Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

NHL To Expand to Las Vegas in 2017


BigTed3

Recommended Posts

According to news sources, the NHL and NHLPA are finalizing the framework that would allow for the league to expand to Vegas for the 2017-18 season. Rumor is that the leading name for the team will be the Black Knights.

For the expansion draft, teams will be permitted to protect one goalie, 3 D, and 7 forwards OR one goalie and 8 skaters of any type. Teams must make available at least 1 D and 2 forwards with 40 games NHL experience and one goalie signed (or RFA) for 2017-18. Skaters with 1-2 years of professional experience are exempt. Players with full no-movement clauses must be protected. Players with NTC's may be exposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sucks because we're going to lose a decent player but it is what it is.

My guess is that we will protect as many younger players as we can & expose veterans (like a Plekanec or a Markov if they are still here) etc.

The only two guys with NMC next year are Subban and Petry, who are players we'd likely want to protect anyways, so that part works out well. I think it's actually a pretty easy choice (barring new arrivals, etc.) to protect Price as your goalie and Subban, Petry, and Beaulieu as your three defencemen. Up front, it's a given we'd want to hang on to Pacioretty, Gallagher, Galchenyuk, and I would say Eller too (even if you're not an Eller fan, he's a young player who seems to be fairly highly-coveted and regarded throughout the league for what he does). That basically leaves three forward spots open to protection.

Scherbak, Lehkonen, McCarron, and Reway would NOT need to be protected since they'd have 2 years or less on a professional contract. Ditto for Zach Fucale and Charlie Lindgren. So with that in mind, I would likely use my last three spots on Daniel Carr, Charles Hudon, and Tomas Plekanec. That's my personal opinion, and obviously things can change over the course of a season. It would mean players like Danault, Andrighetto, Emelin, Markov, Barberio, Ellis, DLR, Pateryn, Dietz, Mitchell, and Byron would be left exposed. This would satisfy the requirement that 2 veteran forwards with over 40 games played in 2016-17 or 70 games or more in a career were available, as well as at least one defenceman with the same criteria. Now if someone like Danault or DLR or Andrighetto has a breakout year, then you can always reverse course on one of those last three spots but that's where I'd start. It also means that if we reach out to a UFA like Stamkos or Okposo, we have to keep in mind that we're exposing another youngster as a result, in all likelihood. But overall, I don't think we're in a bad position in terms of who we might lose.

Our only concern on how to meet criteria would be in goal. Mike Condon is a UFA in 2017-18, so unless he's extended or re-signed before then, he wouldn't be eligible to be the available goalie. I'm not sure if that would mean we by default need to expose one of Lindgren or Fucale then, but that would need to be a consideration. Otherwise, we'd need to acquire a veteran goalie who is signed solely for the purposes of making him available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the expansion draft, teams will be permitted to protect one goalie, 3 D, and 7 forwards OR one goalie and 8 skaters of any type. Teams must make available at least 1 D and 2 forwards with 40 games NHL experience and one goalie signed (or RFA) for 2017-18.

So have we finally uncovered the reason why Bergevin has hired so many veteran pluggers? I knew there had to be some sense to those decisions somewhere :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So have we finally uncovered the reason why Bergevin has hired so many veteran pluggers? I knew there had to be some sense to those decisions somewhere :P

I sense a little sarcasm here, but there's still some sense to a few things for a GM that may cause him to act differently than he ordinarily would:

1. It makes sense to try and acquire very good high-end players as opposed to several middle-of-the-road options. In other words, Stamkos and his 50 goals might be worth more than a combination of Okposo and Eriksson, for example, because Stamkos only requires one protected spot, whereas signing two guys would require us to leave two other players exposed (might lead to losing someone like Hudon, Carr, Andrighetto, Eller, etc.) in exchange.

2. If you need to have a few veterans to leave exposed, you probably won't firesale away everyone you've got at the trade deadline. Teams will need to hang on to a few Mitchell's, Byron's, Emelin's, etc. to be able to reach quota.

3. It doesn't make any sense to re-sign potential UFA's before the June 20th expansion draft next year... not that I mind losing Desharnais or Condon, for example, but if you have a guy you want to keep and you don't want to worry about the expansion draft claiming him, you just wait until after the draft... sign him June 21st instead of June 1st and you get to keep a guy protected for free.

4. It shows some amount of benefit to having signed Lehkonen and Reway late. I'm not sure MB knew about the timing of an expansion draft when he held off on their contracts, but if he had signed them two years ago and brought them to the AHL, they'd need to be protected. It works out well for us that our yield of McCarron, Fucale, Scherbak, Reway, and Lehkonen are all exempt this time around.

5. GM's can probably expect a second expansion draft a year or two later, as it's almost a given the league will want to move to 32 teams and balance out 8 divisions of 4. Maybe that's Quebec City, maybe it's Seattle (I get the feeling Quebec has a stronger bid but Seattle makes more sense geographically in order to fit into the West). But regardless, you probably need to plan on the same draft rules being forced upon you in 2018 or 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we even need another team?

