Speculation: Who Would The AVS Lose In Expansion Draft?

[Balthazar]

Just for fun...

Rules (as per the last expansion in 2000):

- Any player who played only two or less professional seasons was not allowed to be selected by the expansion team (so Mack, Barrie and Hishon would be safe).

- Teams could protect up to 9 forwards, 5 dmen and 1 goalie OR 7 forwards, 3 dmen and 2 goalies

AVS would obviously go with the 1 goalie option. Who would they protect and who would we lose?

Click to read more...

 

[landy92mack29]

F-Duchene, landeskog, o'reilly, mcginn, iginla, tanguay, Mitchell, Talbot, McLeod
D-Johnson, hejda, stuart, holden, Redmond
G-varlamov

lose potentially-bordy, cliché, Wilson, ?

 

[Burnaby_Joe*]

Wilson takes a hike.

 

[Taak19]

Duchene
Landeskog
O'Reilly
Iginla
Tanguay
McGinn
Talbot
Mitchell

Johnson
Hejda
Stuart
Redmond
Holden

Varlamov

Take the rest. All of them.

 

[InjuredChoker]

barrie has played in 3 different seasons though, so he counts, no?

and expansion wouldn't happen this season so he would have to be protected next year at least.

this is where high-end talent but lower end depth is good. we can protect the guys we want and say adios to all others with little to no issues.

 

[Gabe the Babe]

I wish there were an expansion draft. We'd come out a better team for it theoretically.

 

[Flanagan]

Something I've never really considered before: in previous expansion drafts did teams have to make it public who they were protecting and who they weren't? If so I can imagine there were some pretty upset players that didn't make the cut.

And were there any controversies surrounding players left unprotected? Say almost like a buyout - a bad contract, aging player, or someone with a bad attitude.

 

[Flanagan]

Knowing the Avs, I'm sure they'd enrage everyone by doing something like this:

Duchene
Landeskog
O'Reilly
Iginla
Tanguay
McGinn
Talbot

Johnson
Barrie
Holden

Varlamov
Berra

Potentially lose Mitchell, McLeod, Bordeleau, Cliche, Winchester, Hejda, Stuart, Wilson, Redmond. Although free-agency would have been very different if we knew there was an expansion draft coming up.

 

[UncleRisto]

I'd also like to see one. Interesting to see if the league does decide to expand to 32.

Seeing who the teams decide to leave unprotected would be fun.

 

[UncleRisto]

Something I've never really considered before: in previous expansion drafts did teams have to make it public who they were protecting and who they weren't? If so I can imagine there were some pretty upset players that didn't make the cut.

And were there any controversies surrounding players left unprotected? Say almost like a buyout - a bad contract, aging player, or someone with a bad attitude.

I believe there were some upset players. I maybe thinking about the KHL as well. But the players will know.

 

[Ceremony]

Wilson takes a hike.

I pity the fans of any expansion team who end up having to pick him.

 

[Frenchy]

Balthazar, Shame on you for doing this thread . I saw the titles and thought that it was a done deal for Québec . My heart made a few twists , one because i tought it was for real and another one when i saw that it was just for fun.

I pity the fans of any expansion team who end up having to pick him.

Wilson is underrated a lot , Like i always said , i'll take him as a bottom Dpair any day of the week.

 

[AslanRH]

Just for fun...

Rules (as per the last expansion in 2000):

- Any player who played only two or less professional seasons was not allowed to be selected by the expansion team (so Mack, Barrie and Hishon would be safe).

- Teams could protect up to 9 forwards, 5 dmen and 1 goalie OR 7 forwards, 3 dmen and 2 goalies

AVS would obviously go with the 1 goalie option. Who would they protect and who would we lose?

Barrie wouldn't be safe, so:

Duchene
Landeskog
Iginla
Tanguay
O'Reilly (but I would offer to "un-protect" him for a good compensation)
McGinn
Talbot
Mitchell
McLeod

EJ
Barrie
Holden
Hejda
Redmond

Varlamov

Lose: Wilson/Guenin & Winchester/Bordeleau

 

[UncleRisto]

Balthazar, Shame on you for doing this thread . I saw the titles and thought that it was a done deal for Québec . My heart made a few twists , one because i tought it was for real and another one when i saw that it was just for fun.

Cmon Frenchy, everybody knows Quebec is never getting another team.

 

[bromando]

How are players with movement clauses in their contacts affected?

 

[expatriatedtexan]

How are players with movement clauses in their contacts affected?

I believe there are two scenarios that could be at play...
1. the NMC is nulled for the purpose of the expansion draft but then immediately reinstated after the rights of the player shifts to his new team or
2. Players with NMC must waive them to be left exposed or the team must protect them if the player won't waive it.

The only thing I wonder about is if the CBA caps the number of NMCs a team can hand out. That's why I listed the null option first...

