This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Reminds me of Nashville the past two years.
sure it is. The only thing it’s king of is for boring ### middle aged white people to watch while they rant about how much better the nba was in the 80s.
No...the NBA was a lot better in the 90’s!!!
hide is the new delete since some people were deleting huge threads. it's pretty much all or nothing, so this way there's still a chance to bring back something if it's hidden.
Yeah, I’m still pretty confident. I just don’t see the Caps playing that poorly on defense going forward.
huh? why should teams have been forced to expose players with no move clauses in their contracts? That means the team was contractually obligated to keep/protect those players.
"Because the NHL wanted to ensure the competitive viability of any new teams, the number of protected players allowed was lower than in the 2000 NHL Expansion Draft which populated the Minnesota Wild and Columbus Blue Jackets, when each team could protect nine forwards, five defencemen, and one goalie, or two goalies, three defencemen, and seven forwards. Under these rules, each of the 30 teams would lose one top-four defencemen or third-line forward per number of new teams. Only players with more than two years of professional experience — NHL or AHL as defined in the collective bargaining agreement — were included in the draft."
$500 million fee for expansion this time. Huge difference. Of course they wanted a more successful new market and the rules were set up to help Vegas be successful sooner than previous expansion teams. But this is still a complete fluke how good they are.
I agree about the money, but forcing teams to keep NMC players changed the landscape IMO. These players were made available in 2000.
No movement was not defined as expansion draft. The team didn't move the player on its own. The expansion draft rules allowed for the player to be selected, like all other players. When signing players to a NMC, would teams have done this had they known expansion rules would change?
I don't think most any team agreed to a NMC in a contract with any real thoughts to an expansion draft.
I agree, but these are players with likely the largest and longest contracts. I am sure some teams wanted to shed these players. Heck, Rangers could've exposed Marc Staal, the human tripod.
An expansion draft shouldn't be a get out of jail free card for all of a team's bad contracts. I don't disagree that it has been in the past, but I'm glad they got it right this time.
Fleury had a NMC. he was still selected. players could agree to waive them.
penguins made a deal to have him selected I believe, so I guess he accepted the trade.
Not sure how that’s ironic. Baseball playoffs are usually quite good where we don’t know for sure who will win a series.
That mascot got a little too friendly with me at the game I went to. It waited around to give me a hugWhat a goofy looking mascot
