rebusrankin Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Sucks, waters down the game. I don't see Vegas as a good market at all. Seattle perhaps. Portland, no. Quebec City, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Sigh.... The game we love is once again being threatened by greed. Expansion? Yuck. More games, more fringe players, more, more, more. I wish we could take our game and our trophy back. Go home Yankees, go home. Love... There's way more talent in the league now (Gretzky & Lemieux excluded) than there was in the 80s with 21 teams. There were 3rd pairing dmen back then who struggled doing crosscuts in both directions. Scoring is down b/c teams play defense now, the goalies are no longer terrible, and the salary cap doesn't let great teams stay together. Mark F 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted June 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 When it comes to scoring being down, one only needs look at video from the 80's compared to know. How much more net you could see and how goalies play the position. Im in favour of increasing the size of the net slightly. It doesnt change the game when you compare it to the game a few years ago. Expansion will put $16 million (for one team) into the Jets' pockets. Business is business. I dont have an issue with some struggling teams like Florida, per se. You'll always have teams that are cycling up and cycling down health-wise. A team like the Coyotes just irks me. But those low revenue teams act as a drag on revenues and thus on the salary cap. If you're the Rangers or Leafs, you dont like that. If you're a middle of the road team you probably like a bit of a drag on the cap. I guess what you dont want is too many teams trying to get revenue sharing. But if I recall, the Jets have paid *into* revenue sharing the last couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardCoreBlue Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Sigh.... The game we love is once again being threatened by greed. Expansion? Yuck. More games, more fringe players, more, more, more. I wish we could take our game and our trophy back. Go home Yankees, go home. Love... There's way more talent in the league now (Gretzky & Lemieux excluded) than there was in the 80s with 21 teams. There were 3rd pairing dmen back then who struggled doing crosscuts in both directions. Scoring is down b/c teams play defense now, the goalies are no longer terrible, and the salary cap doesn't let great teams stay together. Scoring is also down because players on average are bigger limiting the lanes to get the puck threw. On the one end, it's frustrating to watch, but on the other end, it actually involves more skill and puck movement to score a goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iHeart Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 When it comes to scoring being down, one only needs look at video from the 80's compared to know. How much more net you could see and how goalies play the position. Im in favour of increasing the size of the net slightly. It doesnt change the game when you compare it to the game a few years ago. Expansion will put $16 million (for one team) into the Jets' pockets. Business is business. I dont have an issue with some struggling teams like Florida, per se. You'll always have teams that are cycling up and cycling down health-wise. A team like the Coyotes just irks me. But those low revenue teams act as a drag on revenues and thus on the salary cap. If you're the Rangers or Leafs, you dont like that. If you're a middle of the road team you probably like a bit of a drag on the cap. I guess what you dont want is too many teams trying to get revenue sharing. But if I recall, the Jets have paid *into* revenue sharing the last couple of years. how so? can you explain. You make it sound like the expansion will be good for the jets economy wise (but not so much playoff wise, but then again if the Jets 1.0 and the Thrashers struggled in their first seasons so will the two new teams, and the RedBlacks first season basically proved that expansion teams don't necessarily make the playoffs in the first season (I mean Jets 2.0 did great in their first season, but not great enough to enter the playoffs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted June 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 When it comes to scoring being down, one only needs look at video from the 80's compared to know. How much more net you could see and how goalies play the position. Im in favour of increasing the size of the net slightly. It doesnt change the game when you compare it to the game a few years ago. Expansion will put $16 million (for one team) into the Jets' pockets. Business is business. I dont have an issue with some struggling teams like Florida, per se. You'll always have teams that are cycling up and cycling down health-wise. A team like the Coyotes just irks me. But those low revenue teams act as a drag on revenues and thus on the salary cap. If you're the Rangers or Leafs, you dont like that. If you're a middle of the road team you probably like a bit of a drag on the cap. I guess what you dont want is too many teams trying to get revenue sharing. But if I recall, the Jets have paid *into* revenue sharing the last couple of years. how so? can you explain. You make it sound like the expansion will be good for the jets economy wise (but not so much playoff wise, but then again if the Jets 1.0 and the Thrashers struggled in their first seasons so will the two new teams, and the RedBlacks first season basically proved that expansion teams don't necessarily make the playoffs in the first season (I mean Jets 2.0 did great in their first season, but not great enough to enter the playoffs) Expansion fee is split amongst the owners. It's pure profit for the teams. So $500 million expansion fee divided by 30 teams = $16.6 million. And if they can get $500 million fee TWICE, then it's twice as much profit for the teams. I dont see it as a drag on the Jets' playoff chances either. 