Massive Expansion Proposal

Kenadyan

Registered User
Jul 23, 2003
1,198
0
Asheboro, NC
Visit site
No mas!! No mas!!

No more expansion please!! I appreciate the thought and effort put into the original post, but I'm not sure where the players are going to come from.

I sure as hell don't want to see an expansion draft where deep teams will start to lose players to the expansion markets, thereby weaking that team and diluting the overall talent pool.

For every potential owner/mayor pushing for NHL expansion, they are going to demand a marquee name for their franchise due to the hugh expansion fee they are paying. Whether that comes from the entry or expansion draft, they are going to demand an immediate marquee name to put people in the seats.

If the new owners and teams were willing to play with AHL level talent (as a previous poster suggested) for the first year or two until they could sign UFAs or RFAs, I'd be more for this idea.
 

blackhawksmaniac

Registered User
Jun 4, 2006
368
0
South Bend, IN
As some of you know, I would like to see The NHL expand on last time to get to 32 teams, but not for a while. The NHL is getting back on its feet from the lockout. It's not ready yet.
 

Enstrom39

Registered User
Apr 1, 2006
2,174
0
www.birdwatchersanonymous.com
I think the original proposal is inventive and interesting. There are some serious problems that others have commented on already.

Here's one thing that seldom gets discussed: why not put a 2nd team in Toronto? NYC metro has three teams. The Leafs sell out the place all the time, so clearly there is more demand to see NHL games then there is supply. A new team would start with no tradition and would always be #2 in the market, like the Mets in MLB and Clippers in LA. Honestly I think a 2nd team in Toronto would do better than one in Hamilton.

re: Winnipeg. Not even Canadian players want to fly to Winnipeg in the dead of winter. One of the least favored playing locations for years.
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
re: Winnipeg. Not even Canadian players want to fly to Winnipeg in the dead of winter. One of the least favored playing locations for years.

really ? links to the quotes from all these canadian players would be nice to back this up. thanks
 

Enstrom39

Registered User
Apr 1, 2006
2,174
0
www.birdwatchersanonymous.com
really ? links to the quotes from all these canadian players would be nice to back this up. thanks

I remember reading some quotes about "players not missing mid winter games in Winnipeg" in the paper when it was announced that the team was moving. Sorry but I didn't clip and save that article.

Do you have any great quotes by players mentioning Winnipeg as one of their favorite NHL stops? (from non-Jets players.)
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
I remember reading some quotes about "players not missing mid winter games in Winnipeg" in the paper when it was announced that the team was moving. Sorry but I didn't clip and save that article.

Do you have any great quotes by players mentioning Winnipeg as one of their favorite NHL stops? (from non-Jets players.)

if you can't back up your statement about winnipeg i'll take it as false.
 

RTWAP*

Guest
Its not a bad idea on paper, however what troubles me is this sort of resembles the bettman braintrust idea back in the 90's[maybe I should apply for a job? :sarcasm: ], get into new markets and grab the expansion cash, the game breaks into new markets and grows;its a win win.

However the game actualy lost ground, as the NHL didn't realize that its TV viewership that grows the game. So even getting into the Bay area or south Florida brought in few new die hards, American casual sports fan was told that hockey sucks, further the dead puck era came with the expansion and some of the absurd critisim from the MSM was justified.

I think the NHL 2.0 needs to be in place for at least 10 more years, Please no more playoff teams, no more expansion, the regular season is finaly getting to resemble something significant ( 06 canucks probably would have made the playoffs in most NHL seasons). The talent is beggining to catch up, teams are getting deeper in propects and the salary stucture is in place. Now the NHL needs to wait for the 30 NHL markets to grow amongst the fans, build rinks get more american kids playing and see what happens. Going into a rapid expansion hurt the game the first time, I wouldn't like for it to happen again.

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote.
 

RTWAP*

Guest
Columbus and Nashville in the West and Winnipeg in the east? :whaaa?:
Just trying to cluster teams for shorter travel. The real problem is I was trying to keep St. Louis and Kansas City in the same division, but that ends up really complicating the entire central zone.
 

RTWAP*

Guest
No mas!! No mas!!

No more expansion please!! I appreciate the thought and effort put into the original post, but I'm not sure where the players are going to come from.

