Are current expansion rules too beneficial?

[ponder719]

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.

The primary disadvantage those teams have had has been their own stupidity. Gift the expansion teams a couple lines' worth of players you've undervalued, and suddenly they look a lot better and you look a lot worse. This thread is full of examples of bad decisions that loaded Vegas and Seattle with players who should never have been available to them. Karlsson and two high picks to relieve Columbus of a bad contract. Marchessault to relieve Florida of Reilly Smith's contract. Bjorkstrand to Seattle for two middling picks. Then, you can look at the benefits of the cap space (some of which was flexed in these trades, as well), but ultimately, if those players' existing teams made better decisions, they wouldn't have paid so much to get essentially, nothing but relief from bad decisions.

I still don't see any reason why these teams should have to suffer. Poor decisions in the 90s should not condemn the NHL of today to repeat those poor decisions again.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

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?

Oh no, the expansion teams are taking depth!

You don't want them to have stars, and you don't want them to have depth, but you want them to pay $650 million for the privilege?

Go Kraken.

 

[CashMash]

Oh no, the expansion teams are taking depth!

You don't want them to have stars, and you don't want them to have depth, but you want them to pay $650 million for the privilege?

Go Kraken.

I don't see how this follows from what I am saying. There's a difference between "these teams are a little too competitive from the outset" and "teams should be dog tier from the start!"

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I don't see how this follows from what I am saying. There's a difference between "these teams are a little too competitive from the outset" and "teams should be dog tier from the start!"

You said that you don't want them to have the existing teams' depth players - that's on you.

I inferred that you don't want them to have the existing teams' star players - if that's an error on my part, I apologize.

 

[TLEH]

I think other than the cap space, I think the one of the nicer things they benefit from is that the players come there with a different mindset. A lot of guys that aren't sure of their opportunity and go there and realize they are going to have an immediate role that isn't constantly threatened. They can play free and they're all in the same situation on a new team. Creates an immediate bond. I also think a lot of times GMs overthink it and rather than just lose a player and be done with it, end up making it worse on themselves.

I do understand the thought process when you say, how are these teams already so successful, but I don't think the expansion rules are too beneficial, I think other GMs are just that stupid, and the hard cap is way too powerful.

 

[Royale With Cheese]

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?

No.

As an older fan, I can remember expansion teams like Ottawa - they sucked.

I like that an expansion team now can actually be competitive right away instead of being the league's doormat for 3-5 years. As a neutral fan, it's just better to watch competitive hockey.

 

[CashMash]

You said that you don't want them to have the existing teams' depth players - that's on you.

I inferred that you don't want them to have the existing teams' star players - if that's an error on my part, I apologize.

My question is merely, as stated in the heading, if the current expansion rules are too favorable for whatever reason. The "chipping away at depth" was merely me musing at what the cause could be... like countering my initial thought with another argument.

If you are arguing with yourself in the shower, do you not anticipate what another party might say so you are equipped with a counterargument from the get go? I do that.

"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?"

This is essentially my main question. I am sorry if I was confusing somehow with the added speculation. As of now, it seems to have garnered a diverse range of opinions and a good set of new things to consider, such as weaponized cap space, shrewd management, teams only having themselves to blame for cap troubles, etc., so I would say my OP still served its purpose.

 

[Suntouchable13]

If you were paying these exorbitant expansion fees, woulnd’t you want your team to be competitive sooner rather than later?

 

[DuklaNation]

Yes. The hard cap has limited flexibility for teams to adjust their rosters. Obviously there are other issues. But teams that are struggling, just clear out payroll and just start over.

I think its f***ing gross that so many teams are struggling to just make the 1st round while Vegas has made conference finals 4 times out of 6, and Seattle now has made 2nd round in just their season. Unless you're brain dead, there is an obvious bias here. So, the longer suffering fanbases must continue to suffer while the new fans are catered to.

When the product makes you frustrated or unsatisfied, you're not the target market.

 

[Cup Or Bust]

I think the rules are good. They are also good business for the NHL as well. They certainly do have an advantage though. You can basically pick and choose established players and know their current contracts and set up a really good foundation right away. Much different than having to draft, develop and sign players with unknown's attached. It's good for getting their fans involved and grow their fanbase quickly as well. I have no problem with it. Having a team full of AHL players and losing 45-50 games for their first 2 or 3 seasons probably isn't the best strategy to attract and grow a new fanbase.

 

[SEALBound]

I will still maintain that given the players available vs who was taken, Francis botched the ED. However, the subsequent trades, claims, and signings have made Seattle a very good team, so kudos to him.

 

[Oneiro]

Yes. The hard cap has limited flexibility for teams to adjust their rosters. Obviously there are other issues. But teams that are struggling, just clear out payroll and just start over.

I think its f***ing gross that so many teams are struggling to just make the 1st round while Vegas has made conference finals 4 times out of 6, and Seattle now has made 2nd round in just their season. Unless you're brain dead, there is an obvious bias here. So, the longer suffering fanbases must continue to suffer while the new fans are catered to.

When the product makes you frustrated or unsatisfied, you're not the target market.

The long suffering fanbases are long suffering for a reason. It is 100% on ownership and management if your team has sucked or been inept for a long time.

 

[DuklaNation]

The long suffering fanbases are long suffering for a reason. It is 100% on ownership and management if your team has sucked or been inept for a long time.