 

[Foppa2118]

It is kind of annoying that the Avs are just coming out of a lengthy painful rebuilding process, and there could be two new teams come in and steal a couple players away from them and hurt their depth.

Hopefully they're set up well contractually when it finally happens so they don't have any tough decisions to make.

 

[hockeyfish]

I wonder how the cap would change an expansion draft. And technically, wouldn't adding in two teams lower the cap?

 

[henchman21]

It is kind of annoying that the Avs are just coming out of a lengthy painful rebuilding process, and there could be two new teams come in and steal a couple players away from them and hurt their depth.

Hopefully they're set up well contractually when it finally happens so they don't have any tough decisions to make.

The Avs wouldn't lose anybody of significance. In fact, it might rid them of some the players we are all dying to get rid of.

I wonder how the cap would change an expansion draft. And technically, wouldn't adding in two teams lower the cap?

I believe that expansion fees would be hockey related revenue, and there would theoretically be more ticket sales (one would think the expansion markets would be strong), so it should increase the cap.

 

[Foppa2118]

The Avs wouldn't lose anybody of significance. In fact, it might rid them of some the players we are all dying to get rid of. :laugh

It depends on who they bring in before then, and how they're set up with contracts expiring. Not likely anybody too significant, but depending on who they have under contract, they might have to expose some decent depth guys, or guys that could develop into solid players.

 

[hockeyfish]

The Avs wouldn't lose anybody of significance. In fact, it might rid them of some the players we are all dying to get rid of.



I believe that expansion fees would be hockey related revenue, and there would theoretically be more ticket sales (one would think the expansion markets would be strong), so it should increase the cap.

Isn't the cap simply the players share divided by 30. Dividing it by 32 would lower it.

 

[henchman21]

Isn't the cap simply the players share divided by 30. Dividing it by 32 would lower it.

Yeah, but revenue would go up as well. If a team goes to Quebec, without a doubt the cap goes up as they will bring in more than their fair share.

 

[Balthazar]

Isn't the cap simply the players share divided by 30. Dividing it by 32 would lower it.

The cap is 57% of the league's revenue for the previous year divided by the number of teams. New teams would bring more money to the league but it will have to be divided by more teams. It would affect the cap but not that much.

What's interesting is the expansion fees. In theory they would have to be considered as a revenue for the league for that year and adding those fees would bring the cap up significantly for the following year. The problem is that income won't be there the other years so the cap would have to drop a lot. That's an interesting dilemma and I don't know how they'd do it. They'd probably spread the money from the expansion fees over 10 years or so.

 

[Tweaky]

I would think that they would classify the expansion fees as belonging to the prior year, as they would have been received prior to the start of the year the teams start playing. The following years would have the added revenue from the teams themselves (new regional TV contracts, ticket sales, jerseys, etc.). Also, if they count the expansion fees as income for the start year, you would see that dip in cap for the first year, a big bump the following year when all that money hits at the same time, then another dip down to normal the year after that.

Using this years number to start: $3.7B as revenue and player benefits at $125M, making for a $69M cap.
Adding to that start is the $200M expansion fee for each team, and $75M revenue for each team (growing by 5% each year after the first)
Also assuming 5% growth in league and team revenues, and in player benefits:

Scenario 1, fees are held until the year the teams start play:
Year 0, $3.70B revenue, 30 teams, $69.0M cap
Year 1, $3.89B revenue, 32 teams, $67.9M cap (down)
Year 2, $4.63B revenue, 32 teams, $81.6M cap (huge gain)
Year 3, $4.44B revenue, 32 teams, $77.8M cap (big drop)
Year 4, $4.66B revenue, 32 teams, $81.7M cap (normal gain)

Scenario 2, expansion fees added to year prior to teams playing, all else same:
Year 0, $3.70B revenue, 30 teams, $69.0M cap
Year 1, $4.29B revenue, 32 teams, $75.4M cap (big jump)
Year 2, $4.23B revenue, 32 teams, $74.1M cap (slight drop)
Year 3, $4.44B revenue, 32 teams, $77.8M cap (normal gain)
Year 4, $4.66B revenue, 32 teams, $81.7M cap (normal gain)

Scenario 2 makes a lot more sense to me....but that does not mean that is how it would work.

 

[CB Joe]

The cap is 57% of the league's revenue for the previous year divided by the number of teams. New teams would bring more money to the league but it will have to be divided by more teams. It would affect the cap but not that much.

What's interesting is the expansion fees. In theory they would have to be considered as a revenue for the league for that year and adding those fees would bring the cap up significantly for the following year. The problem is that income won't be there the other years so the cap would have to drop a lot. That's an interesting dilemma and I don't know how they'd do it. They'd probably spread the money from the expansion fees over 10 years or so.

I thought it was 50% now?

Anyways I would protect
F: O'Reilly, Duchene, Iginla, Landeskog, Tanguay, McGinn, Talbot, McLeod, Mitchell
D: Johnson, Barrie, Holden, Stuart, Hejda
G: Varlamov