My view on expansion (noting this is my view not the leagues) is that contracting has been beneficial overall because there is a surplus of player supply - more NHL players than slots in our league. This allows more teams to have competitive teams.
We have a constant challenge with asset poor clubs being tough to replace and retain GMs. I think the moves we've made in several different ways has helped including:
- Contraction
- UFA/RFA grids with mandatory 3 year 1 ways for UFA re-signings
- No increases to cap
- Cancellation of awards
- 2 year ECHL deals for first rounders
All of this means that players become more expensive faster, which requires talent to move around more. There is still an asset disparity but that's largely driven by GMs who take a short view and try to win now v. those that build an asset base.
But I think adding teams to the league would re-introduce similar challenges we had when we did them away.
Right now I fear we will have a hard time finding a GM that will take on NYI. Teams that have few prospects, little cap, and no picks are not compelling for new GMs. So then we have a ton of turnover.
My view is that expansion would be net-negative.
Open to the dialogue on it.
|