WowBB Forums Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > Sports Talk > The Vegas Golden Knights -- Good Or Bad For The NHL?

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2   
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
The Vegas Golden Knights -- Good Or Bad For The NHL?  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sun May 20th, 2018 10:47 pm
  PM Quote Reply
16th Post
Mysterious



Joined: Mon Aug 22nd, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 1650
Status: 
Offline
Angelic Assassin wrote: beejmi wrote: I agree with Angelic Assassin.

The Winnipeg Jets lack of success can be traced back to the 1979 expansion draft. ;)
LOL. Their initial lack of success, yes. The NHL was mighty pissed at the WHA for "stealing" many of their stars.  So to get them back they made the teams pay dearly. Of course only a few years later the Jets were a very good team unfortunately stuck in the same division with the Oilers. And an equally stupid playoff system.
That equally stupid playoff system is back and it sucks.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun May 20th, 2018 10:50 pm
  PM Quote Reply
17th Post
Mysterious



Joined: Mon Aug 22nd, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 1650
Status: 
Offline
tamalie wrote: It's a great story for hockey and sports in general. The long term impact will have to be determined down the line. The club getting off to a fast start ensured good sized crowds and immediate interest in the Las Vegas market. The question is what happens when the team cools off. Even if they ride this wave for a few seasons, within the decade they'll be looking at lost seasons or years when they're scrapping for the #7 or #8 seed. Will the fans still turn up for mediocre or bad hockey after supporting a contender with none of the heartache and frustration in the build up?

As for how future expansion teams will perform on the ice, you'd better believe the NHL is going to make it harder to get this good, this quickly. The Carolina Panthers and Jacksonville Jaguars started in 1995 and both made their conference championship games in 1996. The NFL didn't want a new team getting so good so quickly for a variety of reasons and wound up ensuring the deck was much more stacked against the relaunched Cleveland Browns in 1999 and the Houston Texans in 2002.The Florida Panthers went to the cup final only a few years after they entered the league and have had poor attendance the past 10 plus years.

As for stacking the deck against expansion teams. No league screwed expansion teams as bad as the NBA screwed the Raptors and Grizzlies when they entered back in 1995. It was obvious the league under David Stern wanted the Candian experiment to fail and was half successful at doing so.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon May 21st, 2018 12:34 am
  PM Quote Reply
18th Post
freebirdsforever2001
Fantasia is running wild!


Joined: Tue Jul 8th, 2008
Location: Pittsgrove, New Jersey USA
Posts: 20758
Status: 
Offline
Vegas to the Finals!



____________________

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon May 21st, 2018 02:38 pm
  PM Quote Reply
19th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 49752
Status: 
Offline
So what's the Cliff's Notes version on exactly how this could happen? One of my friends who is a big hockey fan said they changed the way the expansion draft was done and they also got one of the best goalies in the league, and that was how they're winning. How does an expansion team accrue this kind of talent so quickly, and why aren't the other teams throwing a fit if they fixed it to make them competitive right away?

Last edited on Mon May 21st, 2018 03:00 pm by srossi



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon May 21st, 2018 02:57 pm
  PM Quote Reply
20th Post
chrob61



Joined: Thu Nov 18th, 2010
Location: Michigan USA
Posts: 2100
Status: 
Offline
I've been doing some googling- it seems in years past, teams were allowed to protect 15 players in the expansion draft, but for the Vegas draft it was reduced to 9 players.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon May 21st, 2018 03:15 pm
  PM Quote Reply
21st Post
khawk
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 15779
Status: 
Online
A lot of side deals were allowed as well...a team would trade a draft pick or a decent player in return for Vegas not taking a certain player that had to be exposed. Plus the contracts teams had with players that were no-movement in nature guaranteed those guys had to be protected. That left a lot of younger players exposed hence the need for side deals.

Add a couple of really odd choices by teams (offering Jonathan marchessault and his league minimum contract and 51 points to Vegas to guarantee they take Reilly Smith--giving Vegas 2/3 of their best line) added some good scoring right off the bat.

And a few things like the Pens giving up Fleury for their net (Matt Murray had just backstopped a cup after all) just made sense for the Pens and it worked out great for the Knights.

Perfect storm really although nobody really saw this coming regardless.



____________________
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon May 21st, 2018 05:02 pm
  PM Quote Reply
22nd Post
Mysterious



Joined: Mon Aug 22nd, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 1650
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: So what's the Cliff's Notes version on exactly how this could happen? One of my friends who is a big hockey fan said they changed the way the expansion draft was done and they also got one of the best goalies in the league, and that was how they're winning. How does an expansion team accrue this kind of talent so quickly, and why aren't the other teams throwing a fit if they fixed it to make them competitive right away?They got a top goalie because he has a big contract and Pittsburgh favored the younger cheaper Murray.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon May 21st, 2018 05:17 pm
  PM Quote Reply
23rd Post
tamalie
Hall Of Famer
 

Joined: Mon Oct 22nd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 4464
Status: 
Offline
Mysterious wrote: tamalie wrote: It's a great story for hockey and sports in general. The long term impact will have to be determined down the line. The club getting off to a fast start ensured good sized crowds and immediate interest in the Las Vegas market. The question is what happens when the team cools off. Even if they ride this wave for a few seasons, within the decade they'll be looking at lost seasons or years when they're scrapping for the #7 or #8 seed. Will the fans still turn up for mediocre or bad hockey after supporting a contender with none of the heartache and frustration in the build up?

As for how future expansion teams will perform on the ice, you'd better believe the NHL is going to make it harder to get this good, this quickly. The Carolina Panthers and Jacksonville Jaguars started in 1995 and both made their conference championship games in 1996. The NFL didn't want a new team getting so good so quickly for a variety of reasons and wound up ensuring the deck was much more stacked against the relaunched Cleveland Browns in 1999 and the Houston Texans in 2002.The Florida Panthers went to the cup final only a few years after they entered the league and have had poor attendance the past 10 plus years.

As for stacking the deck against expansion teams. No league screwed expansion teams as bad as the NBA screwed the Raptors and Grizzlies when they entered back in 1995. It was obvious the league under David Stern wanted the Candian experiment to fail and was half successful at doing so.

I think the NBA could have done more to help the Grizzlies and Raptors from the start and that it was too quick to relocate the Grizzlies instead of attempting to help the team stay in Vancouver. However, I completely disagree with the idea that David Stern wanted the NBA's expansion to Canada to fail. If he didn't want the NBA to succeed in Canada, why bother to put those teams there in the first place?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon May 21st, 2018 05:19 pm
  PM Quote Reply
24th Post
glc

 

Joined: Sat Mar 5th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 60
Status: 
Offline
This isn't the first time the NHL has stacked the deck in favor of an expansion team. When the league went from 6 to 12 teams in 1967-68, the Original Six were placed in the East Division and the expansion teams comprised the West Division. And the playoffs were structured so that a team from the East and a team from the West met in the Finals - which guaranteed an expansion team would be there. The St. Louis Blues made the Finals their first three years of existence, iirc.

Re: the Florida Panthers. The strike killed the Panthers in South Florida. Same with the Marlins. Both teams had very good - maybe even great attendance - before the respective strikes. The fans, for the most part, never came back. Too much to do in South Florida, for one thing - out of sight, out of mind.
 
 

Last edited on Mon May 21st, 2018 05:20 pm by glc

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon May 21st, 2018 05:23 pm
  PM Quote Reply
25th Post
tamalie
Hall Of Famer
 

Joined: Mon Oct 22nd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 4464
Status: 
Offline
A big reason all six expansion teams wound up in one division while the original six wound up in another when the NHL doubled in size effective the 1967-68 season was because the Canadiens, Maple Leafs, Bruins, Rangers, Red Wings, and Black Hawks didn't want to have many games against the new teams that would largely consist of second tier players and be considered bad box office draws at a time when the NHL's TV revenue wasn't large. Expansion teams being guaranteed playoff spots and a Stanley Cup Finals spot was considered a good way to jump start those teams without a doubt, but as much as anything the Bruins, for instance, wanted more Rangers and Canadiens visits to Boston Garden rather than Penguins and Seals.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue May 22nd, 2018 10:00 pm
  PM Quote Reply
26th Post
TerryWWWF



Joined: Mon Nov 26th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 4322
Status: 
Offline
glc wrote: . The St. Louis Blues made the Finals their first three years of existence, iirc.
They did indeed, with Scotty Bowman coaching. The Blues haven't reached the Final since that third year, 1970.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed May 23rd, 2018 04:39 am
  PM Quote Reply
27th Post
Mysterious



Joined: Mon Aug 22nd, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 1650
Status: 
Offline
tamalie wrote: Mysterious wrote: tamalie wrote: It's a great story for hockey and sports in general. The long term impact will have to be determined down the line. The club getting off to a fast start ensured good sized crowds and immediate interest in the Las Vegas market. The question is what happens when the team cools off. Even if they ride this wave for a few seasons, within the decade they'll be looking at lost seasons or years when they're scrapping for the #7 or #8 seed. Will the fans still turn up for mediocre or bad hockey after supporting a contender with none of the heartache and frustration in the build up?

As for how future expansion teams will perform on the ice, you'd better believe the NHL is going to make it harder to get this good, this quickly. The Carolina Panthers and Jacksonville Jaguars started in 1995 and both made their conference championship games in 1996. The NFL didn't want a new team getting so good so quickly for a variety of reasons and wound up ensuring the deck was much more stacked against the relaunched Cleveland Browns in 1999 and the Houston Texans in 2002.The Florida Panthers went to the cup final only a few years after they entered the league and have had poor attendance the past 10 plus years.

As for stacking the deck against expansion teams. No league screwed expansion teams as bad as the NBA screwed the Raptors and Grizzlies when they entered back in 1995. It was obvious the league under David Stern wanted the Candian experiment to fail and was half successful at doing so.

I think the NBA could have done more to help the Grizzlies and Raptors from the start and that it was too quick to relocate the Grizzlies instead of attempting to help the team stay in Vancouver. However, I completely disagree with the idea that David Stern wanted the NBA's expansion to Canada to fail. If he didn't want the NBA to succeed in Canada, why bother to put those teams there in the first place?

Vancouver should never have gotten a team to begin with. The only reason they expanded to Canada is because no other U.S. city wanted a team at the time. They got the expansion money weather it failed or not. Why do you think there hasn't been another expansion team since then and you can't make the argument that Charlotte got one because the original Hornets relocated to New Orleans. The NBA put in restrictions that The Grizz and Raps couldn't have the number one overall pick in the draft for the first three years and also had to operate with a salary cap set at 70%-80% of what others teams were paying.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 04:01 pm Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2     
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > Sports Talk > The Vegas Golden Knights -- Good Or Bad For The NHL? Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems