That may be true, but I don't agree with that. Vegas is an NHL team, and when the NHL expands, everyone is supposed to give up a player for the new team.
It's not giving up a player, it's trading $22 mil for a player.
That may be true, but I don't agree with that. Vegas is an NHL team, and when the NHL expands, everyone is supposed to give up a player for the new team.
Why not? Seattle isn't joining the league next year. If it was next year I could understand them not being a part of the expansion.
This is probably going to change when GM's, teams and fans rant about it.
NHL has the weirdest rules. Why don't they get an expansion fee now that they are a part of the league?
I'd love it if teams could just relinquish the fee and save their players lol.
Try reading the thread and it will make more senseMakes no sense at all.
Bettman is trying to make up rules to make Vegas work out. Which is why I'm starting to dislike Vegas, because of Gary Bettman. He also has the reffing rigged because of Vegas, if you don't believe me, Neal broke his stick over Hellebuyck's mask, which lead to a goal, and it counted as a goal. That's interference.
Gary Bettman is the only thing I hate about being a hockey fan...
Well that's great and all but the Avs are going to be in **** place and aren't going to just lose some 4th/5th dman or bottom line forward.
We are looking at losing a guy like Erik Johnson. Because we'll have to protect Barrie, Girard and Zadorov who are all younger.
Or if we protect 4 defenseman then we'll expose young players like Compher and Kerfoot, that are nice young cost controlled secondary players. Not irreplaceable but I'd be nice to keep those type of players in the fold, instead of losing them for nothing.
So it's not like we'd be giving up a guy like Comeau or Colin Wilson, we actually stand to lose a quality young asset.
It just blows that we've sucked for a long time and finally worked our way back to being a half way decent team by building through young guys and the draft and we just have cough up a nice young asset because Seattle wants a team.
I'm complaining about both. I just don't understand why Vegas isn't forced to make a tough decision on who to protect and who to leave exposed.That's the way it is with most teams, though. That's not unique with the Avs. The Penguins are in line to lose a guy like Schultz or Jarry, they're not just losing a depth guy. You seem to be complaining about expansion, not that Vegas isn't losing one of their guys.
I'm complaining about both. I just don't understand why Vegas isn't forced to make a tough decision on who to protect and who to leave exposed.
Why does 1 team get the advantage of not having to participate in the expansion draft. It gives them an advantage on the other 30 teams. No risk of losing a decent player and also gives them a leg up on stuff like ufa. Not sure how any of the other owners and GMs are ok with this.
heed yr own advice:OTHER EXPANSION TEAMS GOT THE SAME TREATMENT. read the thread. This isn't some new made up rule.
I didn't say every team. But recent teams have.heed yr own advice:
Ottawa and Tampa (1992) had to give up players in the 1993 expansion draft (Anaheim and Florida)
heed yr own advice:
Ottawa and Tampa (1992) had to give up players in the 1993 expansion draft (Anaheim and Florida)
apples to oranges; pretty significant difference between not having to lose players 1-2 years after yr entry into the league and not having to lose players 4-5 years after yr 1st yearI didn't say every team. But recent teams have.
In any case it's not a "made up" rule.
But it's NOT A MADE UP RULE. A recent invention of Bettman's that is Vegas specific which was my primary grievance with that post.apples to oranges; pretty significant difference between not having to lose players 1-2 years after yr entry into the league and not having to lose players 4-5 years after yr 1st year
I'm complaining about both. I just don't understand why Vegas isn't forced to make a tough decision on who to protect and who to leave exposed.
Why does 1 team get the advantage of not having to participate in the expansion draft. It gives them an advantage on the other 30 teams. No risk of losing a decent player and also gives them a leg up on stuff like ufa. Not sure how any of the other owners and GMs are ok with this.
I think the rules are bit too much. They shouldn't be getting high-end talent.
I'm complaining about both. I just don't understand why Vegas isn't forced to make a tough decision on who to protect and who to leave exposed.
Why does 1 team get the advantage of not having to participate in the expansion draft. It gives them an advantage on the other 30 teams. No risk of losing a decent player and also gives them a leg up on stuff like ufa. Not sure how any of the other owners and GMs are ok with this.
They never were the same after losing the likes of Marc Ferner, Randy Gilhen, and Dennis Vial.
Actually, there was a second phase in that expansion draft where Tampa Bay, Ottawa, and San Jose got to select players from Florida and Anaheim (who they opted to leave exposed).
But it's NOT A MADE UP RULE. A recent invention of Bettman's that is Vegas specific which was my primary grievance with that post.
Also I seriously doubt it's gonna take Seattle 4-5 years to be ready. Vegas was absent from the league for one season before being ready to join and draft.
Moreover Vegas paid half a billion dollars to get this team and they will be foregoing a return of 20 million dollars to not lose one body. There isn't a single player on Vegas' roster that would be exposed that could be worth that much.
In theory only. Some teams haven't drafted well and need all the help they can get. On the flip side your penalizing the teams that have drafted well. Also I don't agree with having to protect players with NMC.And that's the way it should be!
Vegas paid HALF A BILLION DOLLARS for their franchise.
Everyone had them written off as being a bottom 2 team before the season started.
Also: Vegas has only had 1 draft which means they have had no chance to develop prospects so far and in theory the other teams should have a much easier time compensating for the loss of one player than Vegas should.