16 team make the playoffs whether there are 30 teams or 32 teams. And if anything, they'd have more teams qualify and do that shorter qualifying round. Where it would hurt a team like the Jets is that the Jets are a young team on the rise with plenty of assets and we would certainly lose at least one very good player through the expansion draft. it depends if the draft is weighted in favour of the new teams (trying to help them be competitive as soon as possible) or weighted to protect the assets of existing teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iHeart Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 I think I can understand how it would make the league more equal, since you said either way 16 teams make the playoffs with two more the league is a little more equal charts wise, but does this mean one team switches conferences? But if push comes to shove who could we afford to lose to one of the expansion teams? I can see this meaning at least one players from each farm team will end up being promoted to the big leagues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted June 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Here are the rules the last time the NHL expanded: 26 of the 28 teams existing in the league at the time of the draft were each allowed to protect either one goaltender, five defensemen, and nine forwards or two goaltenders, three defensemen, and seven forwards. The Atlanta Thrashers and Nashville Predators had their entire rosters protected, as they were the two newest franchises in the league, only being in existence for one and two years respectively. For teams protecting only one goaltender, there was no experience requirement for those left unprotected. For teams protecting two goaltenders, each goaltender left unprotected must have appeared in either 10 NHL games in the 1999–2000 season or 25 games in the 1998–99 season and 1999–2000 seasons combined. A goaltender had to be in net for at least 31 minutes in each game for the game to be counted against these totals. At least one defenceman left unprotected by each team had to have appeared in at least 40 games in the 1999–2000 season or 70 games in the 1998–99 season and 1999–2000 seasons combined. At least two forwards left unprotected by each team had to have met the same requirements. 52 players were chosen in the draft, two from each participating franchise. Only one goaltender or one defenseman could be selected from each franchise. Both the Blue Jackets and the Wild were to use their first 24 selections on three goaltenders, eight defensemen, and thirteen forwards. The final two picks for each team could be any position. So for the Jets, it would depend on who is signed in two years (when expansion likely happens) but if the rules were the same we stand to lose either Helle, Comrie or maybe Hutch. Thats a high price. if we tried to keep two goalies, then we can only protect three D (Trouba, Myers, ???). I would suspect we'd protect one goalie and gamble on the expansion team selecting a veteran first and hope we dont lose a young goalie. The league is currently unbalanced, right? 14 teams in the West, 16 in the east. So the idea is the NHL always planned to expand by two teams in the west. Even if they didnt have a formal plan in mind, odds were the expansion would come in the west as opposed to the east. Most teams being talked about are in the West with the exception of Quebec and Toronto. I think Quebec is seen as an emergency back up for relocation. I also think the NHL assumed odds were Coyotes would be gone within their five year out clause so they either relocate to one of the west cities leaving Quebec for expansion or relocate to Quebec leaving two west cities for expansion (such as Vegas, Seattle etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Add another GTA team and call them the 'MapleLeafs'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnzo Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 Two of the Seattle groups have dropped out. The sole remaining applicant -- Ray Bartoszek -- is based in Connecticut and his suburban arena proposal hasn't even cleared environmental review yet. They're thinking they might have shovels in the ground in early 2016, but I seriously doubt that. http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/hockey/seattle-bellevue-groups-wont-apply-for-nhl-franchise-before-deadline/ Bartoszek's proposed arena is in Tukwila, a suburb about 15km south of downtown. It's already a pretty developed area and would be much more convenient for suburban fans than the basketball-first SoDo proposal. I suspect the hockey base in Seattle is more suburban than urban, so maybe this is the smartest move. He'd have to play out of the completely inadequate downtown KeyArena for a few years. That doesn't sound like a winning bid, but the NHL really wants more teams in the west, so maybe it will win out. I remember back when the league expanded to Ottawa, they overlooked a much better bid from Hamilton -- the guy who originally owned the Senators was kind of a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted July 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 You'd think Vegas and Quebec are the easy "ins" but there seems to be reluctance to go with Quebec. They're going to have riots in the street if they ignore