That's great but when the odds are stacked against you, it isn't simply on ownership and management. Personally, I'm all for ditching the hard cap and eliminate revenue sharing. Sink or swim time/

 

[Oneiro]

That's great but when the odds are stacked against you, it isn't simply on ownership and management. Personally, I'm all for ditching the hard cap and eliminate revenue sharing. Sink or swim time/

The Leafs were inept without the cap and are inept with it. Ditto for the Rangers. These markets don't have discipline with drafting, UFAs, development, etc. If anything, the cap saves them from themselves. They get star players willing to go there and still can't put it all together.

There are no odds stacked against you. You just suck at building a real organization with an identity that extends beyond any one talent or person. Seattle and Vegas have more of an identity and collective-buy-in than any TOR or NYR team of the last 20+ years.

 

[The Nuge]

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.

Larsson was in no way a mistake. He struggled to recover after the loss of his father, who passed away in Edmonton on their fathers trip. He said he loved Edmonton but needed a fresh start in free agency to try and move on. It was unfortunate for Edmonton, but they’re humans and Larsson needed to be able to go

 

[DuklaNation]

The Leafs were inept without the cap and are inept with it. Ditto for the Rangers. These markets don't have discipline with drafting, UFAs, development, etc. If anything, the cap saves them from themselves. They get star players willing to go there and still can't put it all together.

There are no odds stacked against you. You just suck at building a real organization with an identity that extends beyond any one talent or person. Seattle and Vegas have more of an identity and collective-buy-in than any TOR or NYR team of the last 20+ years.

Good, if you believe that, get rid of the cap. Some teams have plenty of money to make mistakes.

 

[RuudeDog]

Results speak for themselves.

 

[Obvious Fabertism]

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.

Pretty much this as a Wild fan, our expansion class was brutally bad, the league seemed to have realized it needs to be better so I don’t blame them for making adjustments, but it does hurt a bit more that just as we were starting to get the organizational depth to be successful, the league expands and we lose some of our depth.

And yeah, the expansion fees are actually a discount from previous decades when you adjust for investment level growth that occurred in the markets between expansion.

Having multiple teams enter the league and pick through a shared weaker pool of players than they do currently was a mistake, but they seem to have learned from it. They might have gone a little too friendly, but it is a good idea to have these teams competitive early to build a sticky fan base.

 

[Hoek]

Like which teams really lost something they wouldn't have wanted to lose in the Seattle or Vegas expansion?

The Lightning sure did with Gourde, but we were so stacked any expansion draft rules was gonna hurt us. I don't think Seattle had much to work with if they weren't going to risk wasting a lot of cap on extremely risky choices like Tarasenko and Price. I definitely criticized what Francis did that first year because it could've been slightly better, but looks like he was smart in actually looking at what could be done the next year.

 

[North Cole]

The one team feels like a team of destiny where thet randomly score 4 goals on 5 shots, we'll see if they can repeat next year and actually be a staple in the playoffs. The other team is massively over the cap, them not winning would be pretty laughable.

 

[Crede777]

Pretty much this as a Wild fan, our expansion class was brutally bad, the league seemed to have realized it needs to be better so I don’t blame them for making adjustments, but it does hurt a bit more that just as we were starting to get the organizational depth to be successful, the league expands and we lose some of our depth.

And yeah, the expansion fees are actually a discount from previous decades when you adjust for investment level growth that occurred in the markets between expansion.

Having multiple teams enter the league and pick through a shared weaker pool of players than they do currently was a mistake, but they seem to have learned from it. They might have gone a little too friendly, but it is a good idea to have these teams competitive early to build a sticky fan base.

Yeah it isn't anything against Vegas or Seattle. It's more directed at the league where they took the stance in 2000 that expansion teams suck and should be left entirely to sink or swim versus today. And the fact that, despite the Jackets and Wild still arguably suffering from this lack of history when it comes to their identity, the league still hasn't gone back to do anything to "grow" those markets.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

No. They arent that beneficial. It's more so that expansion teams arent weighed down by crap contracts against the cap because the GM hasnt had a chance to give any out yet.

Also, an expansion team being good at the start is a good thing and how you build a fanbase and successful franchise. Unless you want more Arizonas in the league...

 

[FerrisRox]

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

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

It's kind of remarkable, when you think about it, but the Leafs have actually managed to *twice* surrender a 40-goal scorer for absolutely nothing during Expansion.

In 1992, the Tampa Bay Lightning claimed Brian Bradley from the Toronto Maple Leafs. Bradley led the Bolts in scoring with 42-goals and 86 points during their inaugural season.

Then the Leafs of course gave up Jared McCann and he just scored 40-goals for the Kraken this year. McCann's 70 points this year saw him lead the team in scoring.

 

[MakeTheGoalsLarger]

Their performing well is the result from this culture of rebuild we've been in for the last decade. About half the teams aren't really trying to compete.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

It's kind of remarkable, when you think about it, but the Leafs have actually managed to *twice* surrender a 40-goal scorer for absolutely nothing during Expansion.

In 1992, the Tampa Bay Lightning claimed Brian Bradley from the Toronto Maple Leafs. Bradley led the Bolts in scoring with 42-goals and 86 points during their inaugural season.

Then the Leafs of course gave up Jared McCann and he just scored 40-goals for the Kraken this year. McCann's 70 points this year saw him lead the team in scoring.

Another factor as well, there's a lot of dumb GMs in the league.

Like how Florida gave Vegas Reilly Smith to take Marchessault in the expansion draft