Speculation: 2021 Seattle Kraken Expansion Draft

[These Are The Days]

Call me a stickler for organization but since this is a very relevant discussion that we are now already having (most notably in the Karlsson thread) let's give it an actual home here. Can the powers that be possibly bring the last few pages into this thread?

Click to read more...

 

[These Are The Days]

I think it would be best to protect the defense as well as we can

Stamkos (NMC)
Kucherov (NMC)
Point
Palat

Hedman (NMC)
McDonagh
Karlsson -it's gonna happen folks, trust SFY on this one
Sergachev

Vasilevskiy

I'm pretty sure a potential Seattle expansion team would take Johnson if given the chance.

 

[HoseEmDown]

They'll take Cernak, Joseph, Volkov or Cirelli. Cirelli is already a 3C and could be a high end one in a few years or low end 2C if he develops even more. Cernak has potential to be playing in the top 4 next to Hedman soon and could be a good young RD for a new team. Joseph and Volkov have 2nd line 50 point upside so if one of them starts to reach that by then would be a better cheap, long-term option.

Johnson being from Washington will have some sentimental value and cause interest but will be 30 and trending down. I would think we would need to pay something for them to take him but not a ton as he still should be a good player.

 

[Rschmitz]

Whoa whoa whoa like 2 years too early guys

 

[Todd1a]

Whoa whoa whoa like 2 years too early guys

Plus a nhl lock out will happen before then and I’m sure the cap rolls back again and each team will have two free none cap hit buy outs again.

 

[HoseEmDown]

Plus a nhl lock out will happen before then and I’m sure the cap rolls back again and each team will have two free none cap hit buy outs again.

The CBA doesn't expire till after the 21-22 season and the expansion draft will be before that. There won't be a lockout yet and with two expansions worth 1 billion there might be enough revenue to prevent another lockout. The TV rights will be renewed before the next CBA ends and while viewership isn't great live sports gets good TV contracts. The cap should slow but I don't know about a lockout.

 

[Todd1a]

The CBA doesn't expire till after the 21-22 season and the expansion draft will be before that. There won't be a lockout yet and with two expansions worth 1 billion there might be enough revenue to prevent another lockout. The TV rights will be renewed before the next CBA ends and while viewership isn't great live sports gets good TV contracts. The cap should slow but I don't know about a lockout.

after 21-22 ? when I looked I thought it was after 2019-2020 season ?

 

[Todd1a]

The CBA doesn't expire till after the 21-22 season and the expansion draft will be before that. There won't be a lockout yet and with two expansions worth 1 billion there might be enough revenue to prevent another lockout. The TV rights will be renewed before the next CBA ends and while viewership isn't great live sports gets good TV contracts. The cap should slow but I don't know about a lockout.

thats what I saw hose the owners will opt out early I have no doubt about it.
The current CBA is a 10-year deal, expiring after the 2021–22 season.[3]
The NHL can choose to opt out of the CBA on September 1, 2019 (expiring in 2020). The NHLPA can choose to opt out of the CBA on September 19, 2019.

 

[HoseEmDown]

thats what I saw hose the owners will opt out early I have no doubt about it.
The current CBA is a 10-year deal, expiring after the 2021–22 season.[3]
The NHL can choose to opt out of the CBA on September 1, 2019 (expiring in 2020). The NHLPA can choose to opt out of the CBA on September 19, 2019.

Why does either side want to opt out? Things are good on both fronts right now. The owners aren't raking in cash but they aren't bleeding it either while players are seeing cap increases regularly which puts more money in their pockets.

 

[CupsOverCash]

Why does either side want to opt out? Things are good on both fronts right now. The owners aren't raking in cash but they aren't bleeding it either while players are seeing cap increases regularly which puts more money in their pockets.

Havent you heard? They want to get this tax advantage thing fixed.

