Are current expansion rules too beneficial?

[CashMash]

I was ready to call Vegas a one-off occurrence based on how well players that were seen as depth guys performed. Now that Seattle has made it this far, is it fair to say that NHL expansion rules, as they are now, yield a team that's a little too competitive to start with? You could counter the question by saying "Oh, but the other teams have had time to build contenders, so it's their own fault if they can't measure up to the new team."

The problem with that statement is that expansion teams essentially chip away at the depth of other teams. It might still be a valid counter, but I figured I'd throw my hat in the ring. What are your thoughts?

 

[Maukkis]

Look at where Seattle's top players have come from, and you'll get your answer.

Bjorkstrand: Francis absolutely fleeced Kekäläinen in a trade, who - quite frankly - chose the wrong guy to keep out of Laine and Bjorkstrand.

McCann: there was a trade involved with him prior to the expansion, but the Leafs literally protected Justin Holl over three additional forwards.

Dunn: the Blues managed to not only lose Pietrangelo for nothing by signing Faulk to an enormous contract before AP became UFA, but they also protected Faulk over Dunn, promptly losing the better defenseman for nothing. Not a single modicum of foresight was used there.

Eberle: the Islanders protected Clutterbuck and Martin over him. 'nuff said.

Larsson: I can't say this was as bad as the four guys mentioned above, but when your protection list includes no less than five fringe NHL players (at the time) that are no longer on your roster, something might have gone wrong.

Sprong/Tolvanen: they're not necessarily top players, but they reinforce the point that is made here: other GMs around the league are, at times, absolutely useless at recognising the talent that they have in their organisation. These are essentially two 20-goal guys playing for a combined 2.3 million, who the Kraken got for nothing from organisations that somehow didn't see value in having them around. Heck, we just had a desperate GM pay five draft picks for a worse player at the deadline, yet these bargains are still available league-wide. Seattle (and Vegas) have made use of them; the same cannot be said for everyone else.

Many thought that Vegas was a one-off with how they executed fantastic trades in the expansion draft. But Seattle, on the other hand, didn't do that, yet they still have managed to find great talent from multiple sources (FA, waiver wire, expansion etc.) in just two years.

Other GMs should take notes. They're the ones allowing this to happen.

 

[syz]

Starting with 100% of your cap space is a massive advantage, independent of any exact expansion rules. 30 other teams were dealing with years of poor decisions that influenced who was and was not being protected, both in terms of raw dollars and also things like NMCs. Seattle and Vegas didn't need to care about any of that outside of reaching the cap floor.

 

[cowboy82nd]

The number one thing that the expansion franchise have that other teams don't is cap space. Lots of it. It helps getting players and draft picks.

 

[Gabrielor]

Yes.

Protection list numbers should increase.

The nhl didn’t take into account a fresh team with no cap on the books, and how that team could take advantage of free agency, and the lack of previous front officers’ mistakes internally.

 

[Three On Zero]

Absolutely not. People were laughing at the team Seattle built

 

[NDiesel]

Absolutely not. People were laughing at the team Seattle built

Exactly, now that they're good people bring this question up, but they were being ridiculed for some of their expansion draft decisions

 

[TruePowerSlave]

This is a much better system than having expansion teams pick spare parts and suck. Teams can still protect their best players, but make a bunch of stupid choices.

 

[mattihp]

If the other teams were left gutted by expansion, sure. But they weren't.

 

[Maukkis]

Yes.

Protection list numbers should increase.

The nhl didn’t take into account a fresh team with no cap on the books, and how that team could take advantage of free agency, and the lack of previous front officers’ mistakes internally.

Sounds like the previous front offices should make less mistakes then, no?

If you cannot properly identify your 8/10 most important players for foreseeable future and protect them all, then perhaps the problem isn't the rules.

 

[edog37]

No because the league has a vested interest in seeing these expansion teams succeed & become established in their markets. Otherwise, what’s the point of expanding in the first place? The rules are fine.

 

[Monsieur Miz]

People said Vegas would suck ass when they saw their roster. Same thing for Seattle. Especially Seattle, people were giving Ron Francis so much shit.

So yeah.

 

[Lshap]

Starting with 100% of your cap space is a massive advantage, independent of any exact expansion rules. 30 other teams were dealing with years of poor decisions that influenced who was and was not being protected, to a degree. Seattle and Vegas didn't need to care about any of that outside of reaching the cap floor.

That's true, but being free of past mistakes didn't prevent Seattle from making new mistakes of their own. It just so happened they invested in the right players.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Seattle was terrible their first season.

The biggest difference between then and now is the impact of having a completely fresh cap to start off with.

 

[triggrman]

Because of the flat salary cap and a clean ledger, it was already easier than previous expansions and that’s before the way more beneficial protection rules.

 

[SomeDude]

When ownership groups are paying 500-600+ million expansion fees, they want to not have historically bad teams for their first decade of existence like expansion teams used to be.

Also, having a competitive teams right out of the gate is how you grab the attention of a market and keep it. The NHL finally seems to understand that.

 

[Hostile Offer]

I don't think so. Like which teams really lost something they wouldn't have wanted to lose in the Seattle or Vegas expansion? With the current player pool the expansion rules are very reasonable IMO, you don't want the existing teams to suffer too much from them but you also don't want to have the expansion teams to be terrible either, which is exactly what the league achieved.

 

[gdsmack267]

No, they pay a massive entrance fee to enter the league. The other owners are willing to lose a mid tier player for their $20 million dollar cut. I think a props to the management of these new franchises for doing their due diligence and making the right moves.

Lot of teams hurt themselves more than they needed to by making wrong moves. Look at the Penguins for example. They literally traded away Mccann for nothing and exposed Tanev to protect Teddy 4th line Blueger, Kasperi Cant score Kapanen and Jeff Carter, who dropped off a cliff the day he signed his extension. Now their bottom 6 doesnt even sniff the offensive zone.

 

[Legion34]

No tax rules are more beneficial.

A no tax team will be in the final every year since 2019….
It could be a no tax final for the 2nd time in 4 years.

There are what 6 no tax markets?

Vegas final 4 twice cup final
Tampa 2 cups and a final
Florida presidents trophy and final 4
Nashville. Presidents trophy and final
Dallas. Final and final 4
Seattle game 7 second round.

The last 7 cups will have at least 1 no tax teams

 

[ponder719]

Why is it a bad thing for expansion teams to be relatively functional out the gate? They have a good early run, get established in their city, fans flock to them and develop an identity, and they manage to integrate into the league quickly. These are all positives, unless you're just salty that your team doesn't have an additional cream puff to beat up on.

 

[gdsmack267]

Why is it a bad thing for expansion teams to be relatively functional out the gate? They have a good early run, get established in their city, fans flock to them and develop an identity, and they manage to integrate into the league quickly. These are all positives, unless you're just salty that your team doesn't have an additional cream puff to beat up on.

100% agree. I think early success leads to better long term growth for the team and the league. Now they just need to move Arizona to Houston and all 32 teams should be financially sound.

 

[Crede777]

Columbus early on was told that it's expected that expansion teams suck really bad for a while. And boy did they. Now, 20 years later, they're still paying the price of that when players and media pundits label them as a team with no history and that has always been bad.

So yeah, I'm a bit salty the league decided starting with Vegas that expansion teams should start out on 2nd base. I'm still of the view that expansion rosters should be made up mostly of AHL players and that the team needs to start at 0 and build from there.

To those pointing at the expansion fees - those fees actually are just in line with franchise valuation. Teams have always paid around the median franchise value cost to enter. It's no different now than it was during previous expansion rounds.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Seattle is just Ronnie Franchise killing it along with their coaching staff and players doing a great job being cohesive as a team.

Teams > individual players in hockey every time.

 

[CashMash]

Why is it a bad thing for expansion teams to be relatively functional out the gate? They have a good early run, get established in their city, fans flock to them and develop an identity, and they manage to integrate into the league quickly. These are all positives, unless you're just salty that your team doesn't have an additional cream puff to beat up on.

I don't think the bolded is the case for me. I'd be happy with middling or bubble teams, I guess. Feels a little weird that they are in the mix for a Stanley Cup right away is what I am saying--hence the wording "a little too competitive." Feels like teams who have been building for a while are disadvantaged. Like Vegas making the finals right out of the gate, for example.

People having brought up the available cap space is completely valid. That may, in fact, be where they get such a competitive advantage. Loads of teams have contracts they wish to unload... Granted, they signed those contracts in the first place.

Absolutely not. People were laughing at the team Seattle built

Does that take away from the fact they had a good starting point? I think not.

Of course, shrewd management is a factor as well, and the "building a legacy" early on is definitely a good thing... I guess the main gripe is that current expansion rules are now 2/2 in building teams with the potential to not only make the playoffs, but really make an impact.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Absolutely not. People were laughing at the team Seattle built

Not too many fans thought Vegas would be great after the expansion draft. Who would have thought that Smith, March, and Karlsson would have the sustained careers they've had in Vegas? What Is common with both, imo, is picking up players with untapped potential that other GMs left unprotected for fringe d men (FL, Toronto, etc.) and bottom sixers (NYI). Both teams also made some good trades and signings.

Not having bad contracts on the cap also helps build a well rounded team.