NHL 2017-2018

[iacas]

36 minutes ago, BamaWade said:

Poor Seattle.  I'd almost expect some reactionary changes to the expansion draft process so that this doesn't happen again.

Why "poor Seattle"? The Vegas expansion was a result of a few things. Vegas paid $500M to enter the league. The last expansion teams only paid $80M. That payment guaranteed an earlier chance of winning: two fewer forwards protected, two fewer D protected. GMs were also running scared, and many made some bad deals or trades to ensure that a player they wanted to send away was sent away.

Now, Seattle, having this precedent, should expect all but the GMs (who will hopefully be a bit wiser this time around) to be the same: they should expect the same draft rules if they're paying the same fees to enter alone, also.

I'm not happy about it myself, either, but I don't think the rules should somehow be different for Seattle. They paid $500M just to enter the league. They got a few advantages for that.

[BamaWade]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

...The Vegas expansion was a result of a few things. Vegas paid $500M to enter the league. The last expansion teams only paid $80M. That payment guaranteed an earlier chance of winning: two fewer forwards protected, two fewer D protected. GMs were also running scared, and many made some bad deals or trades to ensure that a player they wanted to send away was sent away.

....

I'm not happy about it myself, either, but I don't think the rules should somehow be different for Seattle. They paid $500M just to enter the league. They got a few advantages for that.

Interesting.  I didn't really know those things, and didn't pay much attention to the expansion process other than keeping a close eye on the protection decisions for my team (Boston)...just was figuring it had been long enough since the previous expansion that the expansion draft process had changed a bit--and worked out a little too strongly in LV's favor...enough that there'd be some grumbling and calls to tweak it back a notch for the next team up (Seattle).

I'm not saying it should be different for Seattle...more a casual water-cooler comment, than anything else--on how the "next guy" can sometimes pay for the previous guy's unexpected successes.

[Bucki1968]

After watching more of the Vegas team during the playoffs, I can see why they are where they are. They have some great veteran players (picked up from other teams) mixed with some good young guys. I still think they are not going to get by the Lightning, but they did beat them the only time I saw them (Vegas) this season at Amalie. I believe that Vegas beat Tampa in Vegas also. That being said....Tampa had a losing record against Jersey and Boston and took care of them.

[Patch]

Well I can truly say I am getting a quick education of this hockey game. Never paid any attention to the sport before a few weeks ago. 

As we watch the Vegas team play on a 8'W X 6' H projection, my 12 year old Granddaughter is explaining the game to me. Her favorite player is the Vegas goalie. Has her hat with his signature, as well as others. I get more of a kick out her watching the game, than the game itself. 

I can say it is a fast, rough sport. It took me a while learn to follow the puck, and what was going on around it. Still don't understand some of the penalties as yet. That will come later I suppose. 

 

[billchao]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

Why "poor Seattle"? The Vegas expansion was a result of a few things. Vegas paid $500M to enter the league. The last expansion teams only paid $80M. That payment guaranteed an earlier chance of winning: two fewer forwards protected, two fewer D protected. GMs were also running scared, and many made some bad deals or trades to ensure that a player they wanted to send away was sent away.

Now, Seattle, having this precedent, should expect all but the GMs (who will hopefully be a bit wiser this time around) to be the same: they should expect the same draft rules if they're paying the same fees to enter alone, also.

I'm not happy about it myself, either, but I don't think the rules should somehow be different for Seattle. They paid $500M just to enter the league. They got a few advantages for that.

I think I linked it earlier in the thread, but Bill Daly said the expansion rules will be the same for Seattle, and the fee will be higher than what Vegas paid.

What I've learned most about this expansion process is that some teams are really bad at evaluating their own talent. Not only did more than one team protect the wrong player, but some of them actually traded assets to Vegas so they would pick players who ended up being better than the ones they kept.

[onthehunt526]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

Why "poor Seattle"? The Vegas expansion was a result of a few things. Vegas paid $500M to enter the league. The last expansion teams only paid $80M. That payment guaranteed an earlier chance of winning: two fewer forwards protected, two fewer D protected. GMs were also running scared, and many made some bad deals or trades to ensure that a player they wanted to send away was sent away.

