I don't believe in the "expansion will dilute the talent pool" argument

[SEALBound]

I think the difference between the last 46 guys in the NHL and the next 46 out is not as big as you think it is. Obviously you are adding all at the bottom end, but going from 32 teams to 34 is only increasing the number of jobs by 6.25%. I think there's a lot of guys too that could be very successful at the NHL level or have been successful earlier if they're given the chance, and they could now get it.

Overall weaker but won't significantly impact the quality of the league at all just like Vegas and Seattle haven't

Possible for sure. The one thing it does is gives those 2nd tier good players more ice time. If you cut the number of teams in half, you'd have a guy like Beniers or Hayton or Malkin or Zary in 3rd or 4th line roles. They all need to have 20min/night not 10min. So it does increase the number of minutes of available for good players to strut their stuff just a little more.

I will admit that I didn't quite consider the talent that naturally comes up through the draft but even there is another good example of expansion dilute a draft round. When it was 28 teams, you had 28 first rounders. Now you have 32 meaning 4 guys that were high 2nds are now late firsts. Through 7 rounds, you're adding 14 more players. And you're basically adding them in the 7th round. 14 extra guys that wouldn't have been drafted otherwise.

 

[Oddbob]

Of course it gets diluted. Ridiculous to think otherwise. At least 20-25 teams lose a pretty good player from their team, who is for the most part then replaced by an AHL level player. A number of teams also lose goalies that are helpful to them.

 

[Mulletman]

Growing the league will automatically grow the talent. Putting a team in Arizona back in the 90s has spawned what might end up being the greatest goal scorer of all time. Without the Coyotes, Auston Matthews would be flipping burgers right now. Intead he's risen to the highest position in hockey, the Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs!

 

[ponder719]

The difference between the average NHL team's worst player and the average AHL team's best player is smaller than people generally account for.

There will be a very limited talent dilution, that will likely be offset to some degree by a number of players who now have greater opportunity than they once had taking advantage of those increased opportunities. Over time, as more players churn through the system, and more opportunities present themselves up and down the pyramid, the dilution will even out, and be roughly negligible. It's just not that big of a deal.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

You think theres at least minimum 2 more goalies out there that can play 50 games at a solid consistent level lol?

We don't even have 32 goalies currently for the that haha.

I say this all the time. The NHL does not have enough NHL defensemen specifically top 4 defensemen that can play those minutes.

We already are playing press box fodder on bottom pairings.

 

[King Woodballs]

I 100% believe the talent pool will be diluted.
Hell every team right now has at least a player or two that don’t have NHL talent yet they are there.

 

[Stephen]

I think the difference between the last 46 guys in the NHL and the next 46 out is not as big as you think it is. Obviously you are adding all at the bottom end, but going from 32 teams to 34 is only increasing the number of jobs by 6.25%. I think there's a lot of guys too that could be very successful at the NHL level or have been successful earlier if they're given the chance, and they could now get it.

Overall weaker but won't significantly impact the quality of the league at all just like Vegas and Seattle haven't

Issue being we already don’t want to watch the last 46 guys in the NHL.

 

[tucker3434]

There's talent dilution, but also a growing talent pool. If you added 10 teams at once, it would be pretty ugly. If you trickle in one team every 5 years to add 4 teams, the difference won't be noticeable. It's the new teams that will have zero star power, and they'll just be happy to have a seat at the table at first.

 

[dirtydanglez]

the talent pool will get deeper but it will take like 20 years

 

[Golden_Jet]

The difference between the average NHL team's worst player and the average AHL team's best player is smaller than people generally account for.

32 teams aren’t losing their worst player, they’re losing a third liner or #4D, and replacing that with a an AHLer.

 

[ponder719]

32 teams aren’t losing their worst player, they’re losing a third liner or #4D, and replacing that with a an AHLer.

But those players aren't leaving the NHL, they're just playing on a different roster. The NHL is expanding by, on average, the best one or two players they have available who aren't currently on a roster.

 

[drktmplr12]

if we have to expand band from 2 signa to 3 sigma, we are definitely adding more seats for players that would otherwise play on two-way contracts and maybe sniff 5-7 minutes in 10 NHL games

MAYBE we find another Kucherov- odds are we don't.

 

[Golden_Jet]

But those players aren't leaving the NHL, they're just playing on a different roster. The NHL is expanding by, on average, the best one or two players they have available who aren't currently on a roster.

Ya so 32 teams all got a little worse.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Expansion necessarily dilutes the talent pool, whatever the size of the talent pool is. That doesn't mean the talent pool won't grow to an extent that any "dilution" is less relevant (because the "average/minimum" player still is better due to a larger pool) but it's necessarily less concentrated the more teams that are added. Of course, going from say, 6 to 21 teams is a much more dramatic form of dilution than going from say, 32 teams to 34 teams.

 

[Djp]

Maybe back in 1967-1968 when the talent pool had all Canadians.

Back then, you had no Russians, no Swedes, no Finns, and no Americans in the talent pool.

I don't think expansion will dilute the talent pool this time around.

The talent pool is getting deeper. You have more talented Americans dominating the rosters.

You have the European talent base getting stronger. Canadians talent pool is dwindling because lack of interest.

So when the NHL expands in a couple of years, the talent pool, already discussed, will get stronger, not weaker.

The expansion from 21 to 30 basically opened up jobs for Americans and Europeans. Before teens had none yo maybe s few euro players and similar for us born. Today these numbers are higher.

Expansion by just 3 teams a fee years apart wony have s big impact on the game.

Currently you have a number who are forced out of nhl, both young and old who could play.

 

[Tie Domi Esquire]

Sure, and the fans want more advertisement.

 

[Leafs87]

I couldn’t care less lol. But close to my chest is the fact that Leafs tickets will go up to fund the rebirth loss of the Atlanta resurrection.

 

[Djp]

Expansion necessarily dilutes the talent pool, whatever the size of the talent pool is. That doesn't mean the talent pool won't grow to an extent that any "dilution" is less relevant (because the "average/minimum" player still is better due to a larger pool) but it's necessarily less concentrated the more teams that are added. Of course, going from say, 6 to 21 teams is a much more dramatic form of dilution than going from say, 32 teams to 34 teams.

Diluting..no. ....currently many teams are delaying players in the AHL from getting to the nhl.

In an expansion draft done the way I serbit...

Each team loses a roster player on 23 man, and a prospect from the 90-23. Teans can easily replace 1 roster player. Fio first 2, then 4 more yrs or so the next 2.

 

[Bizz]

There are 4th liners in the AHL that have the talent level as the average NHLer in the mid-1980's. The talent pool has never been better.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Diluting..no. ....currently many teams are delaying players in the AHL from getting to the nhl.

In an expansion draft done the way I serbit...

Each team loses a roster player on 23 man, and a prospect from the 90-23. Teans can easily replace 1 roster player. Fio first 2, then 4 more yrs or so the next 2.

Think about it like this, the opposite of diluted is concentrated. If the NHL only had 6 teams, only the top 18.75 % of talent would still be in the NHL. Of course in such a smaller sized league, the talent would now be concentrated, automatically. It works the same way.

 

[Tawnos]

When a league expands there is always a talent dilution, and I would find it foolish to deny that. At the same time, when the league is already at 32 teams, expanding to 36 isn't some giant talent dilution, so I feel like it's overstated. The issue of talent dilution then tends to correct itself over time, but that takes longer to manifest itself.

Yeah, this is essentially a percentages issue.

The 1967 saw the league expand by 100%. Imagine going from 32 teams to 64 teams. That's the talent dilution we're talking about.

The 70s saw another 75% expansion. That's like going from 32 to 56.

The 90s saw another 42% expansion. That's like going from 32 to 45.

Flipping it around, adding 4 teams to this league is a 12.5% expansion. That's like if the league had added 3 teams in the 80s. Does it dilute the talent? Sure, it does a little bit, but not in any really meaningful way.

 

[sinDer]

Technically, it will. No way going around it. On the bigger picture, the overall product is more watered down due to teams being restricted by the hard cap and stuff. Hopefully that will start to fix itself in the upcoming years.

The problem isn't that every team is going to have two players that are worse than what they currently have. The problem is that there isn't enough separation between the good, the mediocre and bad teams in this league. That's what makes it boring.

What are you talking about? NHL parity is actually what makes the league exciting, especially the Playoffs.

 

[rahad]

having 36 team would kill any rivalry in the league. I barely remember the last time Habs and Boston played in the playoff. It would also make it harder to win the stanley cup or rebuilding a team longer.

 

[WarriorofTime]

The real issue with expansion is that it makes it really hard for your team to win the Cup, and more on the nose, much harder to be in the group of teams that *think* you can win the Cup.

To be the 10th best team in a 21 team league, you're barely above average. To be the 10th best team in a 36 team league, you're in the top 27.7 %. It also makes it harder to be the team that has a serious shot at getting "hot shot new projected first overall pick" to get the fans excited about the future.

When you rebuild, your picks are going to be way more spread out so harder to stack multiple hits in the same draft. When you are trying to sign free agents, you're bidding against more teams. Being ".500" (well you know what I mean, true .500 since NHL has a weird point system) is just as likely as ever, but you need to be on a greater extreme of it.

The end result is you have a bunch of teams in a big murky middle. You can expand the Playoffs all you want, but just making it to the Conference Semifinals (or the divisional finals or whatever they call it, the last 8) becomes a lot more of a challenge, so you don't feel all that close to thinking your team can win a Cup.

This has a real potential to kill interest because most casual sports aren't going to live and breathe a team that they don't think has a real shot at it.

 

[Giant Panda]

The difference between 1st liners in the AHL and 4th liners in the NHL is often play styles not skills. Lots of AHLers are good enough for the NHL, they just don't play the right style of game.

Watered down is only going to be felt in two places, imo, in net and the 2C.

The gap between the great goalies and bad goalies will grow wider. Good centres will make a lot more money.