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

[DarthEbriate]

Overall, I'm fine with the latest expansion rules. This latest protections of 7-3-1G or 8-1G at least gave the newcomers a chance to get 1 NHL/tweener player off your roster.o

The last expansion (Wild/BJs) the league didn't have a salary cap in place, so this time around there would be "better" players exposed because of cap implications. It was up to VGK/SEA whether to take those established higher-priced veterans vs. potential or about-to-breakout players. The 2000 protections of 9-5-1G or 7-3-2G + no salary cap meant the only real option was to go full youth movement.

What I didn't like about the new expansion?

• Seattle's delay: They set their date. Then, GMs and players/NHLPA planned and signed contracts that would either expose or protect them or head to UFA accordingly. Then, Seattle put off the expansion for a year. I understand Seattle's reason for the delay, but it was a move that should have come with expansion protection modifications. I would have extended all ineligible players out 1 year in time to meet Seattle's new timeline.
• VGK should not have been exempt from the expansion draft, especially if the League was going to allow Seattle to shift back a year. Your roster is established by year 3, you're a real GM, you play by the same rules as everyone else. The long-term workaround on this would have been forcing both teams to enter the same season and do a true expansion draft. That way, the 7-3-1 or 8-1 protections make tons of sense. You're losing 1 good player, but which team takes them... that's the fun.

[SwampD]

20 hours 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.  

-snip-

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

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.

This is somewhat disingenuous, if you ask me. They may have fit those descriptions at the time thy were taken, but often, they were going to be a team's next player.

 

And please god, no more expansion.

[Rusty P Viaduct]

20 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

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

8-4-1

 

[dudacek]

10 minutes ago, SwampD said:

This is somewhat disingenuous, if you ask me. They may have fit those descriptions at the time thy were taken, but often, they were going to be a team's next player.

 

And please god, no more expansion.

If the bolded is true (haven't done the math), that's still on management.

[Randall Flagg]

All I know is that both teams' rosters looked like trash at the time of each draft. Seattle played that way for a year too. But a lot of those crummy players had room to develop more than you'd expect, likely because they had never/would never get the higher opportunities the expansion teams afforded them (Karlsson, McCann, borgen etc) on the teams from which they were chosen. Then good coaching and management decisions helped move things along quickly

[PromoTheRobot]

 

 

[Taro T]

Back to the OP's original question.  Yes, the league needs to make it tougher on expansion teams by basically banning them and not expanding beyond the 32 teams they currently have.

82 RS games knock out 1/2 of the teams.

Then 4 more best of 7's whittle that number down to 1 team surviving the whole grind.

[Marvin]

7 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Back to the OP's original question.  Yes, the league needs to make it tougher on expansion teams by basically banning them and not expanding beyond the 32 teams they currently have.

82 RS games knock out 1/2 of the teams.

Then 4 more best of 7's whittle that number down to 1 team surviving the whole grind.

I wish you were right, but I find @Brawndo's analysis of owners taking in $30+M in expansion fees per team to be irresistible.

[Brawndo]

21 hours ago, shrader said:

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

 

9 hours ago, matter2003 said:

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.

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.

 

8 hours ago, Sabel79 said:

 

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.    

As Sabel mentioned, the NHL would have had to sign off on the plan for the Coyotes to play at Arizona State while the team searches for a new arena. Part of that agreement could contain a forced buyout option that the NHL can invoke if the Coyotes do not have a confirmed deal in place for a new arena by a certain date. 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Marvin said:

I wish you were right, but I find @Brawndo's analysis of owners taking in $30+M in expansion fees per team to be irresistible.

Oh, no doubt they'll expand again.  Doesn't mean we have to be happy about it.

[PerreaultForever]

I really don't see any advantage Seattle had at all. When they drafted their initial expansion roster pretty much everyone here said they were going to be rubbish (as they didn't get the side deals Vegas did) . I asked this before in a similar thread and it can be repeated, would you have traded the entire Sabres roster and prospect pool for the entire Seattle roster and draft pool? No, of course not. Thus there's simply no advantage. We could have been just as good if we'd spent wisely and didn't stay a cap floor team with a long timeline for development. Just a proper goalie and maybe one D man more might have been enough as it turned out. 

They traded wisely, they drafted well, and they spent their free agent money well. It's just good management that has made them competitive.

(But  I wouldn't say "powerhouse" just yet)

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

The expansion teams didn't hire Ron Rolston.

The expansion teams didn't hire Ted Nolan.

The expansion teams didn't hire Dan Bylsma.

The expansion teams didn't hire Ralph Krueger.

The expansion teams didn't hire Tim Murray.

The expansion teams didn't hire Jason Botterill.

The expansion teams didn't sign Taylor Hall.

The expansion teams didn't sign Marcus Johansson.

The expansion teams didn't sign Matt Moulson.

