Could expansion actually provide a great opportunity for the Canucks?

[LordHorvat]

Wow you're really keeping Edler unprotected?  If he goes who is your top 2 "assuming" they don't sign a top defenceman. I would switch Hansen for Baertchi. 

[luckylager]

4 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Canada isn't a long term investment. Gate sales are nothing compared to the tv revenue deals hockey could grow into. Expansion is about growth. Canada is peanuts compared to the us market

Potentially, sure. We're not a growth market at all, but we do act as a market stabilizer and any new team in Canada will generate more revenue than an expansion/relocation in the States. That being said, I do think Seattle has enormous potential though..

 

But as it stands, that huge country with almost no one in it, is the only reason teams like the Yotes, Canes and Panthers can actually pay their players in something other than peanuts or cotton. 

 

Sure, the US has potential, but after all these years of Betman trying to grow the game down there, Canada is still the cash cow for the entire league. Which is crazy considering Chicago, Detroit etc etc.. I don't get it.

 

I don't see a reason to expand and water down the quality of play, especially when the game doesn't seem to be growing down south. Moving failing teams to these new markets seems like a better approach until cash starts flowing from all of the areas that already have teams.

 

If one of your investments is just sitting, not gaining value, or worse,  do you just let it ride and hope for some sort of miracle recovery, or do you move your investment? I know what I do

[brilac]

8 hours ago, Mackcanuck said:

Seattle is still very much in the mix, the vote to close the street is Monday,

if they vote to close it, the Arena will be shovel ready ifa team is NHL franchise is acquired. 

If it is rejected the arena in downtown where the Football and Baseball Stadiums are is toast

Bettman wants Seattle, If the vote passes look for Bettman to push a franchise in there.

 

Here is the story of the vote

http://www.foxsports.com/nhl/story/arena-plan-in-seattle-could-move-1-step-closer-to-reality-042916

If that happens, that would be so exciting!  And I get so excited even thinking about it! I would still be a Canucks and Habs fan, but I would definitely get Season tickets.  It would be interesting to see who will go see the games based on location, such as would people who live in Bellingham go to Canucks games instead of Seattle games, and what about people who live on Vancouver Island, would they go to Seattle games or Canucks games.  And the rivalry, my oh my!

[khay]

I think Virtanen and and McCann are exempt because next season will be their second season? Similarly, Hutton is also exempt?

 

Forward: Daniel, Henrik, Horvat, Sutter, Baertchi, Hansen, one of Gaunce/Etem/Granlund

Defence: Edler, Tanev, and Tryamkin.

Goalie: Markstrom

 

It seems like we won't have too much trouble protecting anyone with good value.

 

[smokes]

How does the expansion draft deal with no trades and no movement clauses, do teams automatically have to protect them?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

11 minutes ago, luckylager said:

Potentially, sure. We're not a growth market at all, but we do act as a market stabilizer and any new team in Canada will generate more revenue than an expansion/relocation in the States. That being said, I do think Seattle has enormous potential though..

 

But as it stands, that huge country with almost no one in it, is the only reason teams like the Yotes, Canes and Panthers can actually pay their players in something other than peanuts or cotton. 

 

Sure, the US has potential, but after all these years of Betman trying to grow the game down there, Canada is still the cash cow for the entire league. Which is crazy considering Chicago, Detroit etc etc.. I don't get it.

 

I don't see a reason to expand and water down the quality of play, especially when the game doesn't seem to be growing down south. Moving failing teams to these new markets seems like a better approach until cash starts flowing from all of the areas that already have teams.

 

If one of your investments is just sitting, not gaining value, or worse,  do you just let it ride and hope for some sort of miracle recovery, or do you move your investment? I know what I do

50% of the leagues revenue sharing comes from the top 10 teams, 7 of those teams are american.  2 of those teams were fairly close to moving prior to their two superstars to chance there franchise.

 

The sport of hockey is growing, there are more talented players in the world now then ever before. one more team doesn't water down the sport, all it does is open up more opportunity for more talented players to make the jump. Only having 30 teams means many players don't get the opportunity needed to become stars in the league.  Think of all the good goalies that aren't giving the opportunity to prove themselves in the league because there is no open spots. Think of all the late developers that were giving up on early because someone new was chomping at the bit, some players luck out and get an opportunity in a new city (st.louis, Savard) while others bolt off to Europe. 

 

Not all investments work out, but just because a few american cities haven't panned out...yet, doesn't mean that you stop trying to invest.  Las vegas has to look no further then the state just west to them.  No one thought hockey in California could work, now we have 3 thriving teams. All more valuable than the 2 lowest Canadian teams..  But it also takes time to build a fan base.  Look at tampa,  they are starting to experience the new generation of players that are growing up in the state of florida playing hockey.  Chychrun and Gostisbehere are two players coming out of that market, Matthews is coming out of arizona, even our own top prospect goalie Demko is coming out of San Diego,  Would that have happened without NHL teams located there?  Not a chance.  

