CodeE
step on snek
Hey Vegas fans, congrats on the team being official! Got a question for you guys on a topic that I see a lot of "let's discuss this within the fanbase" talk on, which IMO usually leads to an echo chamber when you don't have the other side.
There are teams who will be exposing hot garbage to you guys, but a bunch of others (like my Islanders!) who want to keep more players than expansion rules allow. Protect this guy, leave another guy exposed, etc etc.
The echo chamber solution is to pay Vegas to avoid certain exposed players, or take someone specifically. So for example, the Islanders would pay a 2nd for you guys to take Nelson, or Michael Dal Colle to take Hickey, leaving guys like Dehaan, Pulock, Strome, who we badly want to keep with our organization.
To me, it seems like far too simple of a solution to a complicated problem. Although it's always nice for an expansion team to pile up assets like future 2nd rounders and prospects like MDC, it's tough to turn down the best players available when literally building your team from scratch. So unless Vegas is close between two players and getting paid to select one over the other, or the other team overpays to avoid a player it seems like a no-brainer for McPhee to go "sorry, but I gotta build my team, if you like your player so much you gotta protect them".
But then the other philosophy is that Vegas will stumble out of the gate, not rebuilding but simply building, so sacrificing on-ice quality for next season could potentially pay off years later - I mean the Islanders drafted players in the 1972 expansion draft, by 78-79 we had the best record in the NHL, and a year later our first of four cups. Shouldn't really consider that the standard, but with solid drafting and development it's not crazy to suggest Vegas is at least playoff contenders in 4-6 years or so, and the more futures you're able to acquire the more likely you are to acquire those core players.
So please - what are your thoughts on this issue? "Thanks but I'm gonna take the best player you leave exposed", "I'm willing to listen but it's not gonna be cheap", "the more future assets to build a better team years from now, the better", or something else entirely?
There are teams who will be exposing hot garbage to you guys, but a bunch of others (like my Islanders!) who want to keep more players than expansion rules allow. Protect this guy, leave another guy exposed, etc etc.
The echo chamber solution is to pay Vegas to avoid certain exposed players, or take someone specifically. So for example, the Islanders would pay a 2nd for you guys to take Nelson, or Michael Dal Colle to take Hickey, leaving guys like Dehaan, Pulock, Strome, who we badly want to keep with our organization.
To me, it seems like far too simple of a solution to a complicated problem. Although it's always nice for an expansion team to pile up assets like future 2nd rounders and prospects like MDC, it's tough to turn down the best players available when literally building your team from scratch. So unless Vegas is close between two players and getting paid to select one over the other, or the other team overpays to avoid a player it seems like a no-brainer for McPhee to go "sorry, but I gotta build my team, if you like your player so much you gotta protect them".
But then the other philosophy is that Vegas will stumble out of the gate, not rebuilding but simply building, so sacrificing on-ice quality for next season could potentially pay off years later - I mean the Islanders drafted players in the 1972 expansion draft, by 78-79 we had the best record in the NHL, and a year later our first of four cups. Shouldn't really consider that the standard, but with solid drafting and development it's not crazy to suggest Vegas is at least playoff contenders in 4-6 years or so, and the more futures you're able to acquire the more likely you are to acquire those core players.
So please - what are your thoughts on this issue? "Thanks but I'm gonna take the best player you leave exposed", "I'm willing to listen but it's not gonna be cheap", "the more future assets to build a better team years from now, the better", or something else entirely?