We don't. But Bettman wants to make the league more money and he thinks it adds to his reputation to stake teams into the Southern US. If we've learned anything, it's that the league puts money ahead of all else, so don't be surprised they're willing to water the product down even further to draw added cash in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we even need another team?

Amen to THAT. Or if we DO need another team let it at least be Canadian since we DO own the sport!

I know it's all about money and blah blah blah but hey Hockey Night in Canada did just fine with its original 6.

Las Vegas? I mean seriously!? -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, Vegas and not Quebec City :angry: ???? If only Quebec City gets its NHL franchise, the Habs can finally become a "normal" team, focused on winning and performance!!!

Unbelievable!! Bettman Hockey League - what's there to say?

Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to news sources, the NHL and NHLPA are finalizing the framework that would allow for the league to expand to Vegas for the 2017-18 season. Rumor is that the leading name for the team will be the Black Knights.

For the expansion draft, teams will be permitted to protect one goalie, 3 D, and 7 forwards OR one goalie and 8 skaters of any type. Teams must make available at least 1 D and 2 forwards with 40 games NHL experience and one goalie signed (or RFA) for 2017-18. Skaters with 1-2 years of professional experience are exempt. Players with full no-movement clauses must be protected. Players with NTC's may be exposed.

IIRC, (during the last expansion draft), teams could only lose 2 players maximum.

We don't. But Bettman wants to make the league more money and he thinks it adds to his reputation to stake teams into the Southern US. If we've learned anything, it's that the league puts money ahead of all else, so don't be surprised they're willing to water the product down even further to draw added cash in.

50 Mil. for just the application and 500 mil. for the entrance fee. It would be a novelty for a few years, but with the night-life going on all day and night, they (the fans) would lose interest after a few losing years. Then we'd have another Florida/Arizona (revenue sharing) on our hands.

What, Vegas and not Quebec City :angry: ???? If only Quebec City gets its NHL franchise, the Habs can finally become a "normal" team, focused on winning and performance!!!

You have to have someone who has deep pockets and is willing to have some losing seasons first. Expansion teams usually get the scraps/leftovers or bad contracts that other teams don't want, or can't get rid of.

Think of it this way. The expansion teams will be choosing from the 4th liners, the 3rd pairing D (or 7th D), and the 2nd/3rd string goalie that can't get the job done.

The first order of business for an expansion team would be to hire the very best GM available, who would then assemble the best staff (coaches, scouts etc.) available.

Patience would be the operative word for any expansion team and their fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, Vegas and not Quebec City :angry: ???? If only Quebec City gets its NHL franchise, the Habs can finally become a "normal" team, focused on winning and performance!!!

Unbelievable!! Bettman Hockey League - what's there to say?

Yup i believe you got that one right again PP. A Quebec team to keep the French media busy and keep them distracted enough from politicizing our Habs so that we can concentrate on skill, common sense and winning Stanley Cups again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to have someone who has deep pockets and is willing to have some losing seasons first.

Da man is Pierre-Karl Peladeau, the owner of Quebecor media giant. If you ever watched TVA hockey broadcasts, that channel belongs to his empire. So $$$ is not an issue for him B) . Problem is Bettman is unwilling to cut a deal. He's not interested to champion Canadian interests, only to help US teams prosper :angry: .

As for losing, well, let's just say it really doesn't matter to Monsieur PKP. He just wants a hockey team in Quebec City for political purposes. Which suits me fine, because it liberates the Habs from the burden of being the sole torch bearer of French identity in North America. The organization can finally be free of language politics when the media defects to its new darling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if we don't move Emelin, even if Beaulieu does well, we will likely lose him at the end of the season. Why Emelin (and even Petry) have a NTC I have no idea. Bergevin gives these out way too easily. Only PK is worthy of it and even with him, I would NEVER allow a player to have a NTC on the last year of his deal... NEVER

Wasn't there also some rule about having to make a certain amount of cap dollars made available? Like the players you were leaving unprotected had reach a certain minimum in salary... if that's the case we may have to let Pleks become available

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like this at all. This is one of the biggest gambling capitals of the entire world. Nothing against Las Vegas - I actually went out there one year with the University of Michigan-Flint Golf Club. I'm just concerned that someone will get a lot of access they shouldn't be getting and we could be going down the same road as the 1919 White Sox, Pete Rose, Paul Hornung and Alex Karras, and all the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if we don't move Emelin, even if Beaulieu does well, we will likely lose him at the end of the season. Why Emelin (and even Petry) have a NTC I have no idea. Bergevin gives these out way too easily. Only PK is worthy of it and even with him, I would NEVER allow a player to have a NTC on the last year of his deal... NEVER

Wasn't there also some rule about having to make a certain amount of cap dollars made available? Like the players you were leaving unprotected had reach a certain minimum in salary... if that's the case we may have to let Pleks become available

You only need to protect players with full NMC, not NTC alone. So Plekanec, Markov, and Emelin can all be left exposed in an expansion draft. We can choose to protect Subban, Petry, and Beaulieu and be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like this at all. This is one of the biggest gambling capitals of the entire world. Nothing against Las Vegas - I actually went out there one year with the University of Michigan-Flint Golf Club. I'm just concerned that someone will get a lot of access they shouldn't be getting and we could be going down the same road as the 1919 White Sox, Pete Rose, Paul Hornung and Alex Karras, and all the rest.