 

[Todd1a]

Why does either side want to opt out? Things are good on both fronts right now. The owners aren't raking in cash but they aren't bleeding it either while players are seeing cap increases regularly which puts more money in their pockets.

the cap is too high the owners will 100 % opt out they almost always do. simple most owners want to make more money

 

[The Macho King]

the cap is too high the owners will 100 % opt out they almost always do. simple most owners want to make more money

The cap reflects the league revenue. High cap = high revenue = high amount of money in the owners pocket.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Todd1a]

The cap reflects the league revenue. High cap = high revenue = high amount of money in the owners pocket.

You don't know what you're talking about.

ya but I can names 10-12 teams losing money in the league or claim to be losing money. the owners are going to opt out they always do it's going to happen. Just look at all the players getting bonus money for the 2020-2021 season! there doing it because they know the owners are going to lock them out.

Eroding relationship between NHL and players' union doesn't bode well for next CBA

 

[Five Alarm Fire]

In the case that we acquire Karlsson without giving up Sergachev, we could leave McDonagh unprotected and protect 7 forwards not named Tyler Johnson or Alex Killorn. I assume this would be enough to keep Cirelli and an additional young forward.

Protect:
Stamkos, Kucherov, Point, Palat, Miller, Cirelli, ?

Where ? = Joseph/Volkov/Stephens

Seattle would then have to choose between:
Tyler Johnson @ 4 years, $5M
Ryan McDonagh @ 5 years, $6.75M
Alex Killorn @ 3 years, $4.45M
One of Joseph/Volkov/Stephens/Cernak

So unless all of our AHL players pan out to be pretty good, we'd be in a position to shed one of Johnson/Killorn without giving too much as a sweetner. The quality of McDonagh's play in 2 years will also be a big x-factor. If he's in decline, this becomes an easier decision, if he's, say, a low-end #1 D still, this becomes much more expensive assets-wise.

 

[Rschmitz]

I'd stick with the 4-4. Stamkos-Kucherov-Palat-Point and Hedman-Karlsson-McDonagh-Sergachev

Sucks to give up the other guys but this is our core

 

[DistantThunderRep]

ya but I can names 10-12 teams losing money in the league or claim to be losing money. the owners are going to opt out they always do it's going to happen. Just look at all the players getting bonus money for the 2020-2021 season! there doing it because they know the owners are going to lock them out.

Eroding relationship between NHL and players' union doesn't bode well for next CBA

So? 10-12 owners are losing money... It's a majority vote. The ones who are making a lot of money now, will not vote against it. NHL locking out again...I honestly don't know what would happen to the brand name after.

 

[DistantThunderRep]

I'd stick with the 4-4. Stamkos-Kucherov-Palat-Point and Hedman-Karlsson-McDonagh-Sergachev

Sucks to give up the other guys but this is our core

I agree with this. I was the one who brought it up. The main point of which protection path we take, depends on what or if we give up anything for Karlsson. Serge might not be here if we trade for Karlsson, so going 7-3-1 could make more sense.

 

[Todd1a]

So? 10-12 owners are losing money... It's a majority vote. The ones who are making a lot of money now, will not vote against it. NHL locking out again...I honestly don't know what would happen to the brand name after.

it's not just money owners will want other stuff 1. more money 2. means drop the salary cap back 5 to 6 percent. 3. less to pay retired players. 4. go from 8 year term contracts to only can offer 6 year term contracts why not because they can. majority owners will opt out there is always things they want to change asap. owners might want players to be a RFA for one year longer say 8 years under control instead of 7 years. It's the NHL they always lock out

 

[HoseEmDown]

it's not just money owners will want other stuff 1. more money 2. means drop the salary cap back 5 to 6 percent. 3. less to pay retired players. 4. go from 8 year term contracts to only can offer 6 year term contracts why not because they can. majority owners will opt out there is always things they want to change asap. owners might want players to be a RFA for one year longer say 8 years under control instead of 7 years. It's the NHL they always lock out

They can want all those things doesn't mean the NHLPA will give that all up. They are already getting good money,you say 10-12 teams are in the red so show me that info? If found some things that say less than that. So if 3/4 the teams are doing well I see no reason to opt out. The new expansion will also put 15 or so million more in their pockets just from expansion fees alone.

If they scale back the cap and add compliance buyouts, guess what? The owners have to pay those players they buy out to not play for them. Sure they pay them 2/3 of what their owed but that's wasted money and then they have to fill that spot with someone else so they lose the savings. That's not that great an ask from the owners, players won't mind as they get paid and could sign a new deal like Vinny did.

 

[Todd1a]

They can want all those things doesn't mean the NHLPA will give that all up. They are already getting good money,you say 10-12 teams are in the red so show me that info? If found some things that say less than that. So if 3/4 the teams are doing well I see no reason to opt out. The new expansion will also put 15 or so million more in their pockets just from expansion fees alone.

If they scale back the cap and add compliance buyouts, guess what? The owners have to pay those players they buy out to not play for them. Sure they pay them 2/3 of what their owed but that's wasted money and then they have to fill that spot with someone else so they lose the savings. That's not that great an ask from the owners, players won't mind as they get paid and could sign a new deal like Vinny did.

We sell out every game yet we are still operating in red Tampa Bay Lightning on the Forbes The Business of Hockey List

 

[Todd1a]

They can want all those things doesn't mean the NHLPA will give that all up. They are already getting good money,you say 10-12 teams are in the red so show me that info? If found some things that say less than that. So if 3/4 the teams are doing well I see no reason to opt out. The new expansion will also put 15 or so million more in their pockets just from expansion fees alone.

If they scale back the cap and add compliance buyouts, guess what? The owners have to pay those players they buy out to not play for them. Sure they pay them 2/3 of what their owed but that's wasted money and then they have to fill that spot with someone else so they lose the savings. That's not that great an ask from the owners, players won't mind as they get paid and could sign a new deal like Vinny did.

So your say 100 percent there will be no lock out at all next time every thing is perfect and good for both sides ?

 

[The Macho King]

They can want all those things doesn't mean the NHLPA will give that all up. They are already getting good money,you say 10-12 teams are in the red so show me that info? If found some things that say less than that. So if 3/4 the teams are doing well I see no reason to opt out. The new expansion will also put 15 or so million more in their pockets just from expansion fees alone.

If they scale back the cap and add compliance buyouts, guess what? The owners have to pay those players they buy out to not play for them. Sure they pay them 2/3 of what their owed but that's wasted money and then they have to fill that spot with someone else so they lose the savings. That's not that great an ask from the owners, players won't mind as they get paid and could sign a new deal like Vinny did.

My guesses for sticking points in the next CBA -

• Contract length/UFA age. Players will want UFA quicker, teams will want shorter contracts to compensate.
• Bonus structure v. salaries - a few reasons for this. Bonuses are basically the only way Tampa really has that "tax advantage". Otherwise the difference is pretty small. But the other thing is just in general owners would prefer fewer bonuses due to insurance/injury costs and just time value of money issues.
• NTCs/NMCs - I think a big part of CBA negotiations are owners protecting themselves from themselves, so they may try to cap the number of NMCs/NTCs available.
• LTIR - won't be a major sticking point, but there will be some dick wagging over Toronto and Chicago most notably using/abusing LTIR. I don't know if the NHLPA has much of a concern here, but this will probably get more media attention than it deserves during the process.
• There will always be fights over escrow, but since the NHLPA has a big hand in how big those are it won't cause a lockout.
• Olympics - frankly not a real issue. This would be the stupidest thing to hold up a CBA over, especially when the NHL is in the right.

I honestly don't see a ton of lockout-worthy issues here. HRR is unlikely to change (although there will be bickering as to what qualifies as HRR but that fight will always happen). I don't think Contract Length/UFA age is a hill to die on either side, and if players want to decrease it to 25 capping contracts at 6/7 instead of 7/8 seems like a reasonable compromise. The hard cap/guaranteed salaries aren't going anywhere. Bonus structure will be a fight but there are compromise positions that should keep this from a lockout.

