Sign in with your NHL account:
  • Submit

Jump to content


Photo

Thn Expansion Article


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
10 replies to this topic

#1 Tirosho24

Tirosho24

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 91 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:09 AM

Proteau article about expansion

My brother send me this link, and it outlines who each team would protect in the instance of an expansion draft for two new teams (they mention Quebec and southern Ontario in the article, but they could be wherever). I thought it would give us something different to talk about then the stupid lockout.

Point in case, the players protected for the Flames are as follows:
Calgary Flames (one goalie)
Forwards: Backlund, Cammalleri, Glencross, Iginla, Hudler, Jackman, Jones, Stempniak, Tanguay
Defensemen: Bouwmeester, Butler, Giordano, Smith, Wideman
Goalies: Kiprusoff

I believe players on ELC are exempt from being taken as Baertschi, Brodie, and Horak aren't in this list. Honestly, I don't think Jackman would be there (Feaster said he wanted to trade him at the deadline) and I'm unsure about Stempy as he doesn't really fit in a non top-six role. I'd be interested to see who everyone else thinks the Flames would protect in an expansion draft. I'm not debating whether or not it'll happen, just talking about what if it did.

#2 DirtyDeeds

DirtyDeeds

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,172 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:50 AM

A couple of notes.

I don't think Jackman would be there (Feaster said he wanted to trade him at the deadline)


From what I remember Feaster did not say he wanted to trade Jackman. He left me with the impression he had offers for Jackman but they were not worth pulling the trigger on the deal.

Edit: This article confirms what I thought:
"Feaster admitted that other teams asked about acquiring Jackman, but that the Flames believed that he was too valuable of a commodity to give up."


I'm unsure about Stempy as he doesn't really fit in a non top-six role.

Stemniak played a fair amount of 2nd and 3rd line right wing for us and did quite well(other than a lack of scoring) when healthy. Why would you say he doesn't fit there now? I ask because we are rather short on quality right wings even with him in the lineup.

#3 PokernHockey

PokernHockey

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 574 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:04 PM

Does anyone know when the expansion draft normally takes place? I.e., before or after July 1st? I believe it happens before, but if anyone knows differently please correct me.

Assuming it happens before July 1st, which I would guess based on all the teams needing to make decisions which would be very effected by the results of the draft...

If you assume that the expansion draft happens next year, Iggy is a free agent. Why would the Flames protect him? It would be much simpler to have talked to him before the draft, and then just resign him as soon as July 1 hit. It is unlikely that he would sign with an expansion team, as pretty much all the experts and uneducated fans alike assume he is either going to resign with Calgary, or go to a contender. Expansion teams have proven in the past to be anything but contenders. I cannot see the Flames leaving him unprotected being the tipping point that makes him sign with a different team assuming Feaster talks to him about it first.

If it is not next year, Iggy is at minimum 37. Same thing, why would you protect someone who is at the cuff of retiring, and at best a quality role player?

#4 Tirosho24

Tirosho24

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 91 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:24 PM

Does anyone know when the expansion draft normally takes place? I.e., before or after July 1st? I believe it happens before, but if anyone knows differently please correct me.

Assuming it happens before July 1st, which I would guess based on all the teams needing to make decisions which would be very effected by the results of the draft...

If you assume that the expansion draft happens next year, Iggy is a free agent. Why would the Flames protect him? It would be much simpler to have talked to him before the draft, and then just resign him as soon as July 1 hit. It is unlikely that he would sign with an expansion team, as pretty much all the experts and uneducated fans alike assume he is either going to resign with Calgary, or go to a contender. Expansion teams have proven in the past to be anything but contenders. I cannot see the Flames leaving him unprotected being the tipping point that makes him sign with a different team assuming Feaster talks to him about it first.

If it is not next year, Iggy is at minimum 37. Same thing, why would you protect someone who is at the cuff of retiring, and at best a quality role player?


For the sake of the article, it would be assuming it would happen right now. If the expansion draft happened between July 1 and today.

In 2000, the draft was June 23. In 1998 it was June 26. In 1993 it was June 24. In 1979 it was June 13. So it would appear to be before July 1.