 

You really have to think beyond the short term.  Putting and NHL franchise in Canada would likely sell seats, but that's a temporary fix compared to the overall goal of growing the sport.  Growing the sport brings in far more revenue in the long term, growing the sport means finding new and untapped markets where we can create new fans..

[smokes]

1 hour ago, Gstank29 said:

Also not protecting Edler is a huge 

Edler would be traded before he's left unprotected.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

14 minutes ago, khay said:

I think Virtanen and and McCann are exempt because next season will be their second season? Similarly, Hutton is also exempt?

 

Forward: Daniel, Henrik, Horvat, Sutter, Baertchi, Hansen, one of Gaunce/Etem/Granlund

Defence: Edler, Tanev, and Tryamkin.

Goalie: Markstrom

 

It seems like we won't have too much trouble protecting anyone with good value.

 

Since the expansion draft takes player prior to July 1st, you are correct Virtanen and McCann will still be in their 2nd season and will not need to be protected.  

 

Hutton on the other hand did play 4 games with the comets at the end of the 2015 season, I'm not sure if that will count against a year of pro

[desiboynux4lifee*******]

trade Edler and Hansen, I been saying it all year. 

 

Hansens stock is high, don't mess this up. 

[Toews]

Forwards:

Daniel Sedin 

Henrik Sedin 

Hansen

Sutter

Horvat

Baertschi

Granlund

 

 

Defence:

Edler

Tanev

Hutton/Hamhuis

 

Goaltender:

Markstrom

 

That's what my list looks like. I don't think Hutton's handful of games will count as a "pro year". I think Tryamkin's experience won't count either. 

 

Players exposed will be the likes of Grenier, Etem, Gaunce for forwards. Biega, Sbisa and Pedan on defense. Don't think it will be a huge loss if any one of them gets claimed.

[Green Building]

Is there confirmation of how NMC/NTC clauses will be, uh, handled at expansion? 

 

Tryamkin played several years in the KHL so I think he's eligible. Hutton has only played one year pro, but since the earliest that expansion may happen would be 2017 then he wouldn't need to be protected if eligibility is 2 years of pro. 

[Z Hockey]

9 hours ago, Fanuck said:

Sorry, but to me expansion = Cash grab for owners & contract/salary dump for GM's!  What does expansion do for most fans other than further water-down the talent level of the league and make the already long schedule even worse?  Plus, if they do grant an expansion franchise, you know it's not going to be a true hockey market like Quebec City or Hamilton because they aren't 'sexy' markets for the NHL right now - it's Vegas or bust for the owners IMO and that is too bad.  If they gave Quebec or Hamilton a franchise I'd put up with the watered-down talent and boring schedule because -well, those fans deserve (IMO) a team.     

 

But to the main point, expansion alone isn't going to fix the problems with this franchise right now - it might help a small amount but it isn't going to make a noticeable difference in the long-run unfortunately. 

 

Very very good points. I personally don't like how they have to have an expansion draft, currently and always is UFAs new teams can make their team out of. Then at the

actual draft they can trade picks for players and draft and trade, etc.

Don't like how you can just lose good talent potentially because owners and Daly want to fill their pockets with $$$.

But now that you mentioned it as a cap dump for some teams than it can be not so bad. Teams it will be good for and players they can dump...

 

Wild- Vanek or Pominville

 

Leafs- Lupul or M.Michalek

 

Lightning- Callahan & Carle

 

Canucks- R. Miller or Higgins

 

Capitals- Orpik

 

 

 

[theminister]

9 minutes ago, Green Building said:

Is there confirmation of how NMC/NTC clauses will be, uh, handled at expansion? 

 

Tryamkin played several years in the KHL so I think he's eligible. Hutton has only played one year pro, but since the earliest that expansion may happen would be 2017 then he wouldn't need to be protected if eligibility is 2 years of pro. 

No, we have no confirmation about anything yet except that NMCs are required to be protected. 

 

It's likely a consolation to the PA and a fact the BoG hates them...so it's a bit of a punishment for teams that have handed them out. 

 

With our flexibility we are one of the fewer teams with many options, and until we know who is designated it's a really moot discussion. 

[jimmyking8888]

Expansion would be a good time for the Canucks to unload the garbage.  Who ever is overpaid will not be protected.

[theminister]

In the end, I truly believe we will be ahead of the majority of teams who will lose more, or have much harder decisions than us, as our current roster looks pretty easy to divide.  

