murraycraven Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 12 minutes ago, ruxpin said: That's just evil. And don't call me Shirley. Hak would be super happy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 4 hours ago, King Knut said: Vegas is still building a team Sure but so are 31 other teams too. So i'm not sure why they should be any different. It is just one player lost. Surely one player doesn't crumble a rebuild. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted June 12, 2018 Author Share Posted June 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said: Sure but so are 31 other teams too. So i'm not sure why they should be any different. It is just one player lost. Surely one player doesn't crumble a rebuild. Right? Don't get me wrong. I believe the Golden Showers have been given far too many advantages for an expansion team. I believe expansion teams should have it rough for a few years to prove that they have the fan base that can sustain a franchise rather than inserting a good team into a city and hoping the fan base materializes around it. But strictly speaking, they are an expansion team and putting them in with the same rules simply wouldn't be fair. To be honest when you look at the sheer number of $5million guys they have, they might welcome the opportunity to unload one in two year's time And it could be argued that the way their draft was set up wasn't fair to teams that had a plethora of good players, but in a stand alone analysis look at the following: -For two years, they'd be signing guys to fill out their team just to meet the requirements for the draft. Essentially because of who they have and how many they can protect and yadda yadda, McPhee will be in the same position Hextall was in re: Neuvirth last year (i.e. having to sign him JUST to meet the exposure requirements) but McPhee would be facing this at every position because he already has more protection slots than he has signed eligible players, EXCEPT at goalie, which I'll get into in a second. What happens last summer if Hextall doesn't have Neuvirth? Does he sign someone better than Elliott? Someone younger? Someone more stable? Does he sign two guys? Long story short, what happens to the Flyers this season with better goaltending? The answer is they could very easily have won the division. They almost certainly would have finished above the Penguins and they might have caught the caps -remember, they were in first place briefly before the goalies went completely off the rails. But Hextall filled in the cracks with scrubs. McPhee would have to do that at EVERY position and that's not particularly good for anyone. -Goalie. Hextall signed Neuvirth because he HAD to expose someone and he preferred it not be Stolarz at the time which made sense at the time. Vegas won't be in a similar situation. Signing or trading for a qualifying goalie won't save them. They WILL have to expose at least 2 young goalies they'd probably rather keep in the system and continue to develop. (The Flyers are likely to be safe at goalie as Hart probably won't require a protection, Sandstrom almost definitely won't and if by then we'll know if we care about Lyon or Stolarz enough to protect either). Imagine if Hart, Sandstrom and Lyon all looked good in two years and all three were eligible. That's a bit harsh to make a team lose one of them for nothing. It's kind of the position the Flyers are in with D men, but not even D men are as valuable as respeactably decen NHL goaltenders. -Development: The Knights will have far fewer eligible mid-range players in their development system. They will have had only 1 entry draft class that could possible be eligible for the expansion draft and many of them won't even be eligible as many of them won't start professional careers until this year sometime. The Flyers for instance have half a dozen or more guys who are likely borderline NHL players and would then or are already eligible for Seattle. If Seattle decides to shoot young and take German Rubtsov... no big deal. For comparison sake, pretend it's last spring and for the sake of analysis, the Flyers don't have Raffl, Neuvirth, PEB, Leier, Filppula, Read, MacDonald, Manning or Gudas under contract (because Vegas won't necessarily have those kinds of guys under contract). The flyers could protect Ghost and Morin and someone else on D plus G, Coots, Schenn, Jake, Laughton, Simmer and one more. Also assume they protect Stolarz again, but don't have Neuvirth (because Vegas won't have Fleury at that point). They HAVE to expose certain numbers or players at each position, and this essentially means that guys that the Flyers had been developing in the minors and had been planning on being at least role players are at risk. Long story short, if you take Filppula or Laughton away from the Flyers, sure, let's seewhat Vecchione or Vrobyov have because we have them in the system. However if Vegas was in the expansion draft, you'd most likely be taking their Vrobyov or a Vecchione and now imagine if their version of that were essentially the entirety of your system's minor league talent. Long story short, it just makes life a lot harder for them. If it were me, I'd look at what they got in their draft and say, suck it up snowflakes... but it's not me. It's Bettman and the owners do whatever he says anymore. Of all the egregious things that piss me off about Seattle and Vegas and the NHL in general these days, Vegas not having to participate in the next expansion draft is one of the most understandable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, King Knut said: But strictly speaking, they are an expansion team and putting them in with the same rules simply wouldn't be fair. I disagree. It will be 2020. So plenty of time to plan accordingly. And it will be a one player loss. So i same they should have to face the same dilemma every other club will have to face. There Yotes have struggled for a loooooooooooooooooooooooong time yet they will be subject to losing a good layer too. If it would have been say back to back year then yeah i would be ok with Vegas being exempt. But it's not they have a few years to get their **** together. I'm fine agreeing to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted June 12, 2018 Author Share Posted June 12, 2018 1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said: I disagree. It will be 2020. So plenty of time to plan accordingly. And it will be a one player loss. So i same they should have to face the same dilemma every other club will have to face. There Yotes have struggled for a loooooooooooooooooooooooong time yet they will be subject to losing a good layer too. If it would have been say back to back year then yeah i would be ok with Vegas being exempt. But it's not they have a few years to get their **** together. I'm fine agreeing to disagree. I mean, we don't have to agree to disagree. I essentially agree with you... it's just of all the things I find hinkie, I can actually see the point of this one. I don't think it's necessary. I think it's too much... but I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 28 minutes ago, King Knut said: I mean, we don't have to agree to disagree. I essentially agree with you... it's just of all the things I find hinkie, I can actually see the point of this one. I don't think it's necessary. I think it's too much... but I understand. Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 2 hours ago, King Knut said: I mean, we don't have to agree to disagree. I essentially agree with you... it's just of all the things I find hinkie, I can actually see the point of this one. I don't think it's necessary. I think it's too much... but I understand. You make good arguments on this. I can see the point, but like all good points in the NHL I believe this will be gamed to great advantage to the Golden Knights. I just see it as two years where the rest of the league has to worry about who they trade for and contracts, etc. while the Knights don't have any handicaps and can stock up if they're able. In reality, maybe they're hampered by market, etc., and this is a bunch of hand-wringing over nothing. But whereas a team like the Flyers (or 29 other teams) has to worry about losing their 4th best defenseman or 5th best forward or a goalie or whatever, VGK can just go get anyone willynilly and not worry about it. On the flip side, I do get what you're saying. And I think they're really trying to avoid (whether they want to acknowledge it) a repeat of Phoenix, Miami, and Atlanta. There are too many options out there and I don't know that there's the attention span to wait for 5-7 years for the new franchise to be competitive. So, they're bending over backwards to make sure Vegas and Seattle are sustainable and successful (for $500M, I suppose that's warranted!). I think specifically in this case the pendulum is a little too far, but I get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 21 minutes ago, ruxpin said: But whereas a team like the Flyers (or 29 other teams) has to worry about losing their 4th best defenseman or 5th best forward or a goalie or whatever, VGK can just go get anyone willynilly and not worry about it. And as you put this too will work in their advantage when a team needs to dump a guy and just get something for him than rather losing him Vegas will be able to take advantage of the other team and low ball them....so another advantage for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted June 12, 2018 Author Share Posted June 12, 2018 1 hour ago, ruxpin said: You make good arguments on this. I can see the point, but like all good points in the NHL I believe this will be gamed to great advantage to the Golden Knights. I just see it as two years where the rest of the league has to worry about who they trade for and contracts, etc. while the Knights don't have any handicaps and can stock up if they're able. In reality, maybe they're hampered by market, etc., and this is a bunch of hand-wringing over nothing. But whereas a team like the Flyers (or 29 other teams) has to worry about losing their 4th best defenseman or 5th best forward or a goalie or whatever, VGK can just go get anyone willynilly and not worry about it. On the flip side, I do get what you're saying. And I think they're really trying to avoid (whether they want to acknowledge it) a repeat of Phoenix, Miami, and Atlanta. There are too many options out there and I don't know that there's the attention span to wait for 5-7 years for the new franchise to be competitive. So, they're bending over backwards to make sure Vegas and Seattle are sustainable and successful (for $500M, I suppose that's warranted!). I think specifically in this case the pendulum is a little too far, but I get it. I totally agree. It’s not cool, but I get it. Im still in the “if we have to do all this to make a city like a team, then does it make sense to give that city a team?” Camp? You put a team in Quebec City, they may not have your $650 million up front, but that city will go to those games forever no matter how bad that team is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, King Knut said: Im still in the “if we have to do all this to make a city like a team, then does it make sense to give that city a team?” Camp? You put a team in Quebec City, they may not have your $650 million up front, but that city will go to those games forever no matter how bad that team is. This is perfect. Perfectly perfect. I'm not sure I've ever agreed with any post more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted June 13, 2018 Author Share Posted June 13, 2018 16 hours ago, ruxpin said: This is perfect. Perfectly perfect. I'm not sure I've ever agreed with any post more. Of course I might just be saying this because I want an excuse to break out my old Nordiques jersey, but whatever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegionOfDoom Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 Is it possible to sign the players they want to keep to NMC and go out and sign a bunch of Weises' to two year deals and expose these Weises' to pieces? What happens if Flyers have 10-11 players to NMC's?(Cap friendly of course) Is there a minimum amount of years to NMC's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 1 hour ago, LegionOfDoom said: Is it possible to sign the players they want to keep to NMC and go out and sign a bunch of Weises' to two year deals and expose these Weises' to pieces? What happens if Flyers have 10-11 players to NMC's?(Cap friendly of course) Is there a minimum amount of years to NMC's? Players aren't eligible for NMC/NTC until they're 26 or 27, so that eliminates most of the kids. And while I don't know how the league would deal with a team full of players with NMCs, it's not like those are free slots. They still count against your protection limit. I assume that They'd instruct teams that have more NMCs than slots that they'd have to get a number of players to waive their clauses in order for the team to be compliant with the protection limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.