Expansion in 2017-18?

[Guest Stogey24]

Please take Desharnais

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Please take Desharnais

DD won't be signed by the time the expansion team picks. If we don't trade Emelin or Eller they could be available on one year deals. If Plekanec takes a bad drop he could be available too.

[Guest Stogey24]

I know. I was just joking.

Gotta think Plekanec is on the block this year more than ever, no?

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I know. I was just joking.

Gotta think Plekanec is on the block this year more than ever, no?

Plek gives us a good season, no need to worry. We don't have anyone ready to step into a top six centre role if we trade Plekanec. We'd have to either acquire someone or a guy like McCarron busts out. McCarron needs a lot more time in the AHL before being ready for something like that. We have a lot of guys who could play bottom six C, only two to play top six C.

[Commandant]

Protected 7fwds 3d 1g

Galchenyuk

Pacioretty

Gallagher

Plekanec

Our UFA we sign this summer (Stamkos or Okposo)

Two of Hudon, Carr, Andrighetto, Danault,

(note: McCarron, Scherbak, this years draftee, Lehkonen, Reway, will not need to be protected, its players with more than 2 years pro experience, 2 or less is not in need of protecting... Pro experience is defined as AHL and NHL only not Europe; according to all reports).

Subban

Petry

Nate

Price

[hab29RETIRED]

This time next year, won't scherbak and McCarron have the two years? Didn't they both start at the end of last year?

Protected 7fwds 3d 1g

Galchenyuk

Pacioretty

Gallagher

Plekanec

Our UFA we sign this summer (Stamkos or Okposo)

Two of Hudon, Carr, Andrighetto, Danault,

(note: McCarron, Scherbak, this years draftee, Lehkonen, Reway, will not need to be protected, its players with more than 2 years pro experience, 2 or less is not in need of protecting... Pro experience is defined as AHL and NHL only not Europe; according to all reports).

Subban

Petry

Nate

Price

[dlbalr]

This time next year, won't scherbak and McCarron have the two years? Didn't they both start at the end of last year?

They'd be at 2. I've seen some reports that say 2 or more years have to be protected, I've seen others that say 2 or less are exempt. I put my list together with 2 or more needing protection, Commandant's covers 2 or less being exempt.

By the way, I like his optimism on the FA signing.

[Commandant]

This time next year, won't scherbak and McCarron have the two years? Didn't they both start at the end of last year?

My understanding is that its only for players with MORE than 2 years, I think they'd be exempt. If I'm wrong then I guess they go in the group with Hudon, Ghetto, etc... , we can only lose one player.

[DON]

Assuming the draft would be before 2017-18 and the 2 year pro = eligible rule, here's a very quick guess:

Protected:

G (1) - Price

D (3) - Subban (automatic, NMC), Petry (automatic, NMC), Beaulieu

F (7) - Pacioretty, Galchenyuk, Gallagher, McCarron, Scherbak, hopeful UFA forward signing this offseason, Plekanec

Unprotected:

G: Condon (pending UFA), Fucale, Lindgren

D: Barberio, Emelin, Markov (UFA), Pateryn

F: Andrighetto, Bozon, Carr, Crisp, Danault, de la Rose, Desharnais (UFA), Dietz, Ellis, Eller, Flynn (UFA), Friberg, Gregoire, Hanley, Hudon, Johnston, Lernout, Lessio, Matteau, MacMillan, Mitchell, Thrower

Exempt:

- All unsigned draft picks (including all of 2016's to-be-drafted class) plus:

G: McNiven

D: Juulsen, Parisi

F: Audette, Lehkonen, Reway

thanks again

[BCHabnut]

Ugggh. Contraction is what is needed. No talent fourth liners can all go to the ahl.

[DON]

Ugggh. Contraction is what is needed. No talent fourth liners can all go to the ahl.

Agree 100%, but has any established profitable pro league ever even done that? So owners unlikely to listen to us.

