Follow Us on Twitter

Sens Underground


We're all volunteers paying out of our pocket. We operate on a loss.  If you'd like to help, it will be put to use running the podcast and we'll give you huge kudos on the show!


Underground Hosts







Quick Search

Sens Underground Forums > Expansion

I read this article on, on a sure NHL-return to Quebec, which got me thinking.

I never experienced an expansion draft myself, but somehow I think this would be a bad thing for the Sens, right? They're developing quite nicely the last few years and such an expansion could wipe out a lot of the good work. According to Wikipedia the rules of the last Expansion draft stated:

[each team is] allowed to protect either one goaltender, five defensemen, and nine forwards or two goaltenders, three defensemen, and seven forwards

Say the expansion draft had to take place this summer, who should be protected? First of all, what a shitty rule, that protecting two goalies allows you to protect 4 skaters less. That's a bit out of proportion, IMO and hits the teams that carefully assembled a good tandem extra hard.

So here's my shot:

Two goalies:
Anderson and Lehner

Three D-men:
Karlsson, Cowen and Methot

Seven Forwards:
Alfie (hell yeah, or maybe he could pull some kind of trick retiring and coming back), Spezza, Turris, Silfverberg, ZBad, Neil and Conacher and/or possibly Michalek M.

There could be one solution since Lehner is technically still on his Two-way ELC until next year. I don't know how it is exactly regulated however with waivers and stuff.

One goalie:

Five D-men:
Karlsson, Cowen, Methot, Phillips and Wiercioch (he's a restricted free agent at the end of the season and has to be extended)

Nine Forwards:
Alfie, OOHAH, Zibby, Conacher, Spezza, Turris, Neil, Michalek and Smith.

Extra info: according to the following players are on a two-way, so could be sent down to protect them (AFAIK).
ZBad, Conacher, Silfverberg, Hoffmann (RFA), Pageau, Cowen, Wiercioch, Benoit, Gryba and Lehner .

In the hypothetical case the players on a two-way could really send down the following players could be protected:

One goalie:

Five D-men:
Karlsson, Methot, Philips, Gonchar (if extended) and (God forbid) Lundin

Nine Forwards:
Alfie, Spezza, Turris, Michalek, Latendresse (if extended), Neil, Smith, Greening and either Jimbo or Condra (if extended) or Kassian.

In other words almost the whole roster would be safe. This being the NHL however, I don't have high hopes of that being possible.

If there really are no consequences to sending the players on a two way contract down and Bingo was able to make room, the Sens probably aren't as bad off as I first thought, but still the thought of an expansion draft scares me quite a bit.

What do you guys think? Since I really like to hear and know more about this, I'll probably EMAIL THE SHOW about this, too.

April 15, 2013