But we wouldn't need a bunch of new players. (and relax, there's no way this happens. we're just having fun.)

I sure as hell don't want to see an expansion draft where deep teams will start to lose players to the expansion markets, thereby weaking that team and diluting the overall talent pool.

Teams would probably protect a few top players, plus protect more players in each round of the expansion draft, plus there'd be limit on the number of players a team could lose.

If the new owners and teams were willing to play with AHL level talent (as a previous poster suggested) for the first year or two until they could sign UFAs or RFAs, I'd be more for this idea.

Remember that with 25 year-old UFAs, the expansion draft would not be the primary method for getting top talent.
 

RTWAP*

Guest
I just realized that the map in question doesn't load unless you've visited the page first. Try it here and go down to the very bottom of the page.

Sorry.
 

Creator

Registered User
Aug 24, 2006
72
0
No mas!! No mas!!

No more expansion please!! I appreciate the thought and effort put into the original post, but I'm not sure where the players are going to come from.

answer: players sent down = out clause more than 95,000

I sure as hell don't want to see an expansion draft where deep teams will start to lose players to the expansion markets, thereby weaking that team and diluting the overall talent pool.

answer: see answer above, bottom line and agents$$$$$$


For every potential owner/mayor pushing for NHL expansion, they are going to demand a marquee name for their franchise due to the hugh expansion fee they are paying. Whether that comes from the entry or expansion draft, they are going to demand an immediate marquee name to put people in the seats.

Not so-only the new club wants a franchise or Marquee player, next year is the first day of operations-or full control.....

If the new owners and teams were willing to play with AHL level talent (as a previous poster suggested) for the first year or two until they could sign UFAs or RFAs, I'd be more for this idea.

They are the furue but not yet>>>>>>.........
 

F. Duchemin

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
776
0
St-Hilaire
I like your approach and the way you think out of the box. This is a funny yet entertaining idea and it isnt bad idea too. I would be fun to imagine and watch :D
 

braincramp

Registered User
Mar 10, 2004
1,594
0
This idea would fail.

Expanding the NHL is a vague objective which must be an end to some financial gain to motivate owners.

An NHL team makes money by putting people in seats. The owner wants his rink to have more seats filled in more games at the highest price (until it becomes self-defeating). This proposal is for fewer games with lower price tickets. ??? The fact that the league makes more money in total is immaterial to an individual team owner; he wants to make more money himself.

And a 33% expansion in the number of teams? To divide even further whatever very marginal income can be obtained from things not sold at the arena, such as TV contracts?

And the NHLPA going along with a 10% cut in players on an active roster?

And other cost savings? Travel costs are not proportional to airline miles flown, and most of the benefits have already been realized. Meals, hotels, equipment and uniform logistics are the major costs and are the same, no matter how far you fly.

It seems like a pollyanna proposal with the objective of putting an NHL team in every city.

And more drastic rule changes? With more unexpected impacts?
 

RTWAP*

Guest
This idea would fail.

We can all agree about that.

This proposal is for fewer games with lower price tickets. ???

Fewer games at higher prices. Reducing the number of games reduces the cost of season tickets. Some of the reduction could be taken back in higher per game prices while still saving fans money. Some teams could probably keep the price for a season exactly where it is (effectively raising the per game price).

And the NHLPA going along with a 10% cut in players on an active roster?

20% actually. More pay for less work? Remember, most unions want to expand because there are workers or companies not covered by a CBA. The NHLPA doesn't care about that. It is concerned only with the interests of past, current and future members. They wouldn't want contraction because then a member would lose their job, but a proposal that didn't involve anyone losing their jobs and provided other benefits to their membership might be acceptable.

And other cost savings? Travel costs are not proportional to airline miles flown, and most of the benefits have already been realized. Meals, hotels, equipment and uniform logistics are the major costs and are the same, no matter how far you fly.

Not true. A 2 hour flight is cheaper than a 5 hour flight. It also takes less time, which is a tangible benefit too. And introducing rivals that are 1-2 hours away by bus means that you may even end up taking less flights. Even if they fly, they have the option of taking a 40 minute flight the morning of the game and then flying back that night (saving one or two nights hotel).

And fewer games means less flights too.
 

Guest

Registered User
Feb 12, 2003
5,599
39
I'm intriqued by the ideas thrown out in this thread.