[kaos]

The only way the owners would listen is if fans stopped buying tickets, showing they were unhappy with the game.

And that will never happen. Expansion is the road the NHL is headed down as they know they are all going to make more money. Guaranteed!!!!

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Contraction would actually mean more skilled players playing in Europe.

The way teams are assembled in the NHL would mean no coach would put an offensive minded player on the fourth line. The grinders will still grind. There's this mistaken belief that the original six were six all-star teams. They weren't. That's why when expansion happened, veterans thrown away were able to be assembled in St. Louis and quickly goto the finals twice.

Expansion gives opportunities.

[Commandant]

Every expansion in NHL history has seen an immediate uptick (not downtick) in goals scored per game.

[hab29RETIRED]

The issue with the game right now isn't expansion or too many teams, it's how the cap creates a forced parity by preventing good teams from retaining the players they have developed, regardless of whether or not they have the financial means to retain them.

It's a system that prevents good Management with deep pockets to create great teams for a prolonged periods and is why we will never see a dynasty like the 70's Canadiens, or the 80's oilers again.

On the flip side it limits idiotic Management like the Leafs on how much the can over pay players. It allows cheap, but average, or stupid Management teams like the islanders to eventually make the playoffs.

The system still allows bad Management to produce consistently horrible teams (leafs, oilers), but prevents good Management to create historic dynasties that win 4 or 5 cups in a row. So you still have the crappy teams we had before the cap, but we don't have a dynasty that is going to win 4 or 5 cups in a row.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

The issue with the game right now isn't expansion or too many teams, it's how the cap creates a forced parity by preventing good teams from retaining the players they have developed, regardless of whether or not they have the financial means to retain them.

It's a system that prevents good Management with deep pockets to create great teams for a prolonged periods and is why we will never see a dynasty like the 70's Canadiens, or the 80's oilers again.

That's just not true. Chicago and Los Angeles did just fine keeping their clubs together. Now more than any time pre-free agency, top players rarely leave their original NHL clubs. It isn't the best clubs having trouble keeping their best players. It's the middling clubs. And they lose their players to... the best NHL clubs.

On the flip side it limits idiotic Management like the Leafs on how much the can over pay players. It allows cheap, but average, or stupid Management teams like the islanders to eventually make the playoffs.

The system still allows bad Management to produce consistently horrible teams (leafs, oilers), but prevents good Management to create historic dynasties that win 4 or 5 cups in a row. So you still have the crappy teams we had before the cap, but we don't have a dynasty that is going to win 4 or 5 cups in a row.

Also not true. Badly managed teams still sign players to albatross contracts. Well managed teams still make dumb contract signings and then pay for it in the long run (LA with Brown, Chicago with Bickell, Pittsburgh with Fleury which is why he's a near $6M goalie on the bench). We haven't had a dynasty since the 80s Oilers. The salary cap has only existed since 2005-06. You do understand hockey was still played in between right? The closest we got to a dynasty then was the Penguins going back to back in 91/92 and the Red Wings going back to back in 97/98. Go look around North American sports. Baseball has a luxury tax and no dynasties since the 2000 Yankees. The NBA has a system where players are far more limited to the amount of years that a player can sign than the NHL and the Golden State Warriors are beyond dominant in the league.

The cap is not the issue. Old school hockey mentality is the issue.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Well - I have no problem at all with the cap. I for one got damned tired of Dallas, Colorado, Detroit, New York and Toronto vaccuming up every all-star UFA. And I hated the way the first three could add exactly the players they needed whenever they needed them by just throwing money at them, then get massive praise for being such super-awesome brilliantly managed organizations. Bah, I say. At least the cap forces teams to develop talent and makes it harder for them to buy their way out of problems. It stops franchises from having built-in advantages for reasons that have nothing to do with hockey (such as the size of the owner's wallet).

The issue with hockey today is quite simply that the rule-book has gone back on the shelf, as interference has been allowed to return. Boredom ensues as offence off the rush - the real secret to exciting hockey - is stymied. Add to that additional delays, such as the 'Coach's Challenge' rule and the propensity to 'go upstairs' every time a call is in doubt, and snooze-fests are too often the result. Get back to calling interference, stop piling further delays onto the game, and Bob's your uncle.

As for expansion: despite my complaints above, the NHL has probably never had such a high per centage bottom-6 FWs who can actually skate and play hockey. I'm no big advocate for expansion, but contrary to what others have said, I think the talent might actually be there to support another team or two.

[hab29RETIRED]

CHI lost Buff, Sharp and Saad. How different would the hawks be with them still in the fold???

LAK have kept most of their players, but as players like Brown decline, they can't afford to add more. There is no margin for error with the cap. An elite team could afford a sentimental signing and still continue to high priced players. with the cap you can't. The kings in the past could still have Brown and go after additional elite players. Thats no longer the case. The Pens traded Recchi after wining a cup and added salary by picking up Sammuellson and tocchet. You can't do that today. That would be like the hawks trading Saad and getting back Byfuglien and Wheeler.

In the past, you could reward aging players and not be penalized (Wings last cup team to repeat), and still have those older players contribute - just not be leading players anymore. The 90's had 4 elite teams - Pens, Wings, Avs and Devils. The Wings and Pens took huge blows because of injuries/accidents to key players. Devils were the only team that wasn't spending big dollars, but had a structure were they were winning without a true superstar, other than Brodeur (I don't consider Stevens a superstar, like a Bourque, Chelios, or Lidstrom).

There is no longer a margin for error with the cap. I think there were more elite teams in the 90's than now, because even if a team made a mistake on a contract, they could still spend if they could afford it. Now you make a couple of big mistakes, or a winning team makes a couple of sentimental signings and you are done.

That's just not true. Chicago and Los Angeles did just fine keeping their clubs together. Now more than any time pre-free agency, top players rarely leave their original NHL clubs. It isn't the best clubs having trouble keeping their best players. It's the middling clubs. And they lose their players to... the best NHL clubs.

Also not true. Badly managed teams still sign players to albatross contracts. Well managed teams still make dumb contract signings and then pay for it in the long run (LA with Brown, Chicago with Bickell, Pittsburgh with Fleury which is why he's a near $6M goalie on the bench). We haven't had a dynasty since the 80s Oilers. The salary cap has only existed since 2005-06. You do understand hockey was still played in between right? The closest we got to a dynasty then was the Penguins going back to back in 91/92 and the Red Wings going back to back in 97/98. Go look around North American sports. Baseball has a luxury tax and no dynasties since the 2000 Yankees. The NBA has a system where players are far more limited to the amount of years that a player can sign than the NHL and the Golden State Warriors are beyond dominant in the league.

The cap is not the issue. Old school hockey mentality is the issue.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

CHI lost Buff, Sharp and Saad. How different would the hawks be with them still in the fold???

They would be a perfectly managed club. If Chicago spent smarter they could keep both. Human error is a part of the game. Why do you want a game where a GM isn't punished for his mistakes?

Nobody factors the Flyers and Leafs in those days who spent tons of money and looked like sure fire contenders and won nothing. Or the Rangers who bought every superstar and couldn't find the playoffs. Four powerhouses? We went through five years of only two teams winning the Cup while the Rangers and Lightning competed in the east for the finals. That's not good enough for you?

I'm with you if your argument is that the NHL obsesses too much on parity. Regular season wins should be worth more. But this idea that things are bad because a few teams don't absolutely dominate the whole league? Sorry that's not appealing to me. The game has grown with the competition.

[John B]

I always supported the idea of a cap. I was really tired of seeing teams with deep pockets buy their problems away. The NHL has made it an even playing field for all teams by adding the cap. What I didn't like was lowering the age of unrestricted free agency. I realize it was a necessity to get the CBA ratified (something had to be given to the players), but it resulted in ridiculous and in some cases underserving term and salaries as teams try to retain their young stars during their primes. That's what is hurting most teams right now. You can blame the GM for overpaying if you want, but what choice does he have when negotiating with a UFA. It's pay me or I walk. GMs have zero leverage.

