Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40

Thread: Expansion talks

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    23,421
    vCash
    1000

    Expansion talks

    http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=439258


    Q: What the latest on NHL expansion? Where and when?

    McKenzie: The NHL party line hasn't changed. There are no formal plans for expansion but if they expand and everyone assumes at some point, they're going to, the common knowledge is that Seattle is the primary target in the Pacific Northwest. The strong sense I'm getting now is that Las Vegas is second on that *list behind Seattle and the NHL wants to be the first major professional sports league to put a franchise in Las Vegas. People in Quebec City may be saying, 'Hey, what about us?' Well, keep in mind, there's not rule that says if they expand, that they only expand by two teams. The possibility of expanding by three teams, with Quebec City being one of them, is at least something that will be considered. There's lots of money in expansion; over $300 million per franchise, close to a $1 billion winfall that isn't shared with the players or anyone else, just the owners.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    16,773
    vCash
    1500
    Expansion is a horrible idea. The thought of losing the players my team would give up for nothing in return makes me want to throw up. Move the panthers out of there to Seattle/QC and another team to the other.... Expansion is bad.


    lol, small kid got tripped by a tuba player

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Aurora, CO (HT Queens, NY)
    Posts
    10,613
    vCash
    1500
    Take Bailey, Regin, Hickey, Carkner, Ness, and Strait. Take them all.


    TATAR SAUCE

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    6,506
    vCash
    1500
    I'd hate to have to decide which players to protect and not protect for an expansion draft. It'd be interesting to see how many players the league would allow you to protect. Not sure if it'd be the same as last time years ago or if the # of players you could protect would change. Last time Nashville and Atlanta were allowed to protect all of their players because they just recently came into the league and were just starting out. There's no teams that would fall under that category right now.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Port Huron, MI
    Posts
    5,850
    vCash
    1500
    Wings have quite a few useless vets. Yes please (though most of them have contracts that expire after this year).
    You need centerman that can play two ways and if they donít play two ways in the end, you canít win, because the guy you are counting on canít get himself on the right side of the puck enough. So sure he can score, he can score but his team loses every night, I didnít know that was the objective. I thought winning was the objective. So if you centers canít play down the middle, and canít play without the puck, you have no chance.
    - Mike Babcock

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    6,904
    vCash
    1500
    Water the league down some more, real good idea. What chance do the expansiom teams have with a bunch of castaways to start generating interest in the teams, especially in non hockey markets. Any of them teams would be about 5 years from coming close to a playoff spot, cant see attendance being great for that. Expansion can really only work in big time hockey markets, Vegas will lose interest faster than you lose a grand there unless they build the rink with a casino in it.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,955
    vCash
    2563
    Why not put teams in proven markets? The NHL needs to move away from the stupid novelty ideas and go with what works. Seattle, Quebec City, maybe even go back to Hartford, etc.
    "whoever started is a retarded" - Marco Reus aka TO aka Karen aka Karan

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,955
    vCash
    2563
    I was 5 when it happened but this draft doesn't look like it affected any teams much:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_NHL_Expansion_Draft
    "whoever started is a retarded" - Marco Reus aka TO aka Karen aka Karan

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    10,398
    vCash
    1500
    Would love a team in Seattle. Couldn't go to every game but would attend a few

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    8,831
    vCash
    1500
    So based on how that expansion draft went, it looks like teams could protect majority of the NHL roster.

    at the time of the draft each team was allowed to protect either one goaltender, five defensemen, and nine forwards or two goaltenders, three defensemen, and seven forwards.
    For Boston's NHL roster that's easy....

    Forwards - Lucic, Krejci, Marchand, Bergeron, Eriksson, Soderberg, Smith, Campbell, Paille
    Defense - Chara, Seidenberg, Krug, Hamilton, Boychuk
    Goalie - Rask