Now, Seattle, having this precedent, should expect all but the GMs (who will hopefully be a bit wiser this time around) to be the same: they should expect the same draft rules if they're paying the same fees to enter alone, also.

I'm not happy about it myself, either, but I don't think the rules should somehow be different for Seattle. They paid $500M just to enter the league. They got a few advantages for that.

This, and the Vegas people did their homework. They got the best talent available in the expansion draft. I wish I would have taken that bet prior to the season.

[Bucki1968]

Well I guess I get a game 7 (which is awesome to go to) but I think I would have preferred a game 6 win. I have said all season that if some team decides to really get physical with the Lightning, they would be in trouble and wow was Washington physical last night. If that trend continues on Wednesday, I'll be watching the Finals on TV instead of at Amalie arena.

[DaveP043]

2 hours ago, Bucki1968 said:

Well I guess I get a game 7 (which is awesome to go to) but I think I would have preferred a game 6 win. I have said all season that if some team decides to really get physical with the Lightning, they would be in trouble and wow was Washington physical last night. If that trend continues on Wednesday, I'll be watching the Finals on TV instead of at Amalie arena.

Even with the strong physical play, the Lightning had a bunch of decent chances.  One funny bounce, and the game is very different.  Tomorrow night should be an exciting game, whichever way it goes.

[BamaWade]

Re: the discussion above on Las Vegas's journey through the expansion draft process, and path to the finals.... Pretty interesting read from ESPN.com today on that.  It gives a little analysis and insight to the picks and transactions from then 'til now:

The Golden Knights' success wasn't rigged: Here's how they were built

[Warren Zevon]

   Congrats to both the Caps and the Knights for making it to the finals.   I’m not invested in either team so I can enjoy the series for some hopefully great hockey.   

[Bucki1968]

Well that's it for me...Lightning can't score a goal in two and half games. Heck, take away power play goals and they didn't score many goals at all during the whole series. I guess Stamkos and Kucherov etc. have problems when ice gets smaller in the playoffs. Stamkos reminds me of Federov (Red Wings) back in the day. Great regular season...nothing in the playoffs.

[billchao]

34 minutes ago, Bucki1968 said:

Stamkos reminds me of Federov (Red Wings) back in the day. Great regular season...nothing in the playoffs.

Federov's 176 points in 183 games played not good enough for you? Tough crowd.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, billchao said:

Federov's 176 points in 183 games played not good enough for you? Tough crowd.

Seriously.

[Bucki1968]

23 hours ago, billchao said:

Federov's 176 points in 183 games played not good enough for you? Tough crowd.

No. When you get an empty net goal already up by 2 it really doesn't matter. Like I said earlier, take away the power play goals Stamkos scored and your left with very little. Seriously.

[billchao]

2 hours ago, Bucki1968 said:

No. When you get an empty net goal already up by 2 it really doesn't matter.

Oh right. I'm sure the vast majority of Federov's playoff points were acquired in empty net situations

[Bucki1968]

20 minutes ago, billchao said:

Oh right. I'm sure the vast majority of Federov's playoff points were acquired in empty net situations

Well I was there for most of them. And yes...most were empty net or garbage time. He really only had two good playoff years that I can remember. And that was mainly assists. I wanna say 1997/1998. Anyway my point was that Stamkos  really didn't step up and neither did Kucherov (in the Washington series) especially during 5 on 5.

[billchao]

8 minutes ago, Bucki1968 said:

Well I was there for most of them. And yes...most were empty net or garbage time. He really only had two good playoff years that I can remember. And that was mainly assists. I wanna say 1997/1998.

Ok.

8 minutes ago, Bucki1968 said:

Anyway my point was that Stamkos  really didn't step up and neither did Kucherov (in the Washington series) especially during 5 on 5.

That's called getting shut down by the opposition.

I love how you're harping on two guys for underperforming in a team sport on the team touted as having the most depth of talent in the entire NHL this year. I love sports fans, they crack me up sometimes.

[iacas]

26 minutes ago, Bucki1968 said:

Well I was there for most of them. And yes...most were empty net or garbage time. He really only had two good playoff years that I can remember. And that was mainly assists. I wanna say 1997/1998.

🤦‍♂️