BG
Well-known member
There has been a lot written recently about Vegas' success. I thought rather than have this lost in another thread, that it deserved a discussion of it's own.
There's been a lot of talk about how this happened, talking about other GMs, the expansion rules, about how this is not good for the game.
It's an incredible story, and there isn't any one thing that brought about this success - it really is a combination of good planning, execution, and a boatload of fortune.
Fans of other teams are angry because of the immediate success of this team, angry that while other teams are suffering through long rebuilds - an upstart is playing for the Cup.
When I look at the expansion rules, I think the single biggest factor leading to a successful draft was the number of teams they were able to select from. 30 selections is enough to fill an NHL roster, and the top end of an AHL team. That each team could only protect a single goaltender also put Vegas a step ahead of at least a dozen teams (who also wish they could pay the league to force a good goalie onto their team).
That said, I ask you this...
Who are the real losers this season, post Vegas expansion?
Is it the teams that had to make side deals?
- Well, truth is, those teams were already flush with talent - given that they had too many players to protect. Comparing the standings from year-to-year, Pittsburgh and Columbus dropped the most (11pts each), but both made the playoffs. Arguments could be made that Florida would probably have liked to have had some of that scoring depth back as they struggled on the bubble.
Is it the teams that Vegas has surpassed in the standings?
- Simply put, yes. Particularly in their own division/conference. Any team that felt like they escaped having to give up a good expansion asset - is now a step behind the Vegas franchise.
Is it hockey fans?
- Get over yourselves.
Will NHL GM's learn anything from this?
- That is a firm 'NO'. Most of the bad decisions made by NHL GM's are repeated over and over again. If there is one thing I think will happen however, is that the teams/league will be much better prepared for future expansion (in the next 2-3 seasons), and GM's will be less likely to give out NMC contracts on short-term contracts to veteran players.
How do NHL player's feel about this?
- Honestly, I think it was the "expansion" tag given to the team that soured players from wanting to join. In the future, I could see more players waiving trade clauses or giving serious free agent attention to future expansion teams. I haven't heard a single bad quip from an NHL player when asked about Vegas' success, and most talk about it with a big smile on their faces.
What do you think?
There's been a lot of talk about how this happened, talking about other GMs, the expansion rules, about how this is not good for the game.
It's an incredible story, and there isn't any one thing that brought about this success - it really is a combination of good planning, execution, and a boatload of fortune.
Fans of other teams are angry because of the immediate success of this team, angry that while other teams are suffering through long rebuilds - an upstart is playing for the Cup.
When I look at the expansion rules, I think the single biggest factor leading to a successful draft was the number of teams they were able to select from. 30 selections is enough to fill an NHL roster, and the top end of an AHL team. That each team could only protect a single goaltender also put Vegas a step ahead of at least a dozen teams (who also wish they could pay the league to force a good goalie onto their team).
That said, I ask you this...
Who are the real losers this season, post Vegas expansion?
Is it the teams that had to make side deals?
- Well, truth is, those teams were already flush with talent - given that they had too many players to protect. Comparing the standings from year-to-year, Pittsburgh and Columbus dropped the most (11pts each), but both made the playoffs. Arguments could be made that Florida would probably have liked to have had some of that scoring depth back as they struggled on the bubble.
Is it the teams that Vegas has surpassed in the standings?
- Simply put, yes. Particularly in their own division/conference. Any team that felt like they escaped having to give up a good expansion asset - is now a step behind the Vegas franchise.
Is it hockey fans?
- Get over yourselves.
Will NHL GM's learn anything from this?
- That is a firm 'NO'. Most of the bad decisions made by NHL GM's are repeated over and over again. If there is one thing I think will happen however, is that the teams/league will be much better prepared for future expansion (in the next 2-3 seasons), and GM's will be less likely to give out NMC contracts on short-term contracts to veteran players.
How do NHL player's feel about this?
- Honestly, I think it was the "expansion" tag given to the team that soured players from wanting to join. In the future, I could see more players waiving trade clauses or giving serious free agent attention to future expansion teams. I haven't heard a single bad quip from an NHL player when asked about Vegas' success, and most talk about it with a big smile on their faces.
What do you think?