I figured I would offer some numbers to put it all in perspective.

There are currently:
30 teams
23 players per team
690 players in the league
$44 million cap per team

Proposed would have:
40 teams
18 players per team (9F, 4D, 2G 3 bench?)
720 players in the league
$34.5 million cap per team (same proportion as current $44 million cap)

You are adding 10 teams, but only 30 players, similar to just one expansion team. I'm sure the cap would likely decrease proportionally because there would also be a decrease in revenues per team, but I may be overlooking something there.

There are some definite holes in the logic though. For example, if you are splitting 120 minutes among 4 defenseman, that's an average of 30 minutes per defenseman. Even if your top string played 35 minutes, your second string would be playing 25 minutes. Same with the forwards, if 9 players are sharing 180 minutes that averages out to 20 minutes per forward. Your top line might play 25 minutes, then your 2nd line plays 20 minutes and your third line plays 15 minutes? Not as bad as the defenseman, but those are some quality minutes.

I'd be much more content with a less radical idea with the same concept.

-- 2 expansion teams + 30 teams = 32 team league
-- 8 divisions of 4 teams
Kings-Ducks-Sharks-Coyotes
Stars-Avs-Wild-Houston?
Nucks-Flames-Oilers-Seattle?
Predators-Hawks-Blue Jackets-Blues
Canes-Panthers-Lightning-Thrashers
Capitals-Penguins-Flyers-Boston
Islanders-Rangers-Devils-Sabres
Sens-Leafs-Habs-Wings
*Forgive me if it doesn't make sense, thought of it on the fly...
-- Top 2 from each division faceoff in first round division playoff
-- 21 roster players (shifts 60 jobs to two expansion teams)
-- season
80 games (8x3 division, 2x28 everyone else) OR
82 games (6x3 divison, 4x12 conference, 1x16 outer-conference)
-- $41,250,000 cap per team
 
Last edited:

boredmale

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 13, 2005
42,363
6,930
The NHL should expand with only 2 teams(preferabily western teams, i probably would go with Las Vegas and Houston with minor consideration for Seattle).

It would be perfect for scheduling and playoffs.

4 Divisions of 8 teams, top 4 teams make the playoffs every year in each division.

as for schedule you play all teams in your division 6 times(7 X 6 = 42) then you play the 8 teams in your conference 3 times(24 games) then the 16 teams in the other conference 1 time(16 games, you play 1 division at home, the other away). Thats a total of 82 games.

The division playoff matchups will definantly build up strong rivalaries which will be good for attendence purposes, and the fact you get to see teams in the other conference 1 time every 2 years play in your arena will help attendence as well making those tickets hotter items.
 
Last edited:

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
I remember reading some quotes about "players not missing mid winter games in Winnipeg" in the paper when it was announced that the team was moving. Sorry but I didn't clip and save that article.

Do you have any great quotes by players mentioning Winnipeg as one of their favorite NHL stops? (from non-Jets players.)
At one ponit, Jeremy Roenick was almost traded to Winnipeg. If I remember correctly, he refused to go there, somehow comparing Winnipeg to playing in Russia. I'm not sure if he was talking about the weather, or what.

Strangely enough, he went to Phoenix as soon as the team relocated.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,676
37,464
something no one is considering is the subsequent rise in salaries this would create. As you get teams who have players who are their particular stars on their team - they wouldn't make as much as they would if they were in a team with 10 less leagues. Guys that are 3rd and 4th liners would not only be 1st liners, but legitmiate 1st liners based on the watered down scale of the talent pool.
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
At one ponit, Jeremy Roenick was almost traded to Winnipeg. If I remember correctly, he refused to go there, somehow comparing Winnipeg to playing in Russia. I'm not sure if he was talking about the weather, or what.

Strangely enough, he went to Phoenix as soon as the team relocated.

roenick never refused to go to winnipeg. the hawks wanted the jets to take him as compensation for their rfa offer sheet for tkachuk in the fall of '95. the new owners of the jets wanted to keep tkachuk (and even paid half his $6 m salary that season even though they didn't take possession of the team until the following summer) and didn't want roenick, nor the 1st rounders, as compensation for him.

strangely enough, roenick went to phoenix because he was actually traded. had nothing to do with winnipeg being colder than martha stewart. :)
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->