BruinLVGA
CZ Shadow 2 Compact coming my way!
Re bolded... Absolutely horrible... If one wants more space on the ice, the solution to that is simple: make the rink European size. Making teams play 4 on 4 as a standard is utterly ridiculous.
Rumor: NHL Expansion --how it changes Bruins roster management
- Thread starter Colt.45Orr
- Start date
Re bolded... Absolutely horrible... If one wants more space on the ice, the solution to that is simple: make the rink European size. Making teams play 4 on 4 as a standard is utterly ridiculous.
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 24,404
- 21,907
European size ice would be terrible, almost as bad an idea as increasing the size of the nets.
If they did decide to increase the rink size, hopefully the NHL is smart enough to adopt it's own standard size bigger than what they have now but smaller than the European standard.
They use that "medium" sized rink in Finland. I doubt this is a viable option in NA, there's not enough space in most arenas to expand the ice surface without sacrificing seats.
Is there any specific language in the CBA that clearly defines player movement in the event of expansion, contraction, or a franchise moving to another city? Of particular interest in players with NMC'S?
If not wouldn't it be in both owners and players best interest to sit down and come to some sort of mutual agreement on how such players with such contracts should be handled in the event of expansion, contraction or relocation? Are they doing this or going to? Or is ownership just going to impose their own self interest?
If not wouldn't it be in both owners and players best interest to sit down and come to some sort of mutual agreement on how such players with such contracts should be handled in the event of expansion, contraction or relocation? Are they doing this or going to? Or is ownership just going to impose their own self interest?
- Sep 22, 2011
- 11,465
- 12,045
Biggest myth in hockey: Bigger rinks increase scoring.
Check out the goal totals for international tournaments played on European vs. North American ice surfaces. The NA rinks average more goals, at a statistically significant rate. Also, the eye test will tell you that big ice is boring hockey.
Check out the goal totals for international tournaments played on European vs. North American ice surfaces. The NA rinks average more goals, at a statistically significant rate. Also, the eye test will tell you that big ice is boring hockey.
Mpasta
Registered User
- Oct 6, 2008
- 5,804
- 722
Did people actually read the topic or do they think "NHL Expansion" means that they are expanding the ice surface? 
Since we're on the topic and off of the original, I'll just say that I hated when I had to play on larger rinks even when I was one of the faster skaters. It was a pain in the ***.
Since we're on the topic and off of the original, I'll just say that I hated when I had to play on larger rinks even when I was one of the faster skaters. It was a pain in the ***.
- Sep 22, 2011
- 11,465
- 12,045
Did people actually read the topic or do they think "NHL Expansion" means that they are expanding the ice surface?
Since we're on the topic and off of the original, I'll just say that I hated when I had to play on larger rinks even when I was one of the faster skaters. It was a pain in the ***.
Well, one person posted that to ease the impact of league expansion, they should go to 4 on 4
shakehead) all the time. Another posted the (equally . . . ahhh . . . questionable) idea of expanding the rinks. My post was addressing that. As far as expanding the number of teams goes? Whatever. The league has survived it before. Of course, when goons/rats start to proliferate again due to a lack of talent to fill spots (just like EVERY other time the league expanded!!), Bettman only has himself to blame.
If they do expand I think they should expand the number of games played to at least 96, 112 would be better.
6x8 division 48
4x8 in conference 32
1x16 out of conference 16 (alternating home/away annually)
=96
or
2x16 out of conference 32 (no alternation)
=112
6x8 division 48
4x8 in conference 32
1x16 out of conference 16 (alternating home/away annually)
=96
or
2x16 out of conference 32 (no alternation)
=112
- Sep 22, 2011
- 11,465
- 12,045
Whaaa? 30 more games? The playoffs are a maximum of 28 and teams are running on fumes and held together with duct tape and baling wire by June. No way. If anything, make the regular season less games.
Last edited:
Donnie Shulzhoffer
Rocket Surgery
Lobster57
Registered User
guys would be dead by the end of a 112 game season. that's already longer than the 82 game regular season plus all 4 rounds going 7 games in the playoffs. 96 is too long as well, the middle of the season already drags.
5 in division, 3 in conference (alternating extra home games each season) and 1 alternating out of conference gives an 80 game season.
BruinLVGA
CZ Shadow 2 Compact coming my way!
If your choices were limited to: a) play from now on at 4 vs 4 ***OR*** b) have Euro size ice, what would you choose?
Spanky185
Registered User
Removing seats gives teams a great reason to raise prices though. Supply & demand.
- Sep 22, 2011
- 11,465
- 12,045
c) Never watch hockey again. 4x4 is stupid, Euro size ice is boring. I don't watch stupid, boring sports.
4x4?
There is no Bargaining Unit in the world that will agree to a reduction in membership. Its all about growing jobs which is all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
There is no Bargaining Unit in the world that will agree to a reduction in membership. Its all about growing jobs which is all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Donnie Shulzhoffer
Rocket Surgery
Mr. Make-Believe
The happy genius of my household
It certainly seems like it will be something that the league has to "give" to the PA.
And even then, I could see the language to that amendment that NMCs MUST be a part of that team's protected list, which cinches that loophole closed.
DominicT
Registered User
I'm not so sure Scott. See Wally's post above.
Two teams is going to create 100+ new players to the membership (50 contracts per team plus any signed and still in junior) and a potential 80 more (maximum 90 players rights held by each team). Not to mention increased revenue and more money for the players.
I have no doubt the NHLPA is salivating. Here's the thing though, we have to distinguish between the NHLPA and the membership. The NHLPA (the executives - Don Fehr) is all about getting the most money for the players. The membership - the players - are not always in agreement. Example: Fehr wanted the players to use the escalator 2 years ago and the players didn't follow his advice and voted against it.
So I ask you to put yourself in the following position as a player when it's time to vote:
You are the Kevan Miller, Malcolm Subban, Tommy Cross, Alex Khokhlachev, Seth Griffith's of the NHL. Here's your chance at 40 new jobs and a payday. Why would you give a rats *** whether the Pittsburgh Penguins had to protect Sid Crosby because he has a NMC?
I do believe the executive will "give in" and go with the "players with NMC are not exempt from the expansion draft and need to be protected". Whether the membership is onside with it or not is the question. But the number of players this will have absolutely zero affect on vastly outnumbers the players it would affect.
And as we saw with the escalator vote, the players that it had no affect on (those with guaranteed money at the time) vastly outnumbered the players it would affect, and they cut them off at the throat.
They (the players) don't always do what's best for the membership as a whole, and look after themselves.
So the NHLPA (the executive) may be all for it, but they can be caught with their pants down once the NHLPA (the membership) voice their opinions. There could be 3 groups in this - the league, the executive and the membership.
My guess: The league and the executive will want players with NMC's in the "need to be protected otherwise claimed category" and the players will be divided.
The word "may" could be defined as 'possibly / - maybe' or 'shall / will' depending on the desires and self interests of who is reading it. Each interpretation being different.
But really are we talking about owners here not the GM's? I could see the owners wanting to get out from under bad contracts thus wanting to have the no movement contracts available for the expansion draft; especially aging underperforming players with high dollar contracts.
Another thing to consider will be the salary cap floor that each expansion team needs to reach taking on bad large dollar contracts would help them do that. In turn that would clear cap space for other teams that are up against the cap. In a way it would relieve some teams and GM's from poor contract decisions to now aging underperforming players.
Not sure how the Players Association can sit back and allow their members with no movement contracts to be left exposed. Perhaps they need to negotiate some sort of compromise.
But really are we talking about owners here not the GM's? I could see the owners wanting to get out from under bad contracts thus wanting to have the no movement contracts available for the expansion draft; especially aging underperforming players with high dollar contracts.
Another thing to consider will be the salary cap floor that each expansion team needs to reach taking on bad large dollar contracts would help them do that. In turn that would clear cap space for other teams that are up against the cap. In a way it would relieve some teams and GM's from poor contract decisions to now aging underperforming players.
Not sure how the Players Association can sit back and allow their members with no movement contracts to be left exposed. Perhaps they need to negotiate some sort of compromise.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Haven't been following this expansion thing at all so you may have addressed this previously.
Is there anything firm on protecting players with very limited NHL time? In previous expansion drafts I seem to remember that players with less than a certain amount of games didn't need to be protected.
cat400
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2005
- 7,157
- 2,283
From today's N.Y. Post, Larry Brooks has some intriguing thoughts on the new draft format.
http://nypost.com/2016/03/19/what-we-know-of-nhl-las-vegas-framework-it-shafts-good-teams/
"What we know of NHL Las Vegas framework: It shafts good teams"
"The 25 percent rule is the most dastardly notion of them all, conceptualized by a league that loves its percentages. Because seriously, a team will not be able to protect its identified top goaltender, three top defensemen and seven top forwards, or, alternately, its top goaltender and top eight skaters, when whipsawed by no-moves and the 25 percent requirement."
http://nypost.com/2016/03/19/what-we-know-of-nhl-las-vegas-framework-it-shafts-good-teams/
"What we know of NHL Las Vegas framework: It shafts good teams"
"The 25 percent rule is the most dastardly notion of them all, conceptualized by a league that loves its percentages. Because seriously, a team will not be able to protect its identified top goaltender, three top defensemen and seven top forwards, or, alternately, its top goaltender and top eight skaters, when whipsawed by no-moves and the 25 percent requirement."
Except that (11.8 of the CBA in a condensed form):
"Players are not eligible for NMCs or NTCs in their contract until they are eligible for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency (7 accrued seasons or 27 years of age). Players may sign contracts with NMCs or NTCs that may become active partway through their contract, whereupon they become eligible for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency."
