[News] Proposed expansion draft rules. Expansion decision expected before 2016 draft.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Don't think Poirier and Shinkaruk have done enough to be protected ahead of actual NHLers. I'd have Ferland ahead of them plus whatever top two line winger we acquire this summer through trade/UFA.

I dunno, Ferland isn't really improving. Likely topped out as a bottom 6 grinder. I'd rather see what we have in Shinkaruk and Poirier.

[sureLoss]

Chris Nichols @NicholsOnHockey
Dreger on poss. expansion draft outline: "There's certain layers of protection for first and second-year players. Signed versus unsigned."

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

News Update

Pierre LeBrun @Real_ESPNLeBrun
Other pertinent expansion draft detail: teams must expose enough players which total at least 25 percent of previous season's payroll

Stajan contract suddenly have some value! (and Bouma)

I'd imagine that would hurt someone like Chicago which is very much a stars and scrubs operation these days.

[JJ1532]

Amongst all the talk of who might get exposed and what not, how likely is expansion? I've seen Quebec mentioned and I think they'd be a safe bet for a new hockey team. But I think a Vegas team would struggle, there is a reason no other major sports have ventured there, not sure why the weakest of the big 4 sports would succeed there.

Is there honestly a real appetite for it or is it actually likely to happen?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by JJ1532

Amongst all the talk of who might get exposed and what not, how likely is expansion? I've seen Quebec mentioned and I think they'd be a safe bet for a new hockey team. But I think a Vegas team would struggle, there is a reason no other major sports have ventured there, not sure why the weakest of the big 4 sports would succeed there.

Is there honestly a real appetite for it or is it actually likely to happen?

It sounds like Vegas has a really good shot of happening from all reports. Doesn't seem likely for Quebec.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by polak

I dunno, Ferland isn't really improving. Likely topped out as a bottom 6 grinder.

Nope, he hasn't stopped improving and no he hasn't topped out as a bottom 6 grinder, wrong on both counts there.

[Cycling76er]

When is the expansion supposed to take place? New team/s for 2017/2018 season?

[Fire]

Teams will keep their prospects in junior/college as long as needed in order to avoid exposing them. Not signing Jankowski or Hickey was probably a good move, depending when this draft happens.

[Atodaso]

Originally Posted by Cycling76er

When is the expansion supposed to take place? New team/s for 2017/2018 season?

At this point, no earlier than 2017.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Cycling76er

When is the expansion supposed to take place? New team/s for 2017/2018 season?

The answers you seek are contained in this very thread!

[polak]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Nope, he hasn't stopped improving and no he hasn't topped out as a bottom 6 grinder, wrong on both counts there.

2014/15 PPG: 0.19
2015/16 PPG: 0.20

Yeah okay. We can keep pretending that he's miraculously going to find some offense and waste a spot protecting him over our leading AHL scorer...

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Saw Darren Haynes mention this on twitter, but the one goalie thing could help the Flames.

Teams like the Ducks and Penguins will have to move one of their goalies before the expansion draft or lose them for nothing.

I guess Darren reads this forum. It was mentioned in a thread about expansion as being a good thing for the Flames for that very reason. We could come out with a goaltender and a RW as teams move players to get assets for a player they could possibly lose for nothing.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I hate the idea of adding a completely new team to begin with. I'd far prefer to have fewer teams in this league.

yup.

This is the problem with expansion when it is not needed. They aren't looking to improve the league, they're looking to make a select few people a crapload ton of money and it's going to be at the expense of every other team and the product in general.

IMO, expansion should be done only when you can add enough teams to make it worthwhile. Adding 2-4 teams to a 30 team league doesn't move the needle.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by JJ1532

Amongst all the talk of who might get exposed and what not, how likely is expansion? I've seen Quebec mentioned and I think they'd be a safe bet for a new hockey team. But I think a Vegas team would struggle, there is a reason no other major sports have ventured there, not sure why the weakest of the big 4 sports would succeed there.

Is there honestly a real appetite for it or is it actually likely to happen?

I'm pretty sure the reason no other sports have gone is gambling.

Vegas is the largest metro area without a major sports team.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

List of guys with NMC clauses at the end of the 2017 - http://www.generalfanager.com/clause...team=all&NMC=1

Ryan Clowe!

Some potentially crippling contracts there, considering they must be kept going into the 2018 season

Clarkson
Hartnell
Tyutin
Bieksa
Spurgeon
Clowe
Fillpula
Pomonville
Koivu
M. Staal
Chara
Sedins
Hossa

[Benched]

if NMC are exempt, can you add a NMC to a player retroactively?


And if that's the ruling, hand Johnny and Mony NMCs so you don't have to protect them

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Benched

if NMC are exempt, can you add a NMC to a player retroactively?


And if that's the ruling, hand Johnny and Mony NMCs so you don't have to protect them

Don't see why not. Add the NMC for the first few years of the contract to get you past the expansion draft.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by polak

2014/15 PPG: 0.19
2015/16 PPG: 0.20

Yeah okay. We can keep pretending that he's miraculously going to find some offense and waste a spot protecting him over our leading AHL scorer...

You understand that the decision doesn't have to be made today right?

Obviously, if Ferland doesn't progress over the next two years then, no they wouldn't likely protect him. Same with Poirier and Shinkaruk (which was the original point that you quoted).

[Coach]

People are freaking out a little too much IMO. Yes we can only protect those players, but that doesn't mean the other players are necessarily taken. Conversely, for teams like the Penguins with 2 goalies, yes they only get to protect one, but that doesn't mean the other is taken. Remember, every team can only protect one, The expansion teams aren't going to take 15 goalies each.

So while you may see some goalies traded for the reason mentioned, only the guys that FOR SURE would be taken are a threat to be moved really. At most each team only loses 2 players. That's not really that much of a hit.

There were only 26 teams to choose from in the last expansion vs 30 now.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

yup.

This is the problem with expansion when it is not needed. They aren't looking to improve the league, they're looking to make a select few people a crapload ton of money and it's going to be at the expense of every other team and the product in general.

IMO, expansion should be done only when you can add enough teams to make it worthwhile. Adding 2-4 teams to a 30 team league doesn't move the needle.

1) it's a business - making money is part of the point

2) the owners care about the viability of the product (see point 1) and wouldn't agree to expansion if they thought it would be detrimental

3) your last point contradicts your first points: it is easier on the product to expand in small increments. Waiting for a long time and then doing a large expansion can be quite disruptive.

4) what reason do you have to think that it is not needed, or detrimental?