 

I love Hansen but losing him, compared to say Pittsburgh who might have to lose Fleury/Murray or Anaheim with Anderssen/Gibson, is a pill we can swallow. 

 

Of the 30 teams in the NHL, we should be in the bottom 20% of teams hit hardest. 

 

 

[TheGuardian]

Can lose only one player, so expose a positional choice.

[luckylager]

4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Yes, Cali has proven to be an awesome market and has 3 very good teams. Other than hating those teams, I am glad the game is healthy down there.

10 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

 

The sport of hockey is growing, there are more talented players in the world now then ever before. one more team doesn't water down the sport, all it does is open up more opportunity for more talented players to make the jump. Only having 30 teams means many players don't get the opportunity needed to become stars in the league.  Think of all the good goalies that aren't giving the opportunity to prove themselves in the league because there is no open spots. Think of all the late developers that were giving up on early because someone new was chomping at the bit, some players luck out and get an opportunity in a new city (st.louis, Savard) while others bolt off to Europe. 

Adding teams allows less talented players to get a spot, thus watering down the entire league. 

10 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Not all investments work out, but just because a few american cities haven't panned out...yet, doesn't mean that you stop trying to invest.

I never said you stop trying to invest. You just move your investment to a place like

10 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

 

 Las vegas

Or Seattle. Both great places to move the Yotes or Canes. How is it that the Canes won a cup a decade ago, and the team still can't make money? 

10 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

..

 

You really have to think beyond the short term.  Putting and NHL franchise in Canada would likely sell seats, but that's a temporary fix compared to the overall goal of growing the sport.  Growing the sport brings in far more revenue in the long term, growing the sport means finding new and untapped markets where we can create new fans..

I never said anything about expansion in Canada, although QC deserves their team back.. And duh, of course growing the sport creates a greater long term ROI. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'd rather just move the money losers and try to grow the game in new markets while encouraging better play.

 

 

[theminister]

Like it or don't like it.... it's happening. We have to deal with the reality, as fans and as a franchise. 

 

From our organizational perspective, though there will be increased competition in the West, I think it helps us in the short run. We stand to lose less than other teams with the way our roster is set up. Long run it makes the West harder to qualify for the playoffs. 

 

But get used to it.... LV now... and Seattle in another 3 years or so. 

 

The winds of change are blowing and all you can do is set your sails. 

[theminister]

1 hour ago, luckylager said:

Potentially, sure. We're not a growth market at all, but we do act as a market stabilizer and any new team in Canada will generate more revenue than an expansion/relocation in the States. That being said, I do think Seattle has enormous potential though..

 

But as it stands, that huge country with almost no one in it, is the only reason teams like the Yotes, Canes and Panthers can actually pay their players in something other than peanuts or cotton. 

 

Sure, the US has potential, but after all these years of Betman trying to grow the game down there, Canada is still the cash cow for the entire league. Which is crazy considering Chicago, Detroit etc etc.. I don't get it.

 

I don't see a reason to expand and water down the quality of play, especially when the game doesn't seem to be growing down south. Moving failing teams to these new markets seems like a better approach until cash starts flowing from all of the areas that already have teams.

 

If one of your investments is just sitting, not gaining value, or worse,  do you just let it ride and hope for some sort of miracle recovery, or do you move your investment? I know what I do

You move it.

 

Edit: Sometimes within the same market, sometimes to a different market. That depends on how you evaluate future trends. 

 

IMHO, the NHL is pretty happy with the setup, despite the revenue sharing, because of the TV markets. But as long as they have regional exposure they are happy as that gives them national coverage in the US. 

 

If moving DT doesn't work for Phoenix they will consider KC or Milwaukee if they can find buyers. Other than Carolina to QC, because Broward County gave the Panthers $86 mil USD, I think the NHL is happy with their markets. 

 

Stability is a measurable commodity in this sense. 

[theminister]

@luckylager the watering down argument is a different conversation IMHO. And one I agree with... but I'm a purchaser who would prefer a better quality of product over quantity. Being in a relatively secure market I have that advantage of opinion. If I were in St Louis or Colorado I may disagree. 

 

Without getting overly technical, the supply and demand curve in this industry allows for lower quality and prices in lieu of higher quantity. It's sucks as a consumer but makes sense from a business perspective. Because the CBA includes the revenue sharing mechanism, love it or hate it, they can spread the risk around the league to create growth and demand in the market in aggregate. 

 

It's true they need to focus on the poor producers, but there will always be a bottom 50% of revenue generators in this model, but by switching one or two every decade they can shift the production function up. That's why Carolina to QC makes sense and may have a large effect on total HRR. Similarly, moving Phoenix to a reasonable location downtown may shift their burden upwards. Those are tweaks to the system that they can abide. 

 

The total model won't allow for contraction... not in our financial system.