to places like Vegas because of money, not because of fans. Jacobs commented on the future of expansion teams the other day. He noted it's more likely Houston would get an expansion team over Quebec City. The Houston population is more intriguing than a rabid fan base north of the border, presumably because it would bring in more money in the end.

 

Fans love hockey because hockey. NHL franchise owners love hockey because money. I'm not sure how that works out in places where the teams lose money each year, but it must work somehow.

[King Knut]

3 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

On the other hand, this is a goo problem to have. Remember last year, trying to figure out who was worth protecting on the Flyers' roster? Next time around, there's going to be a segment of the fanbase that's pissed off no matter who they protect.

 

 

What's the point of cultivating talent, drafting well and building a team "the right way" as opposed to the Homer/Clarke way if the league is just going to randomly take those home grown cultivated players from you at will?

 

I have big issues with this.  Vegas came along at a time when teams were still coming to terms with their cap mistakes of the past few years.  Vegas essentially got a good team because a bunch of half decent but not great players around the league were being overpaid and hence seen as expendable by their clubs (Pebbles being one of the exceptions who was actually overpaid specifically to try to keep Vegas from taking him).  In two years, there are going to be a LOT fewer highly overvalued players on rosters around the league.  The league is adjusting itself.

 

In two years, teams with good rosters are going to be forced to choose whether to give up their actual core players or their core players of the next 7 or 8 years as opposed to just their dead weight.

 

It didn't matter for the Flyers last year because they cold protect everything good.  But the league is correcting it's cap hit bubbles and a lot of those contracts are running out this and next season.  

 

Think about it... Vegas has exactly 5 players under contract past the 2020 season in which the Seattle draft will take place.  They may win a cup this year, but they're literally losing half their team this year and half the rest next year.  

 

Because of the simple fact that teams are getting smarter about contract lengths and cap hits, Seattle has a very good chance not not just being as good as Vegas was this year, but significantly better for the next 5 plus years than Vegas will be simply because so many of Vegas' contracts will be running out and so many potential Seattle picks COULD be good talented RFAs. 

 

They really have to rethink this, unless opening a new franchise is just going to be a license to win a cup from now on.  

[King Knut]

6 minutes ago, elmatus said:

 

You mean they will evaporate. I suppose it's possible Vegas can buck the trend, but it would be doing just that. Tampa Bay has been a remarkably successful team for the better part of two decades now, and they can barely fill the seats many evenings during the season.

 

Is Vegas different? No other pro sports teams? Tourist vibes? I don't know, but it wouldn't be silly to assume they'll be more like Arizona than LA.

 

The league wants expansion to places like Vegas because of money, not because of fans. Jacobs commented on the future of expansion teams the other day. He noted it's more likely Houston would get an expansion team over Quebec City. The Houston population is more intriguing than a rabid fan base north of the border, presumably because it would bring in more money in the end.

 

Fans love hockey because hockey. NHL franchise owners love hockey because money. I'm not sure how that works out in places where the teams lose money each year, but it must work somehow.

 

Forgive the remedial question here, but I'm really confused as to how a franchise in Houston that can't fill seats (kinda like the one in Arizona or the ones in Florida) become more of a money maker than one that would sell out in Quebec?

 

It's apparently the case.  I'm not arguing that.  I'm not arguing at all.  I'm really confused by it.  It seems that with profit sharing and, expansion drafts tv rights dilution and the rest of it, these teams SHOULD just be a drain on the rest of the league.  Instead the rest of the league keeps voting to expand.  why is that?

[AJgoal]

19 minutes ago, elmatus said:

 

You mean they will evaporate. I suppose it's possible Vegas can buck the trend, but it would be doing just that. Tampa Bay has been a remarkably successful team for the better part of two decades now, and they can barely fill the seats many evenings during the season.

 

Tampa has been at 100% attendance for the past three years. They haven't dipped below 96% since 2010-2011. In contrast, the Flyers went below 100% twice in the past 3 years. 

 

Quote

Is Vegas different? No other pro sports teams? Tourist vibes? I don't know, but it wouldn't be silly to assume they'll be more like Arizona than LA.

 

Arizona and Ottawa are terrible comparisons because of simple geography. Neither stadium is convenient to anywhere. Vegas' arena is on the strip, connected to a casino, and within walking distance of the entire downtown. It will be kept full by the casinos, if nothing else.

 

Quote

 

The league wants expansion to places like Vegas because of money, not because of fans. Jacobs commented on the future of expansion teams the other day. He noted it's more likely Houston would get an expansion team over Quebec City. The Houston population is more intriguing than a rabid fan base north of the border, presumably because it would bring in more money in the end.

 

Fans love hockey because hockey. NHL franchise owners love hockey because money. I'm not sure how that works out in places where the teams lose money each year, but it must work somehow.

 

It's about ad markets. Plain and simple. Houston having a team means ad sales in Houston. It's not about money "for the team." It's about money for the NHL (Edit per my other post: ie, the Owners).

[brelic]

5 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

Forgive the remedial question here, but I'm really confused as to how a franchise in Houston that can't fill seats (kinda like the one in Arizona or the ones in Florida) become more of a money maker than one that would sell out in Quebec?

 

It's apparently the case.  I'm not arguing that.  I'm not arguing at all.  I'm really confused by it.  It seems that with profit sharing and, expansion drafts tv rights dilution and the rest of it, these teams SHOULD just be a drain on the rest of the league.  Instead the rest of the league keeps voting to expand.  why is that?

 

I think it has to do with corporate sponsorship. Bottom line, Houston has more corporate dollars than Quebec City does. At least that's my take on it. 

 

But half the teams in the league are unprofitable... so owning a sports franchise is not really about money directly from that franchise. It's from other sources. Put another way, there are WAY more profitable ways to spend $450M dollars than buying a hockey team. 

[elmatus]

1 minute ago, King Knut said:

 

Forgive the remedial question here, but I'm really confused as to how a franchise in Houston that can't fill seats (kinda like the one in Arizona or the ones in Florida) become more of a money maker than one that would sell out in Quebec?

 

It's apparently the case.  I'm not arguing that.  I'm not arguing at all.  I'm really confused by it.  It seems that with profit sharing and, expansion drafts tv rights dilution and the rest of it, these teams SHOULD just be a drain on the rest of the league.  Instead the rest of the league keeps voting to expand.  why is that?

 

I''m with you. I don't understand it. That's what Jacobs said though. He specifically referenced those two cities and listed population as the primary reason.

 

I'm not an economist of any kind, so anything I have to say on the matter should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Metro Houston has a pop of 6.3 million according to wiki. QC has about 800k. I imagine the difference in dollar values between both countries is also a factor. Somewhere in all that math, the league seems to believe there is more money to be made in Houston than in QC.

 

It's possible they're looking at some sort of spill over effect. Maybe they assume growing the sport anywhere in the southern US is likely to benefit growth in other southern US cities. I'm not sure that argument holds much water, but I guess it's possible.

 

It's an odd thing for sure. As a hockey fan, I can't imagine the logic of putting a team in Houston of Quebec City. There are no other pro sports teams in QC, and the population of 800k there live for hockey above any other sport by a significant margin. I'm not sure how that compares to Houston where the sport would be mostly an exotic attraction for football, baseball, basketball fans.

 

It's almost like putting Jori Lehtera out on the ice in the third period when you're leading by one, because he's a veteran and the safe play. It makes about that much sense to me.

[AJgoal]

7 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

What's the point of cultivating talent, drafting well and building a team "the right way" as opposed to the Homer/Clarke way if the league is just going to randomly take those home grown cultivated players from you at will?

 

It's not random."The League," is the owners. The OWNERS  said this is what we want, and this is what we're willing to give up to get what we want. The owners voted unanimously to take $500 million from Vegas for a team, do you think it's going to not be unanimous in accepting $650 million from Seattle?  

 

Does it suck as a fan? Yeah, it does. But stop acting like the League is treating the Flyers unfairly. The Flyers are likely to agree to play by these rules the same as every other team will.

[elmatus]

11 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

Tampa has been at 100% attendance for the past three years. They haven't dipped below 96% since 2010-2011. In contrast, the Flyers went below 100% twice in the past 3 years. 

 

This is an interesting stat... I'm not disputing it. I'm sure you took it from somewhere, but I have to wonder what it actually references.

 

I say that because, where I'm from, people very routinely go to Tampa to watch a game. They go down there and buy tickets for comparatively low prices, then spend the game wondering why the arena seems half empty. Granted, that's largely anecdotal on my part, but it's a very common refrain for folks around here.

 

Could those numbers be referencing ticket sales strictly? It's entirely possible there are a load of season ticket holders who just sell their tickets to canadian tourists all year long. The seat would be purchased but not full in this case, and it would make a lot of sense to me...

 

Hell, I'd do that if I were in Tampa.

 

It's also worth noting I'm sure the playoffs are a diff beast. I'm talking regular season.

[brelic]

22 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

If it's like last time, is there some minimum games played or time served or something for eligibility?  Seems dumb to me to wait on Hart solely for this purpose, but I don't know whether he'll be ready for 19-20 anyway. So keep him down and protect Sandstrom. Is that even plausible? 

 

In any case, the timing will be horrible for the defense. I don't remember how it works well enough to even suggest an out. But years of work will be undermined just about the time we're ready to see fruits just because the league wants to over bloat itself some more. 

 

And yes, I'm still in favor of contraction. 

 

So let's break this down, shall we?

 

Apparently the draft rules will be exactly the same for Seattle as they were for Vegas.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/seattles-possible-nhl-expansion-draft-rules-vegas/

 

Player protection

The 31 current teams will have two options to choose from when it comes to which players will be left exposed. Teams can (a) protect exactly seven forwards, three defencemen and one goalie or (b) protect eight total skaters regardless of position plus one goalie.

 

The vast majority of teams went with a standard 7-3-1 protection list ahead of the Vegas draft, however the Arizona Coyotes, Florida Panthers, Los Angeles Kings, Nashville Predators, New Jersey Devils and Pittsburgh Penguins each decided to protect four defencemen and four forwards, while the New York Islanders protected just three forwards and five blueliners.

 

Players with no-movement clauses will be protected automatically. Also, any first- or second-year professionals and all unsigned draft choices are exempt.

 

Player exposure

Every team must leave exposed at least one defenceman and two forwards that are under contract for the following season and played 40 or more NHL games the season prior (or have played in 70 or more total NHL games over the previous two seasons combined). Each team must also expose at least one goalie who is under contract for the following season or one that is a pending restricted free agent.

 

Players with career-threatening injuries or health issues that have missed at least 60 consecutive games (think Marian Hossa in Chicago) would not be allowed to count towards a team’s exposure requirements.

 

Player selection

Seattle would be required to select one player from each of the 31 teams, including a minimum of 20 players who are under contract for the next season. They’d also have to select a minimum of 14 forwards, nine defencemen and three goaltenders. Vegas ended up selecting 14 forwards, 13 defencemen and three goalies.

 

The total contractual value of the players selected would have to fall somewhere between 60 and 100 per cent of the previous season’s salary cap, and Seattle would not be allowed to buy out any contracts until the summer after its debut season.

 

NHL Draft Lottery odds

The Golden Knights were given the same odds as the team with the third-worst record the season prior (they ended up with the sixth-overall pick) and were slated to select third in rounds two through seven. Seattle would presumably be given the same odds.

[AJgoal]

6 minutes ago, elmatus said:

 

This is an interesting stat... I'm not disputing it. I'm sure you took it from somewhere, but I have to wonder what it actually references.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Hockey_League_attendance_figures

 

It's probably sales, not gate. Because I'll be honest, I haven't seen the WFC full to capacity when I've been there over the last several years, either. But sales are what matters from a viability standpoint.

 

6 minutes ago, elmatus said:

 

I say that because, where I'm from, people very routinely go to Tampa to watch a game. They go down there and buy tickets for comparatively low prices, then spend the game wondering why the arena seems half empty. Granted, that's largely anecdotal on my part, but it's a very common refrain for folks around here.

 

Could those numbers be referencing ticket sales strictly? It's entirely possible there are a load of season ticket holders who just sell their tickets to canadian tourists all year long. The seat would be purchased but not full in this case, and it would make a lot of sense to me...

 

Hell, I'd do that if I were in Tampa.

 

It's also worth noting I'm sure the playoffs are a diff beast. I'm talking regular season.

 

They're regular season numbers.

[elmatus]

2 minutes ago, brelic said:

Teams can (a) protect exactly seven forwards, three defencemen and one goalie or (b) protect eight total skaters regardless of position plus one goalie.

 

The kicker here of course is we're projecting on what the situation will be at that time. We may very well be wrong in our projections.

 

Option A:

Giroux, Voracek, Patrick, Couturier, TK, Lindblom +1

Provo, Ghost, Sanheim*

 

Note: I'm assuming Sanheim becomes the better of the three unknowns. If Myers becomes the second coming of Orr in the interim, then this changes obviously. I think Sanheim is the safest bet at this point. Also note we have an open spot left for a forward. I imagine someone like Vorobyev or Vex might be that seventh, but who knows. Seattle takes one of the young dmen or a depth forward (Vex, Vorobyev), depending on how they all develop.

