|
|
Post by darren on Jul 22, 2007 19:21:09 GMT -5
After two more seasons we are expanding one final time to bring the league to a complete 20 teams. The two new teams will be Los Angeles and Copenhagen.
I'd like to take suggestions here and get some discussion going about how to go about the next expansion. Upon first glance it looks like Winnipeg and Minsk got some very solid young pieces through the expansion draft but will have to make their teams competitive through free agency.
Some ideas:
- Allow for more exempt young players. 22 and under or 23 and under?
- I'd say 5 protected prospects was a good number
- Build Copenhagen and Los Angeles primarily through free agency, meaning they get a bit of a free pass to sign a lot of quality players without all the GM's grumbling about it.
- Stagger it so stronger IHL teams will lose more:
The bottom six teams in the standings (1-6) protect 12 players, next six (7-12) protect 11, top six (13-18) protect 10 and we all lose 3.
OR
We all protect 10 and the bottom six lose ONE, the next six lose TWO, and the top six lose THREE. (I like this one better)
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 23, 2007 21:56:29 GMT -5
The best teams like my own are already losing substantially more even by percentage of franchise assets so I don't see why we'd need the strong to lose even more next time around. I lost 2 potential franchise players in Jeff Carter and Ryan Suter along with a top pairing defenseman in Komisarek. If I lose any more next time I'll shit my pants.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonmilley on Jul 24, 2007 7:53:38 GMT -5
Um, with Boumeester, McCabe, Pronger, Beauchemin, Ranger, and VanRyn...if you're playing Komisarek on your top pairing, that might go to explain your playoff issues the last couple seasons.  Kidding. Seriously, though, guys lose what they have. If you lost franchise players, it's because you've got a pipeline full of franchise players - more than you could protect. I lost marginal players because that's what my pipeline is full of. In my view, we both lost out equally. Yeah, Suter, Carter, and Komisarek are better than Toivonen, Klesla, and Clowe...but losing them hurt my team as much or more than losing those guys hurt yours. If the goal of the expansions is to increase parity, then we should go to a system where the good teams lose more. If the goal is just to stock new teams without adjusting the competitive balance that exists now, then I think the system we have is the way to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by insomnius on Jul 24, 2007 8:54:08 GMT -5
^ what he said
|
|
|
|
Post by darren on Jul 28, 2007 17:09:28 GMT -5
I think we'll go with this:
- We all protect 10 and the bottom six teams lose ONE, the next six lose TWO, and the top six lose THREE.
- 22 and under exempt (as of July 1, 2008)
- 5 protected prospects again
- Expansion clubs pick 19 and 20 in the 2008 draft.
- Copenhagen and Los Angeles will be given preferential treatment in free agency
|
|
|
|
Post by stickboyy on Jul 29, 2007 13:18:32 GMT -5
i think the 2 expansion teams of this offseason (minsk and winnipeg) shouldnt lose any player or prospect...
|
|
|
|
Post by habslive on Aug 5, 2007 23:29:53 GMT -5
i think the 2 expansion teams of this offseason (minsk and winnipeg) shouldnt lose any player or prospect... Minsk and Winnipeg should both lose players, like everyone else. They are part of the league now and it would be an unfair advantage to allow them to keep all their players while the rest of us lose players. |
|
|
|
Post by habslive on Aug 5, 2007 23:53:12 GMT -5
I also think that every team should have the option to protect as many prospects as they wish, provided they are allowed to protect one less player on their roster, or vice versa.
So let's assume that we will protect 10 roster players and 5 prospects...
Now let's say a stacked team wants to protect 12 roster players, they can do so, as long as they only protect 3 prospects.
I just think it's a good idea to allow teams to cope their own way with the toll expansion will take on them. It would have no effect on the amount of prospects and players each team will lose (and yes every team should lose the same amount of entities again, so that the top teams don't get raped). It will only affect the field of players available for expansion teams, and not for better or for worse.
It also wouldn't affect L.A. and Copenhagen because for every few teams that decide to protect more roster players, there will be a few that decide to protect more prospects. Things will balance out like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by darren on Aug 6, 2007 1:28:23 GMT -5
Good idea Rob, we will go with that.
|
|
