Are current expansion rules too beneficial?

[WarriorofTime]

The 1992 and 2000 expansion classes have gotta be livid based on how overly protective of the existing franchises the expansion draft was in those years.

 

[kranuck]

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.

Worth noting the Bjorkstrand wasn’t part of expansion.

Any team with cap space could have him, or Burakovsky.

Kraken made smart moves and added Beniers for year 2. All expansion did was give them a good enough core to make being competitive plausible. Vegas did have that big run in their first year but they don’t sustain that without making a lot of good moves.

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.

Lol, half the league makes the first round of your team can’t do it then blame your own management.

Kraken were atrocious last year. They made great moves and now they are solid.

Ask why your GM wasn’t in on a 28G/57P player who went for a 3rd and 4th.

 

[Hall of Faber]

Yes they are. Toronto would be better off starting a new franchise at this point.

 

[kranuck]

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.

Vegas mostly shows how insane the NHL is for allowing blatant cap circumvention.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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

Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, Detroit were built around players who were in the 24-34 age range in 2013. Do the math, that makes them now in the 34-retired age range.

Of course they were going to decline by 2023, being based around those players. It doesn't matter what kind of contract they had. Detroit could have Datsyuk and Zetterberg on $100m x 10yr contracts, guess what... those guys are retired, the contract doesn't help. Every player on their roster today could be on that same contract, guess what... those guys aren't very good, the contract doesn't help. It's a talent issue.

Rangers had a 2-game lead in the Conference Final just last season. This year they were a top-10 team and got eliminated in seven games by the #3 overall seed. They are a contender, largely based on players (Fox, Kane, Panarin, Trouba, Kreider, Vesey) actively forcing their way to play in NYC. How is this possible in such a high-tax state?

For that matter, which key players in the no-tax markets gave their teams some sort of sweetheart deal? I'm seeing guys like Kucherov, Vasilevskiy, Eichel, Tkachuk, Barkov, Seguin, Benn all on $9.5M-$10M contracts. Not seeing much of a competitive advantage there...

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

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?

Cast-off players playing for pride. Who would have thought that playing for pride would make a difference? /s

 

[Video Nasty]

No.

It makes little sense to try and grow a hockey market somewhere new with a team that is a laughingstock.

Doesn’t bother me at all that these newer expansion get any sort of extra boost to help them in their uphill battle to compete with long established franchises.

Vegas and Seattle already feel like they’ve been around much longer than they have because they’ve been able to quickly establish some legitimacy and I think that’s a good thing.

I don’t want to go back to the days where it took a team like Columbus 9 years (8 seasons) to make the playoffs.

It sucks for their trajectory, but you have to start fresh somewhere.

 

[Legion34]

Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, Detroit were built around players who were in the 24-34 age range in 2013. Do the math, that makes them now in the 34-retired age range.

Of course they were going to decline by 2023, being based around those players. It doesn't matter what kind of contract they had. Detroit could have Datsyuk and Zetterberg on $100m x 10yr contracts, guess what... those guys are retired, the contract doesn't help. Every player on their roster today could be on that same contract, guess what... those guys aren't very good, the contract doesn't help. It's a talent issue.

Rangers had a 2-game lead in the Conference Final just last season. This year they were a top-10 team and got eliminated in seven games by the #3 overall seed. They are a contender, largely based on players (Fox, Kane, Panarin, Trouba, Kreider, Vesey) actively forcing their way to play in NYC. How is this possible in such a high-tax state?

For that matter, which key players in the no-tax markets gave their teams some sort of sweetheart deal? I'm seeing guys like Kucherov, Vasilevskiy, Eichel, Tkachuk, Barkov, Seguin, Benn all on $9.5M-$10M contracts. Not seeing much of a competitive advantage there...

?????? If you don’t think star players signing for 12% of the cap instead of 14% you don’t understand the advantage.

Point stamkos Kuch vasi signing for 8.5-9.5 when comparables signed for 10-11.5 that’s 8 million.

 

[CashMash]

The thing I'll say on the tax thing is that some agent(s) (can't remember who or in what context he said it) seemed to think that the no income tax issue wasn't a big factor due to some deductions you can make, but I don't know the details and I'm by no means an expert, so take everything I said with a grain of salt and feel free to correct me if this rings any bells.

 

[tarheelhockey]

?????? If you don’t think star players signing for 12% of the cap instead of 14% you don’t understand the advantage.

Point stamkos Kuch vasi signing for 8.5-9.5 when comparables signed for 10-11.5 that’s 8 million.

Stamkos is the only player you named who went for $8.5M, and he signed that deal in 2016 when $8.5M was what you'd expect to pay a player of that caliber. Next year he goes UFA at the end of the 8-year deal, which is why he's currently playing at a relatively painless number. His situation is no different than a Tarasenko or O'Reilly.

Point, Kucherov, Vasilevskiy -- all three are at $9.5M which is tied for the 20th largest contract in the league. Incidentally Eichel and Barkov and Bobrovsky and Seguin are all making even more, meaning the teams you're focused on have 7 of the largest contracts in the league.

So yes, these teams most certainly are signing star players to cap-heavy deals. The teams you mentioned who are not doing that are Nashville, a non-playoff team, and Seattle, an expansion team made up of castoffs.

This doesn't even get into the fact that they came across those players honestly. Kucherov, Point, Vasilevskiy, Barkov were all drafted. Eichel and Seguin were basically kicked off their prior teams. Bobrovsky was the only one signed as a UFA, and that contract was very widely derided as the worst in the league as recently as a couple of months ago. Every team in the league had a chance to draft or bid on these players, with the exception of Barkov.

 

[Scomerica]

Just a reminder. This was pretty much the only positive post about the Kraken in preseason and some of that was based on Shane Wright having a breakout year and Grubauer being at Vezina levels. Wright hasn't contributed yet. Grubauer has been okay and good in the play offs but not elite level.

Seattle Kraken expectations for 2022-23

last off season I insisted the Panthers had the best roster on paper in the league. they won the president's trophy. this year, I look at Seattle and I see the deepest forward group in the West. IF Shane Wright can be an impact player. (50ish pts) Burakovsky - Berniers - Bjorkstand Schwartz -...

forums.hfboards.com

The replies after it sum it up. No one there said expansion was too generous.

 

[Legion34]

Stamkos is the only player you named who went for $8.5M, and he signed that deal in 2016 when $8.5M was what you'd expect to pay a player of that caliber. Next year he goes UFA at the end of the 8-year deal, which is why he's currently playing at a relatively painless number. His situation is no different than a Tarasenko or O'Reilly.

Point, Kucherov, Vasilevskiy -- all three are at $9.5M which is tied for the 20th largest contract in the league. Incidentally Eichel and Barkov and Bobrovsky and Seguin are all making even more, meaning the teams you're focused on have 7 of the largest contracts in the league.

So yes, these teams most certainly are signing star players to cap-heavy deals. The teams you mentioned who are not doing that are Nashville, a non-playoff team, and Seattle, an expansion team made up of castoffs.

This doesn't even get into the fact that they came across those players honestly. Kucherov, Point, Vasilevskiy, Barkov were all drafted. Eichel and Seguin were basically kicked off their prior teams. Bobrovsky was the only one signed as a UFA, and that contract was very widely derided as the worst in the league as recently as a couple of months ago. Every team in the league had a chance to draft or bid on these players, with the exception of Barkov.

The drafted ones took less. 12% of the cap as compared to 14%

Eichel is one player who was a trade. Take a look. It’s not perfect….. but overall take a look at the trend lines

Stamkos takes 8.5. Kane toews take 10.5…. Why?
Every other major star the next year or 2 sign for 11 ish. Panarin, Tavares etc sign for 11…. Kuch signs for 9.5

Benn and seguin still took under 10. Heiskanen takes less than nurse etc.

Tkachuk signs for 9.5. Pasta signs for 11.25 barkov takes less than huberdeau.

It’s pretty clear.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Eichel is one player who was a trade.

And Seguin, from Boston when they gave up on him as a young player.

Stamkos takes 8.5. Kane toews take 10.5…. Why?

Because look at their careers to that point. Stamkos had won a couple of goalscoring titles and that was it. The Lightning had just made a Conference Finals run without him. Kane was a three-time Cup winner, with a Smythe. And frankly, Kane seems like the kind of guy who would go for the big contract. Remember that summer where he and Toews cashed in, that was the end of the Hawks dynasty. Everyone knew what it would mean for that team and they did it anyway.

Every other major star the next year or 2 sign for 11 ish. Panarin, Tavares etc sign for 11…. Kuch signs for 9.5

Ok, let’s say Kucherov signed for $1.5M under market value. You’re saying the difference between the Lightning and the Leafs is $1.5M?

The biggest thing Kucherov did for the Lightning had to do with his cap hit, but not like this.

Benn and seguin still took under 10.

You’re saying they should have been signed for more? These guys, really?

Heiskanen takes less than nurse etc.

Heiskanen’s at a fair number. Nurse was a boneheaded move by the Oilers.

Tkachuk signs for 9.5. Pasta signs for 11.25 barkov takes less than huberdeau.

It’s pretty clear.

Again, boneheaded moves like the Huberdeau contract are the responsibility of the teams that sign them. Nobody forced them to make that deal.

And again, the cap hit difference between these players doesn’t explain their difference in team results. An extra mil in cap space wouldn’t make the Flames look like the Panthers.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

Vegas not losing a player was beyond stupid.

 

[NOTENOUGHRYJOTHINGS]

Since Toronto will always have taxes the Leafs have no chance to compete. They should move the team.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Vegas not losing a player was beyond stupid.

Vegas players are gross - we don't want any of them.

 

[superdeluxe]

Absolutely not. People were laughing at the team Seattle built

Some of the picks had me scratching my head on Draft day, I do remember Vegas though being able to get additional picks from other teams for not selecting certain players, don't think Seattle had anything similiar.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

Yeah, if Florida had higher taxes, Leafs totally win that series.

 

[rojac]

Vegas not losing a player was beyond stupid.

Vegas also didn’t get a share of the expansion money. Vegas basically got to not lose a player instead of getting roughly $21M.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

The 1992 and 2000 expansion classes have gotta be livid based on how overly protective of the existing franchises the expansion draft was in those years.

Yeah, pretty unhappy about it. Owners really like those expansion checks nowadays.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Yeah, pretty unhappy about it. Owners really like those expansion checks nowadays.

Exactly.

When the owners get to pocket nearly $21 million a piece without splitting it with players, I'm guessing they don't care about how favorable the expansion rules are.

 

[Chainshot]

The 1992 and 2000 expansion classes have gotta be livid based on how overly protective of the existing franchises the expansion draft was in those years.

Take a look at the difference in how much the expansion fees were for those rounds compared to now - the success of Vegas and Seattle came at a cost to the new owners that was used to line all the other owners' pockets in a way not seen before. The Jackets' expansion fee was about a fifth of Seattle's, adjusted for inflation. New owners aren't going to fork over half a billion or more to get 20 years of being terrible.

 

[GordonGraham]

Absolutely expansion team should be bottom 5 for 2-3 years

 

[DaveG]

Absolutely not. People were laughing at the team Seattle built

This. Both Seattle and Vegas were thought of as absolute jokes when the teams were revealed given some of the bigger names that both teams left on the table.

I actually kindof liked a lot of Seattle's selections, though honestly I thought that Hakstol was something of a Tank Commander level selection as head coach.

 

[Vegas07]