 

Option B:

Giroux, Patrick, Couturier, TK

Provo, Ghost, Sanheim, Morin/Myers

 

Note: Trade Voracek prior to the expansion draft. Keep whichever of the two dmen seem the most likely to pan out at the NHL level. It's entirely possible one of the two simply won't be that guy, which obviously makes the decision easier. Seattle takes one of the exposed dmen or a depth forward as noted above.

 

Yeah, it sucks, but I'm not going to worry about it until we figure out what we've got. There are a lot of variables left.

[brelic]

Under those rules, Frost and Hart (and any other player not currently in the NHL/AHL) would be automatically exempt because they would be considered "first or second-year professionals," which includes NHL and AHL. So they could both play this year and next year in the NHL and be exempt.

 

For fun (protected in bold)

 

G/Coots/TK

Lindblom/Patrick/Voracek

Simmonds/Laughton/Weal

Raffl/Lehtera/Weise

Leier

 

Provorov/Ghost

Sanheim/MacDonald

Morin/Hagg

Gudas

 

Elliott/Lyon/Neuvirth

 

Of course, guys like Myers, NAK, Stolarz, Vecchione, Martel, etc, would all be unprotected.

 

ANd I know our roster will look very different in two years... but the players we choose to protect will probably be very similar.

 

[AJgoal]

Just now, elmatus said:

 

The kicker here of course is we're projecting on what the situation will be at that time. We may very well be wrong in our projections.

 

Option A:

Giroux, Voracek, Patrick, Couturier, TK, Lindblom +1

Provo, Ghost, Sanheim*

 

Note: I'm assuming Sanheim becomes the better of the three unknowns. If Myers becomes the second coming of Orr in the interim, then this changes obviously. I think Sanheim is the safest bet at this point. Also note we have an open spot left for a forward. I imagine someone like Vorobyev or Vex might be that seventh, but who knows. Seattle takes one of the young dmen or a depth forward (Vex, Vorobyev), depending on how they all develop.

 

 

Option C: 

 

Giroux, Voracek, Patrick, Couturier, TK, Lindblom +1

Provo, Myers, Sanheim*

 

Ghost plays wing for a season.

[elmatus]

7 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

But sales are what matters from a viability standpoint.

 

I think this is bang on. It also goes a long way towards understanding the Houston vs QC comment. I'm sure the league prefers when tickets are sold and seats are filled, but the most important of the two by far is the first part.

 

That said, Vegas is pretty well the definition of a tourist destination. If it can work in Tampa, it's highly probable it can work in Vegas too. In fact, now that we've talked about it, I fully expect this is exactly what will happen. Folks will purchase season tickets and just sell them to tourists, mostly Canadians. There is no shortage of Canadians going to Vegas.

 

21 minutes ago, brelic said:

I think it has to do with corporate sponsorship. Bottom line, Houston has more corporate dollars than Quebec City does. At least that's my take on it. 

 

But half the teams in the league are unprofitable... so owning a sports franchise is not really about money directly from that franchise. It's from other sources. Put another way, there are WAY more profitable ways to spend $450M dollars than buying a hockey team. 

 

Yeah, that would make sense too.

[King Knut]

5 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

It's not random."The League," is the owners. The OWNERS  said this is what we want, and this is what we're willing to give up to get what we want. The owners voted unanimously to take $500 million from Vegas for a team, do you think it's going to not be unanimous in accepting $650 million from Seattle?  

 

Does it suck as a fan? Yeah, it does. But stop acting like the League is treating the Flyers unfairly. The Flyers are likely to agree to play by these rules the same as every other team will.

 

I don't think the league is treating the Flyers unfairly.  I think it's treating any team with a loyal fan base and a front office who's actually been making smart moves badly.  It's the antithesis of a meritocracy.  They're taking advantage of the teams that are doing well in order to cannibalize them for the sake of teams that probably wouldn't do well.  And more importantly, they're cyphening hard earned money, time and emotion invested by those fanbases in order to make a quick buck for the owners.  

 

The organizations and the owners may win out from these cash infusions in Vegas and Seattle, but it only hurts the fans in the end.  Everyone wins, but the existing fans and the players on the ice and the coaches and GM's trying to build and mold teams.   In essence, everyone wins, except the people actually playing and watching hockey.  That isn't right.  

 

I know I said as much about the draft last year.  Especially on Defense.  I remember thinking, man if this happened to the Flyers in three or four years, I'd be PISSED.  Well now my fear is a reality because of Seattle?  WTF?  Vancouver can't ice a decent team anymore but Seattle needs one urgently?  

 

Back when tampa and ottawa and all those others came into the league it seemed like the idea was to get them their top entry draft pick (Pat Falloon, Alexi Yashin, etc) and the expansion draft was about givign them some NHL talent to be remotely competitive.

 

Back then it was about giving cities that wanted teams and would support them through the sort of process it takes when you suck for 5 years and build through the entry draft over time.

 

Essentially being an expansion team USED to be like being the Penguins in 2002 or the Rangers now.  Blank slate... you want a team?  well fanbase go ahead and support them through trying to build something.

 

Now it's, We're not sure this city actually wants to be hockey fans, so we'd better give them a champion right away or they'll go back to basketball or putting a bird on it or sipping coffee.

 

Doesn't seem helpful.  And in the mean time, the overall skill level is going down and down as the talent pool becomes more and more diluted.  That may be great for Grezky and all of his records, but it kinda sucks for the fans.  

 

I thought the cap was supposed to help prevent dynasties (it only made them the norm instead).

I don't know what the point of this expansion is other than a quick cash out.  How does the league even distribute that money?  

Is this it's economic model from now on?  Take huge injections of cash from new franchises until the next one dies off or has to move and then we'll just take a smaller injection of cash from Wpg for the Thrashers or from Quebec for the Islanders (kinda what I'm hoping anyway).  

 

Hockey shouldn't be like the NBA.  There are already too many teams.  Hurting teams with loyal fan bases 

 

 

[King Knut]

13 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Hockey_League_attendance_figures

 

It's probably sales, not gate. Because I'll be honest, I haven't seen the WFC full to capacity when I've been there over the last several years, either. But sales are what matters from a viability standpoint.

 

 

They're regular season numbers.

 

Apparently the Flyers sell a lot of ticket blocks to brokers who don't always resell them at the higher rate.

I'm sure other teams have similar deals going on.

 

From the team's standpoint, it's business and becomes the broker's problem.  

 

Honestly, I think long before we see Comcast telling Homer and Hextall what to do with the roster, I think they'll be interceding on these things.  Those empty seats during the big end of year games on national TV were a bigger black eye for Comcast than Giroux's hat trick was a success story.  

 

They cashed in sure, but the optics of that are damaging for sponsors which is where they really make their money.

[AJgoal]

Just now, King Knut said:

 

Apparently the Flyers sell a lot of ticket blocks to brokers who don't always resell them at the higher rate.

I'm sure other teams have similar deals going on.

 

From the team's standpoint, it's business and becomes the broker's problem.  

 

Honestly, I think long before we see Comcast telling Homer and Hextall what to do with the roster, I think they'll be interceding on these things.  Those empty seats during the big end of year games on national TV were a bigger black eye for Comcast than Giroux's hat trick was a success story.  

 

They cashed in sure, but the optics of that are damaging for sponsors which is where they really make their money.

 

Holmgren already said they're adjusting how they sell blocks to brokers.

 

Of course, the question is whether they'll continue to be able to sell blocks to brokers. They lost 25% of their TV viewership this past season.

[King Knut]

10 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

Holmgren already said they're adjusting how they sell blocks to brokers.

 

Of course, the question is whether they'll continue to be able to sell blocks to brokers. They lost 25% of their TV viewership this past season.

 

This is unsurprising.  After the last year 5 years, if you're not really paying attention, you assume they just suck.  Even if you stuck with them for the first part of the season, after the heartbreakers and the last minute losses and the G.D. losing streak, you're done unless you're a dork like us.  

 

Meanwhile the Birds are winning the super bowl.  Why would you want to be bummed out by the Flyers sucking (even when they got good and were the 2nd best team in hockey for a couple of months, before sucking again when Elliott got hurt).  

 

The Flyers go on a month long bummer just as the Eagles are doing something amazing.  It's not so much that people were watching the Eagles instead, just that the conversation and the discussion was about the Eagles and no one wanted to go feel bad about the Flyers.

 

I think if the team gets good, the ratings will be back in a heartbeat.  

 

They'd be better suited to just lower prices a tad if they're worried about losing brokers. 

[ruxpin]

37 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

So let's break this down, shall we?

 

Apparently the draft rules will be exactly the same for Seattle as they were for Vegas.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/seattles-possible-nhl-expansion-draft-rules-vegas/

 

Player protection

The 31 current teams will have two options to choose from when it comes to which players will be left exposed. Teams can (a) protect exactly seven forwards, three defencemen and one goalie or (b) protect eight total skaters regardless of position plus one goalie.

 

The vast majority of teams went with a standard 7-3-1 protection list ahead of the Vegas draft, however the Arizona Coyotes, Florida Panthers, Los Angeles Kings, Nashville Predators, New Jersey Devils and Pittsburgh Penguins each decided to protect four defencemen and four forwards, while the New York Islanders protected just three forwards and five blueliners.

 

Players with no-movement clauses will be protected automatically. Also, any first- or second-year professionals and all unsigned draft choices are exempt.

 

Player exposure

Every team must leave exposed at least one defenceman and two forwards that are under contract for the following season and played 40 or more NHL games the season prior (or have played in 70 or more total NHL games over the previous two seasons combined). Each team must also expose at least one goalie who is under contract for the following season or one that is a pending restricted free agent.

 

Players with career-threatening injuries or health issues that have missed at least 60 consecutive games (think Marian Hossa in Chicago) would not be allowed to count towards a team’s exposure requirements.

 

Player selection

Seattle would be required to select one player from each of the 31 teams, including a minimum of 20 players who are under contract for the next season. They’d also have to select a minimum of 14 forwards, nine defencemen and three goaltenders. Vegas ended up selecting 14 forwards, 13 defencemen and three goalies.

 

The total contractual value of the players selected would have to fall somewhere between 60 and 100 per cent of the previous season’s salary cap, and Seattle would not be allowed to buy out any contracts until the summer after its debut season.

 

NHL Draft Lottery odds

The Golden Knights were given the same odds as the team with the third-worst record the season prior (they ended up with the sixth-overall pick) and were slated to select third in rounds two through seven. Seattle would presumably be given the same odds.

 

Thank you for that!   

 

I don't know what my problem is with retaining this.  I swear ToughFighter™ has a better grasp on this than I do!

 

Okay, so a couple questions:

It's first- or second-year professionals.   Does this mean under contract or simply on a professional team?  I'm assuming at the very least the Phantoms count.  So, if Carter Hart, for example, is only starting on the Phantoms this coming year, he will only have finished his 2nd year at the time of the draft and would, therefore, be exempt.  Correct?   So, we wouldn't have to use a "protected" on him and could protect any one of Stolarz, Lyon, or Sandstrom.  Am I correct on this?

 

With that criteria, we're pretty much screwed (as @King Knut stated) on defense and with any forwards who played this past season on any professional level. 

 

So, I'm going 8-1.   Pick a defenseman to leave exposed.    I'm picking Hagg.   That leaves 3 forwards.  The way I'm reading this (and you didn't post the picture version, so I may still be confused), NMCs are automatically protected.  Are their protections considered among the 3?  Or would they be in addition to?   If they're among the 3, I have to reconsider the 8-1 thing.  If in addition to, then I'm protecting Coots, Patrick, and Konecny.   Jake has an NMC, right?   If not, I'm doing everything in my power to trade him between now and then,.   And I'm not resigning Simmonds.  I'm trading him and getting picks and a first-year-pro prospect.

 

I really hate this expansion crap.   Teams work really hard and manage assets to get to the place they can compete and suddenly Freddie First Year shows up and screws it all.  I know, "whaaa," but damn.

 

Seriously, "parity" is shorthand for "product dilution" (which causes upward salary pressure).  Contract a handful of teams and call it a day.  Or at least move a couple to these newer markets and give up on Miami and Phoenix at the very least.   Maybe move the Islanders since NY metro can't figure out where to put them.

[ruxpin]

13 minutes ago, King Knut said:

just that the conversation and the discussion was about the Eagles

 

In Philly and in Philly media, this describes an 0-16 Eagles team.   But yes, their success exacerbated the circumstance you describe.

 

And don't look now, but the Sixers are becoming legitimate contenders, the Phillies are a half game out of first as we approach Memorial Day and are on the rise, and Villanova keeps winning national championships.   The Flyers are now fighting to survive in a very competitive market...and they're one of the more expensive alternatives.    They're on the rise, but you have to be a "dork like us" to know it.

 

They have to figure out how to make the prices more affordable, because with the exception of the Super Bowl Champion, they're the most  expensive out there and they're pricing out their fans.