The expansion teams didn't draft Joel Armia.

The expansion teams didn't draft Mikhail Grigorenko

The expansion teams didn't draft Alexander Nylander

[Doohicksie]

You know, I wonder if, rather than tanking, the last place team (or possibly lottery winner to try to prevent a race to the bottom; or maybe if there is a sustained period of futility over several seasons) could be given the option of a team "reset" that would essentially be a liquidation and reconstitution of the team.  Possibly have a "fire sale" of player contracts, with adjustment to AAV to account for underperforming players and possibly the league makes up the rest or something.  The team gets to franchise tag a small number of their players and keep them (2?  3?) and the rest are dispersed throughout the league.  Then they get to build a team back up similar to the expansion rules.

In Europe for some leagues there's relegation.  I see this as something the NHL would do in place of that.

Yes, I know it's not very feasible or likely.  Just kind of thinking out loud.

[matter2003]

3 hours ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

The expansion teams didn't hire Ron Rolston.

The expansion teams didn't hire Ted Nolan.

The expansion teams didn't hire Dan Bylsma.

The expansion teams didn't hire Ralph Krueger.

The expansion teams didn't hire Tim Murray.

The expansion teams didn't hire Jason Botterill.

The expansion teams didn't sign Taylor Hall.

The expansion teams didn't sign Marcus Johansson.

The expansion teams didn't sign Matt Moulson.

The expansion teams didn't draft Joel Armia.

The expansion teams didn't draft Mikhail Grigorenko

The expansion teams didn't draft Alexander Nylander

 

Seems to be a little easier when you have a year+ to plan and get all your ducks in a row and have no bad contracts or coaches contracts you are still paying on with rules that favor you tho doesn't it?

[MattPie]

45 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

You know, I wonder if, rather than tanking, the last place team (or possibly lottery winner to try to prevent a race to the bottom; or maybe if there is a sustained period of futility over several seasons) could be given the option of a team "reset" that would essentially be a liquidation and reconstitution of the team.  Possibly have a "fire sale" of player contracts, with adjustment to AAV to account for underperforming players and possibly the league makes up the rest or something.  The team gets to franchise tag a small number of their players and keep them (2?  3?) and the rest are dispersed throughout the league.  Then they get to build a team back up similar to the expansion rules.

In Europe for some leagues there's relegation.  I see this as something the NHL would do in place of that.

Yes, I know it's not very feasible or likely.  Just kind of thinking out loud.

That's kinda wild, and fun.

[Sabel79]

54 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

You know, I wonder if, rather than tanking, the last place team (or possibly lottery winner to try to prevent a race to the bottom; or maybe if there is a sustained period of futility over several seasons) could be given the option of a team "reset" that would essentially be a liquidation and reconstitution of the team.  Possibly have a "fire sale" of player contracts, with adjustment to AAV to account for underperforming players and possibly the league makes up the rest or something.  The team gets to franchise tag a small number of their players and keep them (2?  3?) and the rest are dispersed throughout the league.  Then they get to build a team back up similar to the expansion rules.

In Europe for some leagues there's relegation.  I see this as something the NHL would do in place of that.

Yes, I know it's not very feasible or likely.  Just kind of thinking out loud.

That would be fun.  I do not see the NHLPA ever agreeing to it in a million years, or the teams for that matter.

[French Collection]

2 minutes ago, Sabel79 said:

That would be fun.  I do not see the NHLPA ever agreeing to it in a million years, or the teams for that matter.

It’s hard to imagine pro sports in North America doing relegations but I guess it’s common in Europe.

The logistics of relegating Anaheim to the AHL and promoting Coachella to the NHL seem insurmountable. If Arizona plays out of a university rink, I guess it could be done. 
Huge downgrade for the Ducks but if they retained their talent you think they would come back the following year. That’s an interesting idea too. Do they keep all of their guys under contract or is there an out for guys to play in the NHL? FA would move to play in the NHL.

Zegras and their young stars riding buses and playing in front of small crowds would be a jolt to their egos. It would also be a huge motivation to get back to the big time. The AHL would get a big bump from having NHL stars around.

Bottom teams would dread signing a guy to a big 8 year deal and have to pay that while getting AHL revenue. Same with players, do you want to commit long term to a team that can be relegated?

[Weave]

You couldn’t do a relegation to the AHL.  It is a developmental league.  How would you have Coachella and Seattle in the NHL at the same time?  And what about the rinks/ facilities of AHL teams that would relegate upwards?  Capacity and quality of facilities issues.  Do these AHL teams and owners have the cash flow for upgraded travel demands?

Relegation is a crack pipe dream.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Weave

[MattPie]

5 minutes ago, French Collection said:

It’s hard to imagine pro sports in North America doing relegations but I guess it’s common in Europe.

