Vegas Cinderella story is over

[Riellyfan04]

Washington is 4 points back.

Lmao you comparing captials roster to knightshf at its best

 

[tucker3434]

Lmao you comparing captials roster to knightshf at its best

You not being able to read is hf at its best. I never compared their rosters.

 

[Silencio]

And last year you were Regular Season NHL champions, you should be proud of how far you’ve come.

I definitely read this in Mike Ehrmantraut's voice.

 

[MattySnipes]

The Vegas hate is fascinating.

I think the hate is more about the new expansion process people aren't happy about rather than the team itself.

 

[Mach85]

Nobody should be able to just buy a decent team or more favorable treatment from the league.

That's not what happened though. It's not like the NHL was asking for a $100 million expansion fee and the Vegas owners said "I'll tell you what, we'll give you 5 times that if you give us favourable treatment." They were asked to take on considerable more financial risk than previous teams and I don't blame them for asking for conditions in return that would mean they'd be slightly more competitive and lessen the chance they'd become the next desert team that goes bankrupt before they can even ice a decent squad.

 

[Spectra]

Finally.

 

[VEGASKING]

I could list the rosters of these teams in their 1st year and they were laughable at best.

So was the Knights, on paper.

 

[gwh]

When Reaves is in top5 goal scoring in the team, you might have a problem.

 

[CartographerNo611]

Their D is really bad. Engelland, Merrill, Theordore, Mcnabb were all bottom pairing depth d-man. Miller and Schmidt 2nd pairing at best on their previous teams.

 

[Peiskos]

I predicted Vegas to be a bottom 5 team this season during their last season when they were breaking records.

Vegas was simply riding a wave of momentum, they had been told all summer how terrible their team was going to be, it’s called bulletin board material and it has a massive effect.

The entire team was also made up of players who who exposed by their teams in the expansion draft, so every night there was always one player who was in his old city and the team wanted to help them get a win and prove that team wrong for exposing them.

Vegas is assuming it’s proper place as an expansion team.

 

[Mikeshane]

It's a shame, they were awesome to watch last year.

 

[Gnashville]

So was the Knights, on paper.

No even close to some of those prior teams.

 

[Waterbuf]

It makes me so upset what happened last year.
I just want to cry about it.

 

[Crede777]

That's not what happened though. It's not like the NHL was asking for a $100 million expansion fee and the Vegas owners said "I'll tell you what, we'll give you 5 times that if you give us favourable treatment." They were asked to take on considerable more financial risk than previous teams and I don't blame them for asking for conditions in return that would mean they'd be slightly more competitive and lessen the chance they'd become the next desert team that goes bankrupt before they can even ice a decent squad.

They could have requested it but certainly were not entitled to it. The other 30 owners should have played hardball.

The two arguments put forth: 1. They paid more so they are entitled to a more competitive team, and 2. The league benefits from seeing them be competitive out of the gate both cheapen the overall game. The only, and I repeat only, reason a team should be entitled to being competitive is through years of good drafting, developing, and trading.

Just because Toronto fans pay more for tickets or the league would financially benefit from a successful Toronto team does not mean the Leafs should receive favorable treatment. Yet that would be happen if we agreed with the two main arguments put forth for Vegas.

If the league is saying "what happened to Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus, and Minnesota was fundamentally flawed and needed changed," then it owes those teams for the past mistake. Just because it occurred 18 years ago does not absolve them from the mistake. Otherwise, the league should say that what happened was not flawed and keep a similar treatment for Vegas.

The only valid argument for why Vegas deserved the draft rules it received is because Vegas lobbied for them and the owners all consented. What I am saying is that the owners were the ones making the mistake.

 

[Maukkis]

I have absolutely every reason to laugh at Vegas struggling, but come on.

They are literally being fed the same medicine they fed us in Round 3: a PDO of 95.3. If you're suddenly receiving awful goaltending and converting your shots at a considerably lesser rate than your average NHL team, you're not winning many games. This won't last.

 

[Doctyl]

Shouldn’t have made that trade with Montreal.

 

[triggrman]

So was the Knights, on paper.

Not even close. Scott Walker, a converted defenseman, was our top line player

 

[FalcorMulch]

So much revisionist history. Yeah, they had more favorable rules than past expansions but past expansion teams were literally a joke. Everyone and their mother was predicting that Vegas would be a bottom 5 team before the season started last year. Then they were good and, would you look at that, all of a sudden the rules are unfair.

The funniest part is that more than half their best players weren't even a product of favorable draft rules. They either got them directly through a trade or were paid to take them.

 

[InglewoodJack]

They could have requested it but certainly were not entitled to it. The other 30 owners should have played hardball.

The two arguments put forth: 1. They paid more so they are entitled to a more competitive team, and 2. The league benefits from seeing them be competitive out of the gate both cheapen the overall game. The only, and I repeat only, reason a team should be entitled to being competitive is through years of good drafting, developing, and trading.

Just because Toronto fans pay more for tickets or the league would financially benefit from a successful Toronto team does not mean the Leafs should receive favorable treatment. Yet that would be happen if we agreed with the two main arguments put forth for Vegas.

If the league is saying "what happened to Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus, and Minnesota was fundamentally flawed and needed changed," then it owes those teams for the past mistake. Just because it occurred 18 years ago does not absolve them from the mistake. Otherwise, the league should say that what happened was not flawed and keep a similar treatment for Vegas.

The only valid argument for why Vegas deserved the draft rules it received is because Vegas lobbied for them and the owners all consented. What I am saying is that the owners were the ones making the mistake.

This isn't how you run a business though. The NHL had the unique opportunity to be the first professional sports league to put a franchise in our of the largest, richest cities without sports teams, and they made the beat out of it. Money aside, the league, and in turn the sport benefits from stronger expansion teams, especially in large markets like Vegas. Who cares about CLB, Atlanta, MN, et al.? Systems improve. Don't think it makes sense to compensate a team two decades after the fact just because VGK was allowed to pick mediocre to crap players instead of just crap players.

 

[Cupless44]

Shouldn’t have made that trade with Montreal.

Or made any win now moves like trading 1st, 2nd, 3rd round picks for Tatar!!!

 

[PAZ]

They could have requested it but certainly were not entitled to it. The other 30 owners should have played hardball.

The two arguments put forth: 1. They paid more so they are entitled to a more competitive team, and 2. The league benefits from seeing them be competitive out of the gate both cheapen the overall game. The only, and I repeat only, reason a team should be entitled to being competitive is through years of good drafting, developing, and trading.

Just because Toronto fans pay more for tickets or the league would financially benefit from a successful Toronto team does not mean the Leafs should receive favorable treatment. Yet that would be happen if we agreed with the two main arguments put forth for Vegas.

If the league is saying "what happened to Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus, and Minnesota was fundamentally flawed and needed changed," then it owes those teams for the past mistake. Just because it occurred 18 years ago does not absolve them from the mistake. Otherwise, the league should say that what happened was not flawed and keep a similar treatment for Vegas.

The only valid argument for why Vegas deserved the draft rules it received is because Vegas lobbied for them and the owners all consented. What I am saying is that the owners were the ones making the mistake.

You're looking at this with a homer's perspective and such a limited scope. At the end of the day, any major sports league is about the money, and a successful franchise in Vegas equals more profit. The entertainment value and everything else comes second. Now you can argue that a better quality product equals more profit, which is also true.

Right now, the league is profitable and growing because there is a high level of parity and the new expansion draft rules reflect that, along with the salary cap. The Avs got screwed when they introduced the salary cap. With your logic, it would be akin to saying that because the salary cap keeps rising, the league is acknowledging they set the salary cap too low when they introduced it, and now the league owes the Avalanche for the past mistake.

The league evolves. When Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus, and Minnesota entered the league, there were true powerhouses, a few wildcards and a bunch of bottom feeders. Today, a team can go from finishing last in one season to making the playoffs the next season. Would you really prefer if the league stayed the same when those 4 teams entered the league where there was no salary cap?

 

[nbwingsfan]

At this point of the season, that means you're pretty much done.

Not easy to make up points in this league.

With likr 60 games left? Nah.

Thus is true with about 30 left though

 

[Mach85]

They could have requested it but certainly were not entitled to it. The other 30 owners should have played hardball.

The two arguments put forth: 1. They paid more so they are entitled to a more competitive team, and 2. The league benefits from seeing them be competitive out of the gate both cheapen the overall game. The only, and I repeat only, reason a team should be entitled to being competitive is through years of good drafting, developing, and trading.

Just because Toronto fans pay more for tickets or the league would financially benefit from a successful Toronto team does not mean the Leafs should receive favorable treatment. Yet that would be happen if we agreed with the two main arguments put forth for Vegas.

If the league is saying "what happened to Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus, and Minnesota was fundamentally flawed and needed changed," then it owes those teams for the past mistake. Just because it occurred 18 years ago does not absolve them from the mistake. Otherwise, the league should say that what happened was not flawed and keep a similar treatment for Vegas.

The only valid argument for why Vegas deserved the draft rules it received is because Vegas lobbied for them and the owners all consented. What I am saying is that the owners were the ones making the mistake.

Put yourself in their shoes. Putting in more than 5x the financial investment than other teams were asked to do, wouldn't you need a little more security? After watching what happened in Phoenix, you're starting a team in the desert. Hell, after watching what happened in Atlanta even. And they're asked to make over 5x the risk for nothing more in return? That's unfair.

If they were expected to start from absolute rock bottom like the other teams were, then asking them to take such a massive financial risk relative to previous teams doesn't sound like a good way to start off a business relationship. You have to look at it from a business standpoint and not from the perspective of fans.

The Toronto comparisons are false equivalencies. Toronto is not being asked to take on a greater financial risk than other teams and therefore has no claim to greater financial reward - they just happen to make more money. Other teams that take on greater financial risk are given financial assurances (e.g., increased revenue sharing). So this isn't a new concept. It's just applied to expansion for the first time.

I don't think expansion would have happened, at least not at anything close to the $500 million fee, if the rules did not end up as they did. Just strictly from a business sense and risk management perspective. It's unfair to blame Vegas for that. Did the rules go too far in terms of altering the competitive balance for a new team? Did the owners get greedy and should have reduced the expansion fee? Those are more relevant questions.

 

[triggrman]

So much revisionist history. Yeah, they had more favorable rules than past expansions but past expansion teams were literally a joke. Everyone and their mother was predicting that Vegas would be a bottom 5 team before the season started last year. Then they were good and, would you look at that, all of a sudden the rules are unfair.

The funniest part is that more than half their best players weren't even a product of favorable draft rules. They either got them directly through a trade or were paid to take them.

Not everyone. I know most of our fans were pissed we lost Neal from the beginning.

And there were a number of threads here last summer saying the were going to be better than most thought.

I don't know if you saw them or not, but they were here.

 

[Dicky113]

Last season Vegas were a very standard 100.5 PDO teams that outshoot their opponent.

This year they have currently a very unsustainable and bad 96.3 PDO that is outshooting their opponent by a lot and should regress upward to something more realistic like .98 at worst.

What is a PDO?