Are current expansion rules too beneficial?

[Obvious Fabertism]

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.

As a Wild fan, not trying to complain too much, but the league doing nothing would be an improvement, let alone help us to grow, they have only punished the Wild, twice through changing their already established rules. Kaprizov not allowed in the playoffs year one without explanation and cap recapture have both hindered the chances of success.

When the league oversight for decisions requires a majority of competing owners to say something is wrong, you get some weird scenarios were individual teams get screwed without any meaningful appeals process.

 

[Brodeur]

Vegas' initial success seemingly made Seattle a more viable free agent option. Vegas relied on the expansion draft / trades to form its initial roster. Seattle didn't do much in terms of side deals but were able to sign players (Schwartz/Grubauer/Larsson/etc) to supplement their roster. Previously signing with an expansion team might have been seen like throwing a few years of your prime out the window.

The last round of expansion had different rules and a different CBA. Guys didn't hit free agency until 31 for Nashville-Atlanta-Minnesota-Columbus. Now players hit free agency at 27, so there's a bigger pool for Vegas/Seattle to work with potentially. Also mix in the cap and a few of the guys jettisoned in the Seattle expansion draft were essentially cap casualties (Eberle/Gourde). That wouldn't have happened pre-2005.

 

[Dofs]

Both Vegas and Seattle just show how insanely powerful depth is in hockey. A better depth can fully compensate for not having superstars and the current expansion draft rules allowed both Vegas and Seattle to build depth juggernauts. The lack of amazing names really just blinded hockey community to just how strong the rosters of Vegas and Seattle truly were/are because of that.

So I would say that yes, the expansion draft rules are probably too good indeed.

 

[triggrman]

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

No such thing as a no tax team. Everyone pays income tax.

 

[Lame Lambert]

This is just a symptom of a hard cap that hasn’t escalated and the awful free agency process of the NHL.

 

[Legion34]

No such thing as a no tax team. Everyone pays income tax.

No state taxes who get to have a 6-13% advantage on an artificially made cap that the very teams that get the advantage of demanded for parity.

There are 18% of of the league that have no state/provincial income taxes

They have made the last 7 finals. The 4 of 6 are different so it’s not just a dynasty.

18% chance happening 7 times in a row is incredibly unlikely

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

Now tell us what those teams looked like 10 years ago.

This is basically a list of successful rebuilds. Or in the case of the expansion teams, successful builds.

 

[Legion34]

Now tell us what those teams looked like 10 years ago.

This is basically a list of successful rebuilds. Or in the case of the expansion teams, successful builds.

Successful rebuilds… two are expansion teams?

So they all just so happened to have successful rebuilds right at the same time? Just by coincidence? All the other rebuilds in high tax markets just didn’t work out? For no reason?

That’s not particularly likely.

 

[LeafsandSharksfan]

Too many short sighted and lazy GMs in the current NHL throwing out huge contracts knowing they'll never have to deal with them. Not being tied up and being able to build your team with depth throughout the line up is the surer bet.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Successful rebuilds… two are expansion teams?

I called out that distinction in the post you quoted: “Or in the case of the expansion teams, successful builds.”

So they all just so happened to have successful rebuilds right at the same time? Just by coincidence? All the other rebuilds in high tax markets just didn’t work out? For no reason?

That’s not particularly likely.

Yes, the teams that were terrible a decade ago rebuilt and got better. That’s what rebuilding means.

Ask yourself why all these no-tax teams were terrible, if the tax situation was such a big deal. Why did Florida have zero success for 25 years? Why did the Stars miss the playoffs 8 out of 10 years? Why has Nashville only made it out of the second round once in its history?

And then the counterexamples. If tax rates are such a big deal, how are Boston and Chicago and LA the most successful teams of the post-lockout era? How did Colorado become a powerhouse? How did the Rangers become one of the most consistently successful teams of the 2010s and then reload right back to contender status?

The truth is, there’s no reason that Toronto and Edmonton shouldn’t be meeting in the Final this year. They had their shot and ****ed it up. Teams with half the talent are going deeper. Tax rates had nothing to do with it.

 

[RogerRoger]

Vegas and Seattle are not broken teams that need to be nerfed or anything like that. They've build very good team on the back of terrible moves by teams' GM and an open cap. As much as I hate what Tallon did to give a first line to Vegas, he wasn't forced to do that and it's not like the Panthers haven't bounced back from that mistake either.

Overall I'm not sure the rules could have been better balanced.

 

[triggrman]

Successful rebuilds… two are expansion teams?

So they all just so happened to have successful rebuilds right at the same time? Just by coincidence? All the other rebuilds in high tax markets just didn’t work out? For no reason?

That’s not particularly likely.

You're probably right, the reason the other teams haven't made it is taxes.

So Nashville had more talent than say Toronto this year, that's why Nashville made it to the finals and not because of Pekka Rinne. Who were the top scores for Nashville that season?

 

[Scomerica]

I don't remember too many of these threads last year. In fact Ron Francis was being crucified on here.

Even if you take the cap space argument into account, guys like Tolvanen and Sprong have contributed when MANY teams passed on them. We have Kartye an undrafted rookie from Coachella contributing and scoring. That seems more like good scouting/analytics. I'll be fascinated to see how our draft picks/prospects start to do when some starting making the NHL roster next year.

 

[Drake1588]

Pure expansion rules saw Seattle finish 30th overall in the Kraken's inaugural season. It was only in year two that they put together a strong team, through the draft (Beniers), free agency and trades that built on a solid foundation of goaltending and stout journeymen carried over from year one. The expansion rules didn't build this year's team.

 

[Arto Kilponen]

I'd say pay attention to what GMs do when Free Agency begins. I can absolutely guarantee to you we can instantly point at some signings that makes you say "WTF, why '. Those are the ones you should blame, not expansion draft rules. Don't hire an idiot as your GM.

 

[DingerMcSlapshot]

Nope.

 

[CashMash]

Pure expansion rules saw Seattle finish 30th overall in the Kraken's inaugural season. It was only in year two that they put together a strong team, through the draft (Beniers), free agency and trades that built on a solid foundation of goaltending and stout journeymen carried over from year one. The expansion rules didn't build this year's team.

I'd say partly it did. A solid base, then you use the cap space available to fill out. Since the cap space is a given for a new team, perhaps one should make their ability to acquire players through the expansion draft less powerful by adding a protection spot or two?

Fans of recentish, pre-cap expansion teams seem to feel robbed. Still, if one expansion would be a flop, does that doom the NHL to continue doing a bad strategy, as someone said? No, but maybe one should balance it a bit?

 

[BigEezyE22]

Pay half billion plus as an entry fee and you're bound to pull a few favors.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Vegas and Seattle are not broken teams that need to be nerfed or anything like that. They've build very good team on the back of terrible moves by teams' GM and an open cap. As much as I hate what Tallon did to give a first line to Vegas, he wasn't forced to do that and it's not like the Panthers haven't bounced back from that mistake either.

Overall I'm not sure the rules could have been better balanced.

Florida could have just not protected Petrovic and Pysyk. March and Smith were, if I recall, both unliked for feuding with Rowe before Tallon took back over, so that probably played into it as well.

 

[Legion34]

I called out that distinction in the post you quoted: “Or in the case of the expansion teams, successful builds.”



Yes, the teams that were terrible a decade ago rebuilt and got better. That’s what rebuilding means.

Ask yourself why all these no-tax teams were terrible, if the tax situation was such a big deal. Why did Florida have zero success for 25 years? Why did the Stars miss the playoffs 8 out of 10 years? Why has Nashville only made it out of the second round once in its history?

And then the counterexamples. If tax rates are such a big deal, how are Boston and Chicago and LA the most successful teams of the post-lockout era? How did Colorado become a powerhouse? How did the Rangers become one of the most consistently successful teams of the 2010s and then reload right back to contender status?

The truth is, there’s no reason that Toronto and Edmonton shouldn’t be meeting in the Final this year. They had their shot and ****ed it up. Teams with half the talent are going deeper. Tax rates had nothing to do with it.

This is simple.

The 2013 lockout closed the loophole of allowing cheater contracts so that the big market teams with taxes could just pay extra and add on empty years.

Pitt. Chicago LA, detroit etc all had long term cheater contracts.

Now you can’t do that.

How are the rangers successful? They got to the final 4….
3 no state tax teams at least are doing

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

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

All I'm seeing here is a good reason why more states should get rid of their state income tax.

 

[Legion34]

All I'm seeing here is a good reason why more states should get rid of their state income tax.

And Canada too. I’m in

 

[kranuck]

Nope.

Kraken sucked until they added more scoring forwards and had guys break out. Might suck next year. They basically got the pieces to build a team that’s only okay, lacking in key areas. Vegas aggressively moved to turn that team into a real contender. Kraken haven’t so far, I think that’s a mistake potentially.


In a cap league you need to give expansion teams something to work with so they don’t suck for a decade trying to build from zero. Under the old rules Vegas would maybe be starting to look somewhat less good awful now. Maybe.

Letting your expansion teams be garbage for 5-10 years is a really stupid strategy. The league was right to give them a chance to compete immediately.

 

[BigEezyE22]

And Canada too. I’m in

How are states gonna get rid of Canada?

 

[kranuck]

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.

10 million on goalies who have been mediocre to bad.