    Which is more Epic?
    A) Chara vs. Smith
    or
    B) Quincey's Reaction

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    26,876
    vCash
    1500
    I don't like the idea of expansion. I'd rather take teams whose respective cities don't seem to care about them and move them. I would like to see Quebec City get a team back, if Winnipeg can get their team back, why not Quebec? Seattle seems like a good choice for a team. We'll just have to wait and see, only time will tell.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    28,490
    vCash
    1500
    Expasion LOL we can talk expansion when the bottom-feeder teams like Phoenix and Florida can fill more than 1/4 of their arenas. Re-location before expansion, without question. Of course, Bettman has a hard-on for keeping a team like the Coyotes in Glendale, not even in the city of Phoenix. One thing I know about this league is that they're great at ****ing everything up. They ruined the winter classic, player safety is a disaster, and this is already a watered down product at 30 teams, it's only more watered down with more. Parity doesn't create greatness.
    Last edited by Halladay; 12-22-2013 at 04:00 AM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Port Huron, MI
    Posts
    5,850
    vCash
    1500
    at the time of the draft each team was allowed to protect either one goaltender, five defensemen, and nine forwards or two goaltenders, three defensemen, and seven forwards.
    Also easy for the Wings.

    Forwards: Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, Nyquist, Tatar, Helm, Abdelkader, Jurco, Weiss
    Defensemen: Kronwall, Ericsson, Dekeyser, Smith, Kindl
    Goalie: Howard
    You need centerman that can play two ways and if they donít play two ways in the end, you canít win, because the guy you are counting on canít get himself on the right side of the puck enough. So sure he can score, he can score but his team loses every night, I didnít know that was the objective. I thought winning was the objective. So if you centers canít play down the middle, and canít play without the puck, you have no chance.
    - Mike Babcock

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    VANCOUVER
    Posts
    48,528
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Halladay View Post
    Expasion LOL we can talk expansion when the bottom-feeder teams like Phoenix and Florida can fill more than 1/4 of their arenas. Re-location before expansion, without question. Of course, Bettman has a hard-on for keeping a team like the Coyotes in Glendale, not even in the city of Phoenix. One thing I know about this league is that they're great at ****ing everything up. They ruined the winter classic, player safety is a disaster, and this is already a watered down product at 30 teams, it's only more watered down with more. Parity doesn't create greatness.
    I agree. It's clear they want the expansion fees from the new teams rather than doing the sensible thing and relocating floundering franchises to good hockey markets.

    Quebec City, the Toronto area, these are absolute no-brainers. Imagine how lucrative franchises in the cradle of North American hockey would be for the owners. But they cling to the non-hockey markets hoping for the big prize: a huge US market TV contract for a nation-wide sport. I can see what they're going for but it's damaging/watering down the product and it is also leaving them in a conflict of interest situation where they'll do everything they can to bring in the casual fan including messing with player safety as you suggest.

    My wish would be for three franchises to relocate to: 1. Quebec, 2. Seattle (awesome possibility of having teams right down the west coast to link Vancouver with a natural Pacific rival and on to the CA-based teams to the south), and 3. Metro Toronto area, which would be an absolute goldmine.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    16,773
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ink View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Halladay View Post
    Expasion LOL we can talk expansion when the bottom-feeder teams like Phoenix and Florida can fill more than 1/4 of their arenas. Re-location before expansion, without question. Of course, Bettman has a hard-on for keeping a team like the Coyotes in Glendale, not even in the city of Phoenix. One thing I know about this league is that they're great at ****ing everything up. They ruined the winter classic, player safety is a disaster, and this is already a watered down product at 30 teams, it's only more watered down with more. Parity doesn't create greatness.
    I agree. It's clear they want the expansion fees from the new teams rather than doing the sensible thing and relocating floundering franchises to good hockey markets.

    Quebec City, the Toronto area, these are absolute no-brainers. Imagine how lucrative franchises in the cradle of North American hockey would be for the owners. But they cling to the non-hockey markets hoping for the big prize: a huge US market TV contract for a nation-wide sport. I can see what they're going for but it's damaging/watering down the product and it is also leaving them in a conflict of interest situation where they'll do everything they can to bring in the casual fan including messing with player safety as you suggest.

    My wish would be for three franchises to relocate to: 1. Quebec, 2. Seattle (awesome possibility of having teams right down the west coast to link Vancouver with a natural Pacific rival and on to the CA-based teams to the south), and 3. Metro Toronto area, which would be an absolute goldmine.
    I think Milwaukee would be a better addition than adding another Toronto team. Mostly because of the fact that there is no team there yet and their nba and MLB teams seem to do well


    lol, small kid got tripped by a tuba player

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •