Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

 

 

Which is why the NHL should be contracting rather than expanding. There is not enough talent to go around as it is. The Sabres have ten or more players that have no business being on any NHL team, and every team has one or two of them.

 

You realize it would be the exact same argument if you contracted teams, right? "NHL caliber" is a sliding scale based on how many teams there are. If you add teams then the definition of NHL caliber becomes a bit looser, if you contract some it becomes a bit tighter. There is no definitive answer as to what "NHL caliber" is...

 

Adding teams to areas that don't have them (Seattle) will help the game grow in those places and produce more talent.

Posted

You realize it would be the exact same argument if you contracted teams, right? "NHL caliber" is a sliding scale based on how many teams there are. If you add teams then the definition of NHL caliber becomes a bit looser, if you contract some it becomes a bit tighter. There is no definitive answer as to what "NHL caliber" is...

 

Adding teams to areas that don't have them (Seattle) will help the game grow in those places and produce more talent.

 

Not that I used the term, but how about defining it as players that I'm willing to pay $75 to see.

Posted

 

 

Not that I used the term, but how about defining it as players that I'm willing to pay $75 to see.

 

See do what? Dance? Solo-jazz performance? Not sure what else you would pay to see one single NHL player do. I would pay that for a group of NHL player playing hockey but one? Not sure what I would expect for that much.

Posted

See do what? Dance? Solo-jazz performance? Not sure what else you would pay to see one single NHL player do. I would pay that for a group of NHL player playing hockey but one? Not sure what I would expect for that much.

 

I'm sure it isn't this tough to figure out.

Posted

See do what? Dance? Solo-jazz performance? Not sure what else you would pay to see one single NHL player do. I would pay that for a group of NHL player playing hockey but one? Not sure what I would expect for that much.

 

Come on, man, you're just being obtuse now. If you add two teams to the NHL, there are now 46 guys that weren't good enough to play in the league before that now are. I'm on the fence about how much disruption that would cause, but it certainly isn't going to bring the level of play up.

Posted

 

 

I'm sure it isn't this tough to figure out.

 

It's not, but if it adds one less NHL-level player to every team it's not really going to make a difference. Fourth lines are full of ###### players and have been for the longest time. That'll continue.

 

The discovery of a few other players who wouldn't have otherwise gotten a chance may nearly offset the addition of a handful of guys that aren't as good as we want them to be.

 

 

 

Come on, man, you're just being obtuse now. If you add two teams to the NHL, there are now 46 guys that weren't good enough to play in the league before that now are. I'm on the fence about how much disruption that would cause, but it certainly isn't going to bring the level of play up.

 

This is assuming that every single player they add through the expansion draft is garbage and nobody thrives in an expanded role...

Posted (edited)

i was thinking about it this way earlier:

 

The two expansion teams each add 9 "NHL-caliber" forwards (3 lines), 4 "NHL-caliber" defensemen (2 lines), and 2 "NHL-cailber" goalies.... That is 15 players per team, and 30 total players "diluted" from the 30 existing teams. Or one player per team. So.... that doesn't seem that bad, does it...?

Edited by Cereal
Posted (edited)

It's not, but if it adds one less NHL-level player to every team it's not really going to make a difference. Fourth lines are full of ###### players and have been for the longest time. That'll continue.

 

The discovery of a few other players who wouldn't have otherwise gotten a chance may nearly offset the addition of a handful of guys that aren't as good as we want them to be.

 

 

 

This is assuming that every single player they add through the expansion draft is garbage and nobody thrives in an expanded role...

 

It's been awhile, but I thought the expansion draft was drafting from other teams non-protected players. So yeah, you might get some gems from there but they were already NHL players to begin with. Now those teams need to pull players in from the AHL to fill their spots. I do see your point, I just find it unlikely that the few guys that excel in their new roles are going to offset the remainder of the 46 that end up being less-talented versions of the guys they replace on the existing teams.

 

i was thinking about it this way earlier:

 

The two expansion teams each add 9 "NHL-caliber" forwards (3 lines), 4 "NHL-caliber" defensemen (2 lines), and 2 "NHL-cailber" goalies.... That is 15 players per team, and 30 total players "diluted" from the 30 existing teams. Or one player per team. So.... that doesn't seem that bad, does it...?

 

It doesn't, but it might depend on how the expansion draft works. I only vaguely remember the last one, where you could protect X players on your roster and the expansion teams pick from the rest. Assuming you can't protect all but one or two of your players, I wonder if there were/will be rules on how many players a single team can lose. It'd suck be a team full of young talent and lose 3-4 players to the expansion draft.

Edited by MattPie
Posted

Sounding like next season's outdoor games will be:

 

Montreal in Boston.

Chicago in Minnesota.

Detroit in Colorado.

 

 

Seriously? It's the same teams. Minnesota and Colorado are new, but their opponents are more of the same. Why not Dallas in Minnesota? St. Louis?

 

They should pick the host for obvious reasons but then hold off until the offseason on picking their opponent. That way, if a team like St. Louis wins the cup, they're suddenly an attactive team for the tv audience. Or they could throw in whichever team lands McDavid and market him to the big audience. I don't know if this works given when they finalize the full schedule, but you'd think they could at least consider it.

Posted

Keith signed a 13-year deal in 2010. His deal isn't even legal in the new CBA so it's hard to throw it out there. If Crosby took $5M a year then is it fair to say that Malkin can't be paid more than $4.5M? Karlsson is at $6.5M which is still well below what he would get on the market. $5.5M a year is a fine number as long as it's the right team.

How about a recent example then? Bouwmeester, who signed with the Blues in 2013, makes and has a cap hit of $5.4 mil/year. You're telling me Sekera, on a good team like the Blues, is worth that?

Posted

How about a recent example then? Bouwmeester, who signed with the Blues in 2013, makes and has a cap hit of $5.4 mil/year. You're telling me Sekera, on a good team like the Blues, is worth that?

 

Bouwmeester had 37 points last year and has 7 this year. Sekera had 44 points last year and 15 this year. So yeah that contract is quite a good comparison. Sekera wil probably get 5.5-6

Posted

Bouwmeester had 37 points last year and has 7 this year. Sekera had 44 points last year and 15 this year. So yeah that contract is quite a good comparison. Sekera wil probably get 5.5-6

Bouwmeester is larger, more physical, and has put up three 40+ point season, and nine 20+ point seasons. Sekera has two 20+ point seasons, and one 40+.

Posted

Bouwmeester is larger, more physical, and has put up three 40+ point season, and nine 20+ point seasons. Sekera has two 20+ point seasons, and one 40+.

 

What Bouwmeester was isn't what he is. He's still a good defender, but he's on the same level as Sekera now. The Blues didn't sign that contract assuming they would consistently get the younger Bouwmeester. Sekera is still young.

Posted

I figured his aids was acting up again.

Oh yeah because he's gay and that's a bad thing and what's even cooler is that unprotected gay sex can lead to Aids so let's reference that.

Posted

Craig Button just did his top five power rankings in the Eastern Conference and didn't include the team who is on a 3-game streak, 7-3 in their last ten and leading the conference... Tampa Bay.

Posted

Oh yeah because he's gay and that's a bad thing and what's even cooler is that unprotected gay sex can lead to Aids so let's reference that.

 

Or because he's gay or straight or bi and nobody cares, and what's even funnier is saying that someone who clearly doesn't have AIDS does, in fact, have AIDS.

 

For me, the humor's in the absurdity.

 

 

I mean, seriously, who gets AIDS in the FACE?

 

image.jpg

Posted

If Sidney Crosby gets diagnosed with AIDS tomorrow then I demand immediate board resignations from IKP and Drunkard.

(If Drunkard's post was indeed a gay joke, then he should resign immediately anyways.)

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...