Does the NHL need to change the rules for expansion teams to make it harder for them?

[matter2003]

Think it is becoming apparent the expansion rules are greatly favoring the expansion teams as Vegas has made it to the Stanley Cup Finals twice now, and likely is going to win, and made the conference final once in 6 years.

Seattle looks like a powerhouse team after year 2. 

I'm not sure what needs to be done but the rules have changed greatly from the years when San Jose got an NHL record low 24 points and Tampa Bay was terrible their first season in the NHL to Vegas making the Stanley Cup Finals their first year.

There needs to be a happy medium, it doesn't seem right that expansion teams should be able to just basically buy championships by paying an expansion fee and have so many built in advantages in the expansion draft now.

Obviously this doesn't happen that often but it is apparent the rules are too much in favor of expansion teams and something needs to be done moving forward.

Edited June 11, 2023 by matter2003

[Hank]

I disagree. I think the NHL got it right with the expansion draft. VGK and Seattle being competitive is good for the league. 

[Weave]

With the huge payment to join the club, there is no way the league can go back to a system that makes it harder for new markets to be successful early.  Noone would pay that fee if they can’t start off with a team that is at least competitive immediately.

Besides, who did Vegas and Seattle screw by using these rules to their advantage?  The teams that didn’t get in the playoffs because Vegas and Seattle were in didn’t deserve to be there anyway.

[matter2003]

6 minutes ago, Hank said:

I disagree. I think the NHL got it right with the expansion draft. VGK and Seattle being competitive is good for the league. 

It's hard to really accept 3 conference finals in 6 years due to rules greatly favoring them when we've been in existence 63 years and have the same number of Stanley Cup Finals appearances and likely 1 less Stanley Cup 

[Hank]

5 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

It's hard to really accept 3 conference finals in 6 years due to rules greatly favoring them when we've been in existence 63 years and have the same number of Stanley Cup Finals appearances and likely 1 less Stanley Cup 

It's not hard to accept at all. Those two teams had no impact on the Sabres being a clown show for the last decade plus. I choose to feel excited about the current path the team is on, and not be petty and bitter over another teams success. 

[Brawndo]

The next round expansion fees will likely exceed one billion, meaning each of the 32 existing franchises, assuming Seattle participates in the expansion draft, will receive a minimum of 32.5 million from the 33rd franchise and even more with the 34th. 
 

Vegas and Seattle are already amongst the top teams for generation of league wide revenue per Friedmann, having competitive teams is a large driver behind this.

There is NFW the NHL BOG changes anything to do with expansion rules. 

It’s not Vegas’s Fault that GMs were stupid and made very poor decisions in side deals to protect players. 
The Vegas Owner Bill Foley has been aggressive with wanting a championship team through trades and UFA signings and has the right GM to fulfill this. 


Seattle assembled an excellent analytics department, which put together a good roster. 

They shouldn’t be punished for making smart decisions 

 

[PromoTheRobot]

It still takes skillful transactions to build a winner.

[GASabresIUFAN]

5 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

They shouldn’t be punished for making smart decisions 

They have competent management so it's not surprising they are succeeding.  

Remember it's not like they were picking from the best player on 30 or so teams.  The expansion team was choosing in theory the 8th best forward or the 4th best D or the backup goalie.  In addition, players on their ELC were also exempt from being drafted.  

If you look at the current Sabres

7 forwards - TNT, Tuch, Skinner, Greenway, Mitts, Cozens, plus Rousek would all be protected with Krebs, Quinn and JJP exempt

3 D - Dahlin, Samuelsson, Joki with Power exempt.

G - UPL with Levi exempt

Who would be available - KO, VO, Jost, Lyubushkin, Stillman, Bryson, Clague, and Comrie.   

Who are they really getting from us if the draft were held this off-season?  

A year from now it would look something like this

7 forwards - Tuch, Skinner, Greenway, Mitts, Cozens, Krebs and Greenway.  JJP and Quinn remain exempt.  We'd have to have at least one forward with a contract available with NHL experience.

3 D - Dahlin, Power and Samuelsson.  Johnson exempt.  Stillman, Bryson and Joki would all be RFA and therefore available, as would the player KA adds to off-season to be the 4th D.

1 G - Goalie w a contract and Levi exempt.

Again, it's not like we'd be giving up much.

[thewookie1]

If anything I’d increase the allowed protections to 8+3+1

[Marvin]

Lest we forget, it was only lousy goaltending and the NHL deciding that enforcing the rules was a rude suggestion that prevented the Sabres from winning a Cup in our 5th year.

Prospective owners probably saw the failure of Atlanta plus the continuing problems in Columbus and told the league that the expansion rules had to be favourable or there was NFW that they would pay the expansion fees.

For the Sabres in the dozen years of dross, the problems began at the start.  Not only was The Tank a bad idea in and of itself, but the teams that Murray put together to tank for McEichel for 2 seasons were worse than all but the worst expansion teams.  Recall that Las Vegas and Seattle had at worst the #8F and #4D from every team in their system plus some quality back-up goalkeepers, with nary a lack-of-character player like Bogosian and Kane.  Meanwhile, the Sabres' Tank teams were littered with 4th line forwards, 3rd pair defensemen, a slew of AHL-calibre players, and the worst goaltending that XGMTM could trade for.