The logistics of relegating Anaheim to the AHL and promoting Coachella to the NHL seem insurmountable. If Arizona plays out of a university rink, I guess it could be done. 
Huge downgrade for the Ducks but if they retained their talent you think they would come back the following year. That’s an interesting idea too. Do they keep all of their guys under contract or is there an out for guys to play in the NHL? FA would move to play in the NHL.

Zegras and their young stars riding buses and playing in front of small crowds would be a jolt to their egos. It would also be a huge motivation to get back to the big time. The AHL would get a big bump from having NHL stars around.

Bottom teams would dread signing a guy to a big 8 year deal and have to pay that while getting AHL revenue. Same with players, do you want to commit long term to a team that can be relegated?

From what I remember from when Modo was relegated, the players have an out and become FA or something. I'm sure if varies by league/team/contract. Tidbit I didn't remember from before: VO was the top scorer on that Modo team.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modo_Hockey

[mjd1001]

1 hour ago, matter2003 said:

 

Seems to be a little easier when you have a year+ to plan and get all your ducks in a row and have no bad contracts or coaches contracts you are still paying on with rules that favor you tho doesn't it?

Not to mention expansion teams don't have to worry about selling tickets or selling merchandise.

If an existing team hasn't been relevant for a while, you might get signings like Taylor hall or other players to try to not only make the team better, but to get some fan support behind you. That can be a recipe for disaster.

Expansion teams don't need to think about  making money because they can take the long view and fans are still going to show up for a couple of years....and owners love revenue.

[French Collection]

19 minutes ago, MattPie said:

From what I remember from when Modo was relegated, the players have an out and become FA or something. I'm sure if varies by league/team/contract. Tidbit I didn't remember from before: VO was the top scorer on that Modo team.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modo_Hockey

If everyone leaves, it’s tough for that team to find talent to win their way back.

I guess in the NHL, the owners could pay lots of money to target guys that could help them get back where they want to be.

Expansion hopefuls could make a pitch to the AHL winner to play out their barn for a year to increase revenues and giving the new city some exposure.

NHL owners would never go for this but it would be a ballsy move to have billionaires relegated and their franchise values plummet. On the other hand, a rich guy like Smith in Salt Lake could load up an AHL franchise to take a run at the NHL without paying a billion in expansion fees.

[French Collection]

30 minutes ago, Weave said:

Relegation is a crack pipe dream.

I don’t do that stuff but sometimes I still let my imagination run away.

[shrader]

15 hours ago, Brawndo said:

 

 

As Sabel mentioned, the NHL would have had to sign off on the plan for the Coyotes to play at Arizona State while the team searches for a new arena. Part of that agreement could contain a forced buyout option that the NHL can invoke if the Coyotes do not have a confirmed deal in place for a new arena by a certain date. 

With everything the league has done over the years to keep that team there, it just seems odd that they would suddenly hold a gun to the head of a guy who tried to work with them.

[Taro T]

Just now, shrader said:

With everything the league has done over the years to keep that team there, it just seems odd that they would suddenly hold a gun to the head of a guy who tried to work with them.

And, though it could just be speaking the party line, Bettman makes it sound like there are still options to keep the team in the desert by landing them in Phoenix proper.  Which is where the team should've been all along.  You aren't going to get people in an "emerging" market to drive from the suburbs on 1 side of a sprawling city to watch a game being played in the suburbs on the other side of the city.  (Well, not many of them at any rate.)

And the attendance issues Florida has seemed to have through the years and that the Yotes have had should be a cautionary tale to realize there's a reason land is cheap far from the population centers.  And you won't get the attendance you're hoping for by building in the boonies.

[Doohicksie]

Bear in mind:  I didn't suggest relegation.  I'm thinking of something to alleviate the status quo of underperforming teams (taking years to rebuild and living with previous bad contracts) that would be similar to, but not quite the same, as hitting a reset button and giving the team an opportunity to build similar to the way expansion teams are built.  So every year there would be some sort of veteran "auction" where vets from the reconstitution team are dispersed to the rest of teams, and a "reconstitution draft" that would be similar to an expansion draft, where the reconstituting team gets to pick players from the other teams, and those teams have an opportunity to protect key players the way they do for the expansion draft.

I think it would have to have a penalty involved, perhaps financial.  Not a full franchise fee, but maybe an owner that wants to reconstitute needs to pay a reconstitution fee of, say, $100 million, plus pay the salary differences between their existing contracts and what they sign for with other teams in the "dispersal auction," (which assumes that the reconstituting team has several toxic contracts).  Unlike a buyout, though, delta contract payouts would not count against the reconstituted team's cap.

I agree that there would be resistance probably from both the teams and the NHLPA.  It's really just a thought experiment.  I think the current expansion formula is good for the expansion teams; they are relevant and don't have to play several years knowing they're going to be losers.  I'm just trying to think of a way to move the perennial bottom feeders up to relevancy too.