I don't think we're going to get one. 2004 lockout was fixing fundamental flaws in the game. 2012 lockout was fixing issues directly related to a brand new CBA that completely upended the new order (lifetime contracts, burying contracts with no cap hit in the minors, etc.). The sport is growing. The cap is increasing. Players are getting paid. Escrow is low. Owners are making money both through success on the ice and expansion fees. Personalities involved notwithstanding, I would think that the NHLPA has to be happy with the state of things writ large, even if they do have individual issues they'd like to change.

 

[HoseEmDown]

We sell out every game yet we are still operating in red Tampa Bay Lightning on the Forbes The Business of Hockey List

What is the breakdown of that debt? Only thing I see are player salaries. There could be debt from all the renovations Vinik has done to the arena and surrounding area. So he could be taking a hit up front that will pay off down the line. It's also less than 2mil in debt anyway, that's chump change to a guy like him.

 

[HoseEmDown]

My guesses for sticking points in the next CBA -

• Contract length/UFA age. Players will want UFA quicker, teams will want shorter contracts to compensate.
• Bonus structure v. salaries - a few reasons for this. Bonuses are basically the only way Tampa really has that "tax advantage". Otherwise the difference is pretty small. But the other thing is just in general owners would prefer fewer bonuses due to insurance/injury costs and just time value of money issues.
• NTCs/NMCs - I think a big part of CBA negotiations are owners protecting themselves from themselves, so they may try to cap the number of NMCs/NTCs available.
• LTIR - won't be a major sticking point, but there will be some dick wagging over Toronto and Chicago most notably using/abusing LTIR. I don't know if the NHLPA has much of a concern here, but this will probably get more media attention than it deserves during the process.
• There will always be fights over escrow, but since the NHLPA has a big hand in how big those are it won't cause a lockout.
• Olympics - frankly not a real issue. This would be the stupidest thing to hold up a CBA over, especially when the NHL is in the right.

I honestly don't see a ton of lockout-worthy issues here. HRR is unlikely to change (although there will be bickering as to what qualifies as HRR but that fight will always happen). I don't think Contract Length/UFA age is a hill to die on either side, and if players want to decrease it to 25 capping contracts at 6/7 instead of 7/8 seems like a reasonable compromise. The hard cap/guaranteed salaries aren't going anywhere. Bonus structure will be a fight but there are compromise positions that should keep this from a lockout.

I don't think we're going to get one. 2004 lockout was fixing fundamental flaws in the game. 2012 lockout was fixing issues directly related to a brand new CBA that completely upended the new order (lifetime contracts, burying contracts with no cap hit in the minors, etc.). The sport is growing. The cap is increasing. Players are getting paid. Escrow is low. Owners are making money both through success on the ice and expansion fees. Personalities involved notwithstanding, I would think that the NHLPA has to be happy with the state of things writ large, even if they do have individual issues they'd like to change.

I agree that there aren't a ton of problems that would lead to a lockout. I can see players wanting free agency sooner but why would teams want to shorten contracts? Say that both agree on the others ask, UFA starts at 25 and 6 year contracts. A player could get a huge contract then 6 years later still be relatively young at 31 and get another big 6 year contract? Seems like not that great an idea for owners because that's more money to the players. I think the issue with the 8 year contract is that they're giving to guys who are too old for one and that's on the GM and owner who signs off.

I think that if you go to short on UFA status or shorter contracts you'll become the NBA with guys swapping teams all the time and just a few guys end up staying with the club that drafted them. Draft pick values would also decrease as guys won't be under team control for that long so you can throw those things around like candy and just sign good talent at an early age anyway. I think they need to keep the UFA age the same but make offer sheets more of an option. The NBA doesn't do compensation for offer sheets I don't believe and players sign them much more frequently,think that would be better than lowering the UFA age.

 

[The Macho King]

What is the breakdown of that debt? Only thing I see are player salaries. There could be debt from all the renovations Vinik has done to the arena and surrounding area. So he could be taking a hit up front that will pay off down the line. It's also less than 2mil in debt anyway, that's chump change to a guy like him.

Moreover I suspect that the Lightning are a loss leader for Vinik and the entire downtown Tampa development. Whether Tampa is red or black in the balance sheet doesn't necessarily reflect the value that they bring to the surrounding area.