Quebec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Quebec has put in a bid for expansion altho I feel they are more likely going to get a relocated team instead. Florida or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted July 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Quebec has put in a bid for expansion altho I feel they are more likely going to get a relocated team instead. Florida or something I tend to agree but if Vegas and Quebec are the only two to submit bids, it sort of limits the NHL's options. They like Quebec for the same reason they liked Winnipeg - its an easy soft landing spot. But Quebec wont behave like Winnipeg did - they wont wait forever. The other consideration is the NHL will get more from expansion than relocation so without other options they might give in to Quebec for the massive expansion fee. If Florida or PHX need to relocate down the road, a city that is not as willing to pay $400M might be a softer landing spot. And there are people who swear Florida isnt going anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Two of the Seattle groups have dropped out. The sole remaining applicant -- Ray Bartoszek -- is based in Connecticut and his suburban arena proposal hasn't even cleared environmental review yet. They're thinking they might have shovels in the ground in early 2016, but I seriously doubt that. http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/hockey/seattle-bellevue-groups-wont-apply-for-nhl-franchise-before-deadline/ Bartoszek's proposed arena is in Tukwila, a suburb about 15km south of downtown. It's already a pretty developed area and would be much more convenient for suburban fans than the basketball-first SoDo proposal. I suspect the hockey base in Seattle is more suburban than urban, so maybe this is the smartest move. He'd have to play out of the completely inadequate downtown KeyArena for a few years. That doesn't sound like a winning bid, but the NHL really wants more teams in the west, so maybe it will win out. I remember back when the league expanded to Ottawa, they overlooked a much better bid from Hamilton -- the guy who originally owned the Senators was kind of a joke. Tukwilla is pretty far south of Seattle on I-5. With the prolonged rush hours on that freeway it'll be different for people to get to the games. Seattle is virtual gridlock anywhere on the best of days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Peladeau is involved Nice 18k arena though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotron_Centre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 **** Pelladeau that godamned separatist. What a POS. FrostyWinnipeg and Goalie 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted July 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 That's definitely an issue too. I'd like to see the NHL refuse a separatist. Will money trump that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnzo Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 No Seattle bid. Hope the Coyotes relocate here. It would be a trip if Jets 1.0 followed me to Seattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Seattle is virtual gridlock anywhere on the best of days went to seattle a few years ago by car, planned a night stay there, almost got hit by a bus on tracks, couldn't believe how horrendous the traffic was, left immediately. I've driven around Los Angeles, it's much easier than Seattle. That place is not laid back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted July 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 So...they got two bids? To fill two expansion slots? I assume the NHL thought they'd have numerous bids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 The NHL is asking for a $10 Million down payment just to be considered, and $2 million of that is not refundable. At that price you really aren't going to be getting any "tire kicker" bids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtlanticRiderFan Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 No Seattle bid. Hope the Coyotes relocate here. It would be a trip if Jets 1.0 followed me to Seattle. They confirmed no Seattle bid? Link? Really sucks if true. Seems like the perfect place to make a rivalry with the Canucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 NHL should have told Seattle to get ready the minute the NBA left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted July 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 But isnt that the issue? That Seattle wants to bring back the NBA and the NHL is sort of a secondary idea to fill arena dates? But they dont want the NHL without the NBA? If the NHL thought they'd get multiple bids, they once again over-valued themselves. How will it look if they dont award franchises to Vegas and Quebec now if those were the only two to apply? Vegas is a slam dunk. Its Quebec that intrigues me because it makes too much sense. The politics could be an issue though. And I think the NHL likes to have a slam dunk in their back pocket for future problems. If they go Vegas and Quebec, they better hope Florida and PHX dont need to relocate anytime soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnzo Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 , NHL should have told Seattle to get ready the minute the NBA left. If the NHL wants to pony up the cool $500MM for a new arena, we can get the shovels in the ground tomorrow. It's like I said before, Seattle's not a big hockey town. There isn't a lot of pent-up pro hockey demand here, especially among the local monied and political classes who can make all this stuff happen. They want the NBA back more than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now