This rebuild is what we should have done in 2013-4.  But that does not guarantee McEichel.  Management's obsession with getting McEichel resulted in execrable team building.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Marvin

[Brawndo]

13 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

They have competent management so it's not surprising they are succeeding.  

Remember it's not like they were picking from the best player on 30 or so teams.  The expansion team was choosing in theory the 8th best forward or the 4th best D or the backup goalie.  In addition, players on their ELC were also exempt from being drafted.  

If you look at the current Sabres

7 forwards - TNT, Tuch, Skinner, Greenway, Mitts, Cozens, plus Rousek would all be protected with Krebs, Quinn and JJP exempt

3 D - Dahlin, Samuelsson, Joki with Power exempt.

G - UPL with Levi exempt

Who would be available - KO, VO, Jost, Lyubushkin, Stillman, Bryson, Clague, and Comrie.   

Who are they really getting from us if the draft were held this off-season?  

A year from now it would look something like this

7 forwards - Tuch, Skinner, Greenway, Mitts, Cozens, Krebs and Greenway.  JJP and Quinn remain exempt.  We'd have to have at least one forward with a contract available with NHL experience.

3 D - Dahlin, Power and Samuelsson.  Johnson exempt.  Stillman, Bryson and Joki would all be RFA and therefore available, as would the player KA adds to off-season to be the 4th D.

1 G - Goalie w a contract and Levi exempt.

Again, it's not like we'd be giving up much.

Except the next round of expansion is probably 3-4 seasons away meaning TNT, Tuch, Cozens, Krebs, Mitts, JJP, Kulich and probably Rosen would be eligible, although I imagine one or two are moved before then. 

[mjd1001]

I think they made it easier for the expansion teams, but their success is more a different strategy they are taking than expansion teams in the past.

It seems over the past few decades most expansion teams went in with the idea they were doing a 'full rebuild', not wanting good players an instead going for all youth.  Vegas and Seattle didn't do that. In fact they had an advantage over existing teams becauser they could build their team with all guys in or entering the prime of their careers.  With an existing team, the nature of being around for decades and constantly trying to compete means you have some guys past their prime, some in their prime, some young guys not there yet.  If you look at Vegas and Seattle's roster, they built their team to have a greater percentage of guys in that 25-30/32 year old bracket than existint teams are able to.

Maybe teams in the past didn't do that because the NHL made the expansion draft more restictive. BUT, with more/better players being available now, having a salary cap league AND this strategy, it makes it easier to attempt the 'win now' route.

Vegas needs to win now. They are starting to 'age out' of their prime years with many of their players (4 of their top 5 paid forwards are over 30, and 3 of their top 4 D-men are 32 or older). Seattle? They are about to entier their 'prime' window and likely stay there for 3-5 years at least.

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by mjd1001

[Marvin]

2 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Except the next round of expansion is probably 3-4 seasons away meaning TNT, Tuch, Cozens, Krebs, Mitts, JJP, Kulich and probably Rosen would be eligible, although I imagine one or two are moved before then. 

Again, so soon?  What is wrong with league stability?

[Brawndo]

6 minutes ago, Marvin said:

Again, so soon?  What is wrong with league stability?

 

[Brawndo]

With the value of franchises exponentially increasing the orders will probably look to capitalize on that and expand by two more franchises the NHLPA would love that as it would increase the number of jobs available in the league by 46. With the number of people playing hockey continue to grow in nontraditional markets, eventually we will start seeing more and more talent come through at the result.  Adding two more franchises with a valuations greater than $1 billion apiece, puts more money in the owners pockets. 
 

Jeff Marek speculated back in September, that if the coyotes were to relocate the most likely scenario would be the NHL buying the franchise from the existing owner, and then selling it to an owner in another city for an expansion style fee, with the proceeds going to the existing owners. For example, the NHL would buy Arizona at a discounted price of 300 to 400 million and then sell the team to Ryan Smith of Salt Lake City for 1.1 billion with the profits being shared amongst the existing owners.  Smith, is a billionaire who owns the Utah Jazz as well as Salt Lake City MLS team.  He was on the 32 thoughts podcast talking about bringing the NHL to Salt Lake City, he has met numerous times with Gary Bettman to discuss this. 

