NHL to formally start expansion process (only LV and QC submit applications)

[FlamesAddiction]

Metrosexual isn't bad. It doesn't make reference to sexual orientation or gender insults.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by polak

omg give it a day and the entire PC world will coming crashing down on you.

I can already hear Corsi coming to yell at you for suggesting this insult.

If they whine about calling Cory Perry, "Katy" Perry, no way they don't have a fit over "Metrosexuals"

Don't forget that we can't call the Sedins the Sisters anymore

[polak]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Metrosexual isn't bad. It doesn't make reference to sexual orientation or gender insults.

It's not a direct insult about sexual orientation, but what do you think metrosexual implies when used as a negative?

[heep223]

Originally Posted by polak

omg give it a day and the entire PC world will coming crashing down on you.

I can already hear Corsi coming to yell at you for suggesting this insult.

If they whine about calling Cory Perry, "Katy" Perry, no way they don't have a fit over "Metrosexuals"

The PC CP world?

Also, don't forget the anti-PC crowd whining about the PC crowd whining.

[Phil Russell]

Or the anti-PC crowd feeling victimized by the level of victimization felt by the PC crowd

[Badgers Nose]

Well, I for one am stoked to see two of the best party cities in North America get NHL hockey clubs. I'm thinking an LV, Miami, Nashville, NY, Montreal, QC road trip would be worth saving up for.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

If no teams relocate by 2017, I think the NHL will go ahead an award franchises to Quebec and Las Vegas, with Columbus moving back to the West (Detroit has too much pull, and will refuse to move back).

Las Vegas is going to be playing by 2017. The only question is whether Quebec gets awarded a team to begin at the same time.

[TX_Flame]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Isn't that name already taken by a NHL division?

Yes, the most ######ed division name in the history of pro sports, but Seattle had it as the name of the first American Stanley Cup champions decades before Bettman and his minions decided to put it on a division.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by TX_Flame

Yes, the most ######ed division name in the history of pro sports, but Seattle had it as the name of the first American Stanley Cup champions decades before Bettman and his minions decided to put it on a division.

At least there is a precedent – a comparably stupid naming snafu in the NHL's own history.

In the 1920s, when the NHL expanded to 10 teams (take that, ‘Original’ Six!), it was divided into two divisions: Canadian and American. But because there were six teams in the U.S., one of the American teams had to play in the Canadian division.

So the only American team not in the American Division was the New York… Americans.

Only in the NHL.

[TX_Flame]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

At least there is a comparably ######ed naming snafu in the NHL's own history.

In the 1920s, when the NHL expanded to 10 teams (take that, ‘Original’ Six!), it was divided into two divisions: Canadian and American. But because there were six teams in the U.S., one of the American teams had to play in the Canadian division.

So the only American team not in the American Division was the New York… Americans.

Only in the NHL.

LOL. I had forgotten about that. The Seattle Metropolitans should fit right in, then.

[Mattman]

So I remember reading an article in The Hockey News a couple years back surrounding the ideas of an expansion draft.

I found a similar article discussing who would be protected on each team and who's left unprotected in todays NHL.

-Choose to protect either nine forwards, five defensemen, and one goalie or seven forwards, three defensemen, and two goalies

-If protecting one goalie, there is no experience requirement for the goalie left unprotected. If protecting two goalies, they must leave one goalie unprotected who played in at least 10 games the prior season, or 25 combined games over the past two seasons

-Teams must leave one defenseman and two forwards unprotected who played 40 NHL games the prior season, or 70 combined games over the prior two seasons

-Players on entry-level contracts are automatically exempt, and every existing team will have exactly two players selected

I guess those are the rules of the expansion draft unless they have changed since the lockout.

The articles are pretty cool but seeing what players expansion draft teams are made of is kinda alarming, especially since you're filling a team with 2nd-4th line/2nd-3rd pairing players all from different teams.

http://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-expa...s-unprotected/

http://thehockeywriters.com/seattle-...draft-rosters/

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Mattman

So I remember reading an article in The Hockey News a couple years back surrounding the ideas of an expansion draft.

I found a similar article discussing who would be protected on each team and who's left unprotected in todays NHL.



I guess those are the rules of the expansion draft unless they have changed since the lockout.

The articles are pretty cool but seeing what players expansion draft teams are made of is kinda alarming, especially since you're filling a team with 2nd-4th line/2nd-3rd pairing players all from different teams.

http://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-expa...s-unprotected/

http://thehockeywriters.com/seattle-...draft-rosters/

Their simulated draft had the Flames losing Smid and Raymond...

[Weitz]

Man it would suck to be a fan of an expansion team for the first few years I think.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Man it would suck to be a fan of an expansion team for the first few years I think.

This is ironic?

[Lanny'sDaMan]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Their simulated draft had the Flames losing Smid and Raymond...

I am very very ok with that

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by Mattman

I guess those are the rules of the expansion draft unless they have changed since the lockout.

Now that we are in a cap world, I think the rules will change in order to ensure the new team doesn't only get loaded with albatrosses. Plus, now there are many more NTC which would result in players like Raymond, Stajan, etc having to be protected.

I wonder if players under contract but on the farm (e.g. Arnold, Agostino) etc could be selected??

It will be interesting to see how it shakes out

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

Now that we are in a cap world, I think the rules will change in order to ensure the new team doesn't only get loaded with albatrosses. Plus, now there are many more NTC which would result in players like Raymond, Stajan, etc having to be protected.

If you force teams to respect NTC:s and NMC:s, that pretty much cancels out the albatross issue. Some examples of guys that have NTC:s or NMC:s include Chara, Phaneuf, Koivu, Vanek... on the Flames Wideman also has one. (Wideman earned his contract last season, but it's clear he's not one of the guys we want to keep moving forward.)

[Resolute 14]

I believe a team must protect a player with an NMC. A player with an NTC is fair game though.

As far as a team getting stuck with only albatrosses, they aren't forced to take only albatrosses.

[Itse]

Looking at the way they did the previous draft, I have to say I would prefer it if a team could protect fewer players than that. Sure, it would kind of suck if that meant we lost someone like Jooris or Ferland, but we'd get over that.

But I'd like to see the expansion teams be little less crap.

(Without any stars they'll be crap no matter what though.)

[bizaro86]

I think they'll probably have to remove the "ELCs are automatically exempt" rule, or the expansion teams will end up spending to the cap and still having crap teams.