Let's thrown in the possibility of the Raiders moving to Las Vegas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Da man is Pierre-Karl Peladeau, the owner of Quebecor media giant. If you ever watched TVA hockey broadcasts, that channel belongs to his empire. So $$$ is not an issue for him B) . Problem is Bettman is unwilling to cut a deal. He's not interested to champion Canadian interests, only to help US teams prosper :angry: .

As for losing, well, let's just say it really doesn't matter to Monsieur PKP. He just wants a hockey team in Quebec City for political purposes. Which suits me fine, because it liberates the Habs from the burden of being the sole torch bearer of French identity in North America. The organization can finally be free of language politics when the media defects to its new darling.

Hopefully Mr. PKP will cough up enough $$$ on the side for Mr. Bettman so that he finally takes a Canadian team, let alone a Quebec team into consideration. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person with direct knowledge of the NHL's decision says the league has settled on Las Vegas as its choice for expansion, provided organizers can come up with a $500 million US fee.

The person spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity because details have not been released by the league ahead of its Board of Governors meeting on June 22 in Las Vegas. Quebec City was also considered for expansion.

A second person who had been briefed on the decision said Las Vegas was a "done deal" following the recommendation of the NHL's executive committee.

The 2017-18 season would be the earliest the league would expand.

The Las Vegas bid says it has secured more than 13,200 season-ticket deposits for the new team, which will play in T-Mobile Arena, the sparkling new multipurpose building on the south end of the Las Vegas Strip. The arena, which seats 17,500 for hockey, was built entirely with private money by MGM Resorts International and Anschutz Entertainment Group, the owners of the Los Angeles Kings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like this at all. This is one of the biggest gambling capitals of the entire world. Nothing against Las Vegas - I actually went out there one year with the University of Michigan-Flint Golf Club. I'm just concerned that someone will get a lot of access they shouldn't be getting and we could be going down the same road as the 1919 White Sox, Pete Rose, Paul Hornung and Alex Karras, and all the rest.

I'm not sure whether this is actually true or not, but I suspect that a lot of sports betting these days probably happens online. I wouldn't think that just having a team in Vegas would have much of an effect on whether or not there is anything illicit going on.

To be honest I think this might actually be a pretty good place for an expansion. In addition to the tourists, you've also got a whole lot of people living in that area that would probably be interested in having a team to follow. We tend to think of Las Vegas as the strip and surrounding areas, but most of it is actually a bunch of suburbs with regular people doing regular jobs.

Add to that the fact that there's a lot of money in the town already. They've already built the arena and they did so entirely with private funds, so you're going to avoid the sorts of legal battles that we saw in Phoenix (not to mention the dilemma of whether it's even right to spend taxpayer dollars on a hockey team in the first place). I'm sure that there will be no shortages of advertisers or people looking to buy skyboxes/season tickets/etc. It's hard to imagine a much better case to be made for a hockey team - as long as you can ignore the fact that you're in the middle of a desert :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure whether this is actually true or not, but I suspect that a lot of sports betting these days probably happens online. I wouldn't think that just having a team in Vegas would have much of an effect on whether or not there is anything illicit going on.

To be honest I think this might actually be a pretty good place for an expansion. In addition to the tourists, you've also got a whole lot of people living in that area that would probably be interested in having a team to follow. We tend to think of Las Vegas as the strip and surrounding areas, but most of it is actually a bunch of suburbs with regular people doing regular jobs.

Add to that the fact that there's a lot of money in the town already. They've already built the arena and they did so entirely with private funds, so you're going to avoid the sorts of legal battles that we saw in Phoenix (not to mention the dilemma of whether it's even right to spend taxpayer dollars on a hockey team in the first place). I'm sure that there will be no shortages of advertisers or people looking to buy skyboxes/season tickets/etc. It's hard to imagine a much better case to be made for a hockey team - as long as you can ignore the fact that you're in the middle of a desert :P

I agree completely. Of all the southern US teams, Las Vegas makes more sense by a mile. I really don't have a problem with this. And even those other teams that are losing money... as long as the owners don't care... why exactly should we care?

AS for Quebec, I think this misalignment is really going to hurt them. They either have to move a team (which it seems to me is highly unlikely) or add another western team before they ever add Quebec

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely. Of all the southern US teams, Las Vegas makes more sense by a mile. I really don't have a problem with this. And even those other teams that are losing money... as long as the owners don't care... why exactly should we care?

AS for Quebec, I think this misalignment is really going to hurt them. They either have to move a team (which it seems to me is highly unlikely) or add another western team before they ever add Quebec

Yes relocation would probably be the only way they see a team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...