[Rumour] NHL and Seattle talking about expansion fees (~$225M)

[Poe969]

That's a bit harsh dont' you think? You're saying anyone who doesn't agree with you deserves physical harm??

I think finishing last is more beneficial to the team then finishing 9th every year.

[Resolute 14]

Context is your friend, Poe.

[Joborule]

If you need to rely on being the worst team to get your team back to the competitive level, you will not get back to there. It takes more than having the first overall pick.

[Matt Reeeeead]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

teams can negotiate with free agents prior to July 1st now. So negotiating rights are going to be worth much less, if anything at all.

Fair point. At the end of the day I probably shouldn't have thrown 3 names out there... it's pretty arguable at the end of the picks.

I think my point about Jones certainly stands with merit.

[Poe969]

I agree, but a first overall would help a lot more than a later pick. I'm not saying they should tank every year but usually the higher picks are the better players and the better players are the ones that'll turn the team around faster. Relying on being the worst won't make your team competitive but being the worst one year or getting the best player one or two years probably will.

[$ven27]

Originally Posted by Joborule

If you need to rely on being the worst team to get your team back to the competitive level, you will not get back to there. It takes more than having the first overall pick.

Pittsburgh, Washington, St.Louis, Chicago, LA, Colorado, Tampa. All teams that relied on top 3 picks to get back to a competitive level, obviously you need more then Just those top picks but 90% of the time you need them to get back to that
level.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

Fair point. At the end of the day I probably shouldn't have thrown 3 names out there... it's pretty arguable at the end of the picks.

I think my point about Jones certainly stands with merit.

Jones was also the last name I bolded too. I looked for others, but he is a decent player still and may be slightly overpaid but he is not nearly as bad as he is being made out to be either. A player with his skillset would be quite valuable to an expansion team

[Matty81]

Every time I see this threa I am scared this is going to happen next year during a key rebuild draft for the franchise.

Any precedent for making expansion teams draft later than 1st overall? IMO they shouldn't be handed it without playing a single game.

200 million expansion fee is what, 7 mil per team. Real screw job on whoever finishes last to lose McDavid for 7 million bucks.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Every time I see this threa I am scared this is going to happen next year during a key rebuild draft for the franchise.

Any precedent for making expansion teams draft later than 1st overall? IMO they shouldn't be handed it without playing a single game.

200 million expansion fee is what, 7 mil per team. Real screw job on whoever finishes last to lose McDavid for 7 million bucks.

1998 the Predators were given the 3rd overall pick. 1999 the Thrashers were given the 2nd overall pick. In 2000 the Wild and Blue jackets were given the 3rd and 4th overall picks.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by $ven27

Pittsburgh, Washington, St.Louis, Chicago, LA, Colorado, Tampa. All teams that relied on top 3 picks to get back to a competitive level, obviously you need more then Just those top picks but 90% of the time you need them to get back to that
level.

I would argue that Pittsburgh is an anomly in the list getting the best player of his generation, as I think we could agree Malkin and Fleury would not have gotten them to where they are. Washington, Tampa and Colorado have done sweet dick all. Chicago got their boys in Kane and Toews, but have largly been built outside of the first round and via trades. La got Doughty, but have again been largely built by later picks and trades as well. St Louis' only top 3 pick was Johnson who's not even on their team (although he did get them Shattenkirk (a second rounder whos arguably better) and Stewart who is up and down as a player. And they also haven't done anything significant team-wise either. Petro was a #4 so I'll give you that.

The point is, as you said, the high picks can help, but they are no guarantee for success. And they are certainly not so much a guarantee that we should be cheering for losses. For every Chicago/Pittsburgh theres a Boston/Ducks who has been built almost exclusivley through later round gems and trades. Not to mention the many perpetual bottom feeders taking all these sure fire stars and doing nothing with them. Not to mention the Redwings, Sharks, etc... haven't done much of anything either in the way of championships but have been perpetually competitive without the use of top 5s.

[$ven27]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I would argue that Pittsburgh is an anomly in the list getting the best player of his generation, as I think we could agree Malkin and Fleury would not have gotten them to where they are. Washington, Tampa and Colorado have done sweet dick all. Chicago got their boys in Kane and Toews, but have largly been built outside of the first round and via trades. La got Doughty, but have again been largely built by later picks and trades as well. St Louis' only top 3 pick was Johnson who's not even on their team (although he did get them Shattenkirk (a second rounder whos arguably better) and Stewart who is up and down as a player. And they also haven't done anything significant team-wise either. Petro was a #4 so I'll give you that.

The point is, as you said, the high picks can help, but they are no guarantee for success. And they are certainly not so much a guarantee that we should be cheering for losses. For every Chicago/Pittsburgh theres a Boston/Ducks who has been built almost exclusivley through later round gems and trades. Not to mention the many perpetual bottom feeders taking all these sure fire stars and doing nothing with them. Not to mention the Redwings, Sharks, etc... haven't done much of anything either in the way of championships but have been perpetually competitive without the use of top 5s.

The Caps were President trophy winners and the top team in the East for a few seasons, Tampa went to the conference finals and look to be very strong this year and Colorado seems to have turned the corner, I'd hardly say they've done sweet dick all. Also the Sharks do have Marleau and Thornton who were #1 & 2 picks.
But outside of Detroit who are contending teams without a top 5 pick? Anaheim, Rangers and Boston, that's it. You obviously can't build a team solely on your top picks but you need them to become contenders in most cases.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by $ven27

The Caps were President trophy winners and the top team in the East for a few seasons, Tampa went to the conference finals and look to be very strong this year and Colorado seems to have turned the corner, I'd hardly say they've done sweet dick all. Also the Sharks do have Marleau and Thornton who were #1 & 2 picks.
But outside of Detroit who are contending teams without a top 5 pick? Anaheim, Rangers and Boston, that's it. You obviously can't build a team solely on your top picks but you need them to become contenders in most cases.

As for your qualifications for the Caps, Tampa, and Colorado, if any of those contributions were attributed to Vancouver (and they are), we would say yes, it means sweet dick all. It's nice to have a relatively competitive team during the season, but I think we can all agree that 0 championships (Im looking at Tampa post-Stamkos) means you haven't done enough. Especially in the case of the Caps. Thornton was traded for and I was really only looking at post-lockout players, when it seems all this fuss over losing for first overall picks seemed to start. And again: Edmonton, Florida, Columbus, NYI.

I'll reiterate, having top guys helps but there are a couple things people seem to have trouble grapsing. a) A top pick does not guarantee you a top player, b) Even if they are a top player, it does not guarantee you anything more than that you will have to pay them a ridiculous amount of money in a few short years and c) considering the lack of guarantees above, STRIVING to pick at the top of the draft seems ridiculous to me.

It's not getting the top pick I am against. It would likely yield a very good piece. It's the cheering for losing that is for losing losers.

[calumniate]

Is it Monday yet?

[$ven27]

Originally Posted by MattyC

As for your qualifications for the Caps, Tampa, and Colorado, if any of those contributions were attributed to Vancouver (and they are), we would say yes, it means sweet dick all. It's nice to have a relatively competitive team during the season, but I think we can all agree that 0 championships (Im looking at Tampa post-Stamkos) means you haven't done enough. Especially in the case of the Caps. Thornton was traded for and I was really only looking at post-lockout players, when it seems all this fuss over losing for first overall picks seemed to start. And again: Edmonton, Florida, Columbus, NYI.

I'll reiterate, having top guys helps but there are a couple things people seem to have trouble grapsing. a) A top pick does not guarantee you a top player, b) Even if they are a top player, it does not guarantee you anything more than that you will have to pay them a ridiculous amount of money in a few short years and c) considering the lack of guarantees above, STRIVING to pick at the top of the draft seems ridiculous to me.

It's not getting the top pick I am against. It would likely yield a very good piece. It's the cheering for losing that is for losing losers.

Yeah, I get all that. But what's the alternative? Go after big UFAs, pick around 10th or 9th and hope they turn out / you get some later round steals? It's much more likely to get the better player the higher you are in the draft, which is pretty common sense obviously.

It depends on who's at the top of the draft too, if you see a Crosby or Tavares type prospect and you're a struggling franchise it's probably easy to say getting that top pick will benefit the team. I don't think it's so much that people are cheering for losses is that it's people have accepted that we're in a rebuild, some people just refuse that however.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by $ven27

I don't think it's so much that people are cheering for losses is that it's people have accepted that we're in a rebuild, some people just refuse that however.

Plenty of people cheering for losses.

Cheering for the first overall pick is the same thing no? And yes the alternative is to turn your later picks into stars that make people think why they weren't taken earlier 5 years down the road. Couture, Giroux, Krecji, Bergeron, Keith, Weber, etc etc..

[$ven27]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Plenty of people cheering for losses.

Cheering for the first overall pick is the same thing no? And yes the alternative is to turn your later picks into stars that make people think why they weren't taken earlier 5 years down the road. Couture, Giroux, Krecji, Bergeron, Keith, Weber, etc etc..

Yeah that's the alternative and every team does it,but there's so much more luck and chance in 2nd/3rd rounders becoming guys of that calibre

[Coach]

Originally Posted by $ven27

Yeah that's the alternative and every team does it,but there's so much more luck and chance in 2nd/3rd rounders becoming guys of that calibre

I'm not sure that's true. Yes luck is part of it, but it's no accident that Boston, San Jose, Detroit, Chicago etc are constantly turning later picks into important team players.

And no accident that Edmonton, Florida, NYI continue to eff it up.

[$ven27]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I'm not sure that's true. Yes luck is part of it, but it's no accident that Boston, San Jose, Detroit, Chicago etc are constantly turning later picks into important team players.

And no accident that Edmonton, Florida, NYI continue to eff it up.

Yeah, true. I think drafting has a ton to do with the quality of the teams management team/ownership. I dunno, it's a complicated thing

[seattleflamer]

Geoff Baker from the Seattle Times on Vancouver's Team 1040 radio yesterday mentioned 3 different ownership groups with the third led by Steve Ballmer formerly of Microsoft.

Around the 23 minute mark: http://www.teamradio.ca/podcast/1040...st_Hour_3~.mp3

[Vulcan]

I didn't know that the new NBA commissioner had shot down the plans for a Seattle franchise. This makes it a whole new ball game with the NHL the only option. Seattle local officials and the arena deal need to change direction.

edit
NBA expansion should still happen for Seattle but it won't be for a few years.