MolG commented on how wins should be worth more in the regular season. How about we just eliminate 3 point games all together. A win is worth one point. A loss, regardless of when it occurs is worth nothing. There are no more ties in hockey thanks to the shootout and therefore there is no need for an extra point to be awarded.

Edited June 11, 2016 by John B

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I always supported the idea of a cap. I was really tired of seeing teams with deep pockets buy their problems away. The NHL has made it an even playing field for all teams by adding the cap. What I didn't like was lowering the age of unrestricted free agency. I realize it was a necessity to get the CBA ratified (something had to be given to the players), but it resulted in ridiculous and in some cases underserving term and salaries as teams try to retain their young stars during their primes. That's what is hurting most teams right now. You can blame the GM for overpaying if you want, but what choice does he have when negotiating with a UFA. It's pay me or I walk. GMs have zero leverage.

MolG commented on how wins should be worth more in the regular season. How about we just eliminate 3 point games all together. A win is worth one point. A loss, regardless of when it occurs is worth nothing. There are no more ties in hockey thanks to the shootout and therefore there is no need for an extra point to be awarded.

Yeah, the 'problem' of parity - if it really is a problem - could be curtailed significantly by eliminating the loser point.

What the cap rewards above all is the ability to project what a player will do down the line (i.e., player evaluation). This is so when it comes to the draft - teams that can't draft are doomed in a cap system - and when it comes to locking up young players. Edmonton has burned itself by uncritically investing in young guns whose warts the GM chose to ignore, and by failing to draft competently outside first-round no-brainers. Montreal's management bought into the standard 'PK is a risky investment' narrative by insisting on a bridge deal for Subban and, as a result, ended up paying $3 million annually more than they had to in order to lock up a player who is an absolute stud and franchise cornerstone. By and large, the organizations are paying a deserved price for poor judgement. Good, I say. And better that, than that certain franchises have a massive built-in advantage for reasons that have nothing at all to do with hockey acumen.

[habs rule]

The issue with the game right now isn't expansion or too many teams, it's how the cap creates a forced parity by preventing good teams from retaining the players they have developed, regardless of whether or not they have the financial means to retain them.

It's a system that prevents good Management with deep pockets to create great teams for a prolonged periods and is why we will never see a dynasty like the 70's Canadiens, or the 80's oilers again.

On the flip side it limits idiotic Management like the Leafs on how much the can over pay players. It allows cheap, but average, or stupid Management teams like the islanders to eventually make the playoffs.

The system still allows bad Management to produce consistently horrible teams (leafs, oilers), but prevents good Management to create historic dynasties that win 4 or 5 cups in a row. So you still have the crappy teams we had before the cap, but we don't have a dynasty that is going to win 4 or 5 cups in a row.

You just described a union.

[kaos]

You just described a union.

Funny how a union tried to prevent all that from happening

[Fanpuck33]

My thought on expansion continues to be that the talent level is watered down enough already.

[Commandant]

There has never been more talent relative to number of teams than there is right now.

In fact part of the reason the goal scoring is down is that all the third and fourth liners are such good skaters and even if you get caught with a fourth line on a shift against the top line, its not an automatic scoring chance. The fourth line can skate, and play defensive positions well enough to keep that line at bay long enough and then get a line change on many occassions.

In the 80s you got a first line against a fourth line and they were gonna get a prime scoring chance.

(one of the reasons, not the only reason).

There are so many more hockey players in the US than ever before.

More europeans in the league than ever before (And from more countries).

The talent is so much better than 21 teams and 80% canadians like the 80s... or the 70s when the NHL had 16 teams and the WHL had a bunch and it was 85% canadian.