From what I remember Feaster did not say he wanted to trade Jackman. He left me with the impression he had offers for Jackman but they were not worth pulling the trigger on the deal.

Edit: This article confirms what I thought:
"Feaster admitted that other teams asked about acquiring Jackman, but that the Flames believed that he was too valuable of a commodity to give up."

You would be right about this. I thought I remembered it differently but either way, I still think Bouma is a better option. Even Nemo, really. They could both fill that role.

As for Stemps, I dunno, I just never really felt like he fit. I prefer Comeau to fill that role on the third line, especially if it was Backlund and Baertschi playing with him. I will admit that Stemps probably fits better with an up-tempo Hartley style I just would want someone with a little more size playing on that theoretical line.

#5 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Elder Statesman

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,211 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:15 PM

If you assume that the expansion draft happens next year, Iggy is a free agent. Why would the Flames protect him? It would be much simpler to have talked to him before the draft, and then just resign him as soon as July 1 hit. It is unlikely that he would sign with an expansion team, as pretty much all the experts and uneducated fans alike assume he is either going to resign with Calgary, or go to a contender. Expansion teams have proven in the past to be anything but contenders. I cannot see the Flames leaving him unprotected being the tipping point that makes him sign with a different team assuming Feaster talks to him about it first.

I had the same thought about Selanne when I started reading Proteau's column. He's been signing 1 year contracts so would be UFA again & re-sign with the Ducks or retire.

As Tirosho24 mentioned, for the sake of the article (& to try to get people to buy that issue) it would have to be done now while contracts are still in effect.
___________________________________________________________________________
I'm almost feeling sorry for even the columnists/sportswriters(?) I don't like because they need to put out x # of columns so they come out with even worse columns then usual.
There are only so many ways to fill a page reporting that nothing happened so they go to "what ifs". We've got a few threads similar on this board.
_______________________________________________________________________________
@ least we can soon discuss the Team Canada WJC selection camp soon. :)

#6 DirtyDeeds

DirtyDeeds

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,172 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:50 PM

If you get the Jackman from 2 years ago then hands down you have a no brainer. Last year he wasn't the goal scorer but was still effective being the big body in and around the net.

As for Stemps you are talking two different calibre players. Stemps played 10 games less and almost doubled Comeau's point production and last year was one of Stempniaks poorer years.

One question you should ask yourself is Comeau going to be the same value to you next year when NYI are no longer paying half his 2.5 mil wage? That happens to be what Stemps is being paid on his recently signed 2 yr x 2.5m per year deal.

#7 Carty

Carty

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,102 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:20 PM

If you get the Jackman from 2 years ago then hands down you have a no brainer. Last year he wasn't the goal scorer but was still effective being the big body in and around the net.


That is something the Flames do not have an abundance of...

#8 Crzydrvr

Crzydrvr

    Resident Draft Junkie

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:41 PM

This would make a very interesting fantasy forum game. I would sign up if somebody started one up.

You would be right about this. I thought I remembered it differently but either way, I still think Bouma is a better option. Even Nemo, really. They could both fill that role.


Jackman's role is a tough guy who can grind and play a regular shift without being a major liability on the ice like a pre-previous lockout goon, while contributing a little on special teams. I don't think Nemo is anywhere near Jackman as far as intimidating qualities, and Bouma is more of an agitator than an outright fighter.

Considering Jackman's role, he is very good at doing what he's supposed to do, being a team player who works his butt off in practice and stick up for teammates in games. And at his salary he is quite affordable. Plenty of worse options out there in terms of bang-for-your-buck enforcers (Jody Shelley, anyone?).

#9 PokernHockey

PokernHockey

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 574 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:10 PM

For the sake of the article, it would be assuming it would happen right now. If the expansion draft happened between July 1 and today.

In 2000, the draft was June 23. In 1998 it was June 26. In 1993 it was June 24. In 1979 it was June 13. So it would appear to be before July 1.



I had the same thought about Selanne when I started reading Proteau's column. He's been signing 1 year contracts so would be UFA again & re-sign with the Ducks or retire.

As Tirosho24 mentioned, for the sake of the article (& to try to get people to buy that issue) it would have to be done now while contracts are still in effect.
___________________________________________________________________________
I'm almost feeling sorry for even the columnists/sportswriters(?) I don't like because they need to put out x # of columns so they come out with even worse columns then usual.
There are only so many ways to fill a page reporting that nothing happened so they go to "what ifs". We've got a few threads similar on this board.
_______________________________________________________________________________
@ least we can soon discuss the Team Canada WJC selection camp soon. :)


Sorry, I don't think I was clear there, by "next year" I meant the 2013 off season. There is no way that if there is a shortened season, we will see 32 teams "this year" (currently under lockout)

I added the "longer term" part about him aging because I can't see being able to justify it as 2 years down the road or something.


This would make a very interesting fantasy forum game. I would sign up if somebody started one up.


I would sign up as well.

#10 PokernHockey

PokernHockey

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 574 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:16 PM

Also, with the current talk of decertification of the union being there next "stick" in the negotiation process, what do people think of the NHL as threatening contraction or suggesting the possibility of expansion depending on the deal as a "carrot or stick". (i.e., "if we go with the deal your offering, x teams will be forced to fold, if the deal is good enough, we think we can have 2 more teams within x years!")

50 nhlpa jobs per team + affiliate only contracts, etc. has to be a pretty strong argument both ways.

#11 Carty

Carty

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,102 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 06:07 PM

Also, with the current talk of decertification of the union being there next "stick" in the negotiation process, what do people think of the NHL as threatening contraction or suggesting the possibility of expansion depending on the deal as a "carrot or stick". (i.e., "if we go with the deal your offering, x teams will be forced to fold, if the deal is good enough, we think we can have 2 more teams within x years!")

50 nhlpa jobs per team + affiliate only contracts, etc. has to be a pretty strong argument both ways.


It is my opinion that the talent pool is already a bit diluted with 30 teams, 32 would just make it worse... At least at this point...

I also believe that relocation of a few teams would help with the finances... It could also be the solution rather than contraction...

Here is an interesting article with an economist saying that contraction is a necessity for the survival of the league... http://www.theglobea...article5830873/

#12 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Elder Statesman

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,211 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:31 PM

I'm for both contraction & relocation. Remove the 4 biggest money losers.

Move 2 to locations where there's a chance of them making money. Contract 2 outright.

That leaves less drag on the HRR so the players can get what they think they merit. The loss of 100 or so jobs will only bother those that lose those jobs & the higher echelon looks ready to throw 20% of those guys careers/earning power away already. (The stick.)

If the NHL ever regains the growth they experienced in the last few years expansion to safe markets is a possibility. (The carrot.)

In the meantime 28 teams without 4 dragging the total revenue down should leave a bigger pot for everyone left employed.
**************************************************************************************************************************
As this drags out the players teams could send to the minors or leave in the CHL are improving which also threatens the jobs of those paying for their own ice to stay in shape or even some that sustain injury while moonlighting in Europe.

____________________________________________________________________
The players need to realize that billionaires can take a loss for a year (or 2-3) as they stand a good chance to recoup it in the future. The individual player will never regain the year(s) of wages (nor stats if they hope to enter the HHOF). Even if a deal were signed tomorrow they've all missed 4 NHL sized paychecks this year.
The threat of decertification could drag on for months with appeals & depending where the case is heard. Since they operate in 2 countries they would probably need 2 rulings in the NHLPA's favor.

The owners could also meet that threat by dissolving the brand name & opening their doors as the WHA (they own the rights to the name) or even something like the New National Hockey League. All contracts with a defunct league would be as null as any with a company that no longer exists. Pensions for time served would probably have to be paid but contracts might result in pennies on the $ as no services are being provided. The owners could come up with a new standard player contract outlining benefits, length of contracts & all other details being fought over. New league = new rules & the owners could do this as any player signing would do so with his lawyer & agent present. Reneging on the details would be breach of contract & they couldn't claim ignorance if both their lawyer & agent countersign.