[IKnowPhysics]

3 hours ago, Weave said:

With the huge payment to join the club, there is no way the league can will go back

September 2014: Bettman says NHL has no immediate plans to expand

November 2014: NHL expansion: Las Vegas ownership group reportedly chosen

January 2016: Bettman says NHL would not take an application from Seattle

June 2016: The League will receive a $500 million expansion fee from Bill Foley, the billionaire businessman who spearheaded the Las Vegas expansion bid

December 2018: The Seattle franchise will pay a $650-million expansion fee

2023: NHL ‘not in expansion mode’ despite Atlanta interest

[kas23]

1 hour ago, Brawndo said:

 Jeff Marek speculated back in September, that if the coyotes were to relocate the most likely scenario would be the NHL buying the franchise from the existing owner, and then selling it to an owner in another city for an expansion style fee, with the proceeds going to the existing owners. For example, the NHL would buy Arizona at a discounted price of 300 to 400 million and then sell the team to Ryan Smith of Salt Lake City for 1.1 billion with the profits being shared amongst the existing owners.  Smith, is a billionaire who owns the Utah Jazz as well as Salt Lake City MLS team.  He was on the 32 thoughts podcast talking about bringing the NHL to Salt Lake City, he has met numerous times with Gary Bettman to discuss this. 

Maybe there would be some tax savings somehow, but if the owners of the Coyotes was will to sell for $400M to the NHL, he would probably be more interested in selling them for a $1B to someone else. Would be very hard for the NHL to block that if existing owners agreed with the sale (ie moving franchises to a better market). 

[Brawndo]

15 minutes ago, kas23 said:

Maybe there would be some tax savings somehow, but if the owners of the Coyotes was will to sell for $400M to the NHL, he would probably be more interested in selling them for a $1B to someone else. Would be very hard for the NHL to block that if existing owners agreed with the sale (ie moving franchises to a better market). 

Marek made it sound as if the Coyotes Owner would not have a choice in the matter, he sells to the NHL and then the NHL makes the decision on where the Coyotes relocate to. 
 

Given the state of the franchise and the fact they do not have a suitable arena to play I imagine they could be in violation of NHL Ownership Bylaws which would allow the NHL to step in. Couple that fact other owners cannot be happy with decrease in revenue based on the team playing in Mullet Arena, I can’t imagine they will side with Him or be happy with Meruelo possibly pocketing 700 million in profit. 
 

[French Collection]

1 hour ago, kas23 said:

Maybe there would be some tax savings somehow, but if the owners of the Coyotes was will to sell for $400M to the NHL, he would probably be more interested in selling them for a $1B to someone else. Would be very hard for the NHL to block that if existing owners agreed with the sale (ie moving franchises to a better market). 

I think the board of governors can veto a sale and that may be their approach to the Coyotes.

[shrader]

3 hours ago, Brawndo said:

 

Jeff Marek speculated back in September, that if the coyotes were to relocate the most likely scenario would be the NHL buying the franchise from the existing owner, and then selling it to an owner in another city for an expansion style fee, with the proceeds going to the existing owners. For example, the NHL would buy Arizona at a discounted price of 300 to 400 million and then sell the team to Ryan Smith of Salt Lake City for 1.1 billion with the profits being shared amongst the existing owners.  Smith, is a billionaire who owns the Utah Jazz as well as Salt Lake City MLS team.  He was on the 32 thoughts podcast talking about bringing the NHL to Salt Lake City, he has met numerous times with Gary Bettman to discuss this. 

Why would the coyote owner agree to this? It sounds illegal. 

[Scottysabres]

Does the NHL need to change the rules for expansion teams to make it harder for them?

Yes!

All expansion teams should be forced to build from scratch, thereby ensuring our Sabres get 2 points from them early and often in the expansion clubs infant years.

A biased answer? Absolutely. But I'd like our team to feast on the NHL's baby flesh like Sabretooths on a carcass. 😀

Go Sabres!!!

[shrader]

The only screwup in the most recent draft was allowing Vegas to be exempt. Tied for the best record in the league and they’re not forced to lose a player like everyone else. Total BS. 

Edited June 12, 2023 by shrader

[matter2003]

So because they pay a bunch of money they should be given free cookies and milk that nobody else gets?

People pay a hell of a lot more for NFL franchises and they never got these free perks from the league.

12 hours ago, shrader said:

Why would the coyote owner agree to this? It sounds illegal. 

Yeah, I would expect a lawsuit that the NHL wouldn't win. You can create whatever policies you want, but if they are illegal, they aren't enforceable.

[Sabel79]

12 hours ago, shrader said:

Why would the coyote owner agree to this? It sounds illegal. 

 

3 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

Yeah, I would expect a lawsuit that the NHL wouldn't win. You can create whatever policies you want, but if they are illegal, they aren't enforceable.

Franchise agreements, be it a McDonald's in BFE or the Arizona Coyotes, are going to have language binding the franchisee to a certain set of standards, giving the franchisor (the NHL) the right to revoke the franchise if the standards are not upheld.  We actually saw an (extreme) example of this when the NBA took the Clippers away from Donald Sterling after his shenanigans hit the news.

These are, as far as I'm aware, not public, and I haven't read one.  However, the League (and every other owner who I'm sure is not fond of the revenue drain the Coyotes have been throughout their entire existence) will definitely have a leg to stand on if this reaches the point where the plug needs to be pulled.  I mean, in their opinion.  Anyone looking rationally at the situation from outside would have identified that point as having been reached several years ago.    

[dudacek]

I see no unfair advantages with an expansion teams being given access to one average player from each NHL team and the same salary cap that every other team works under.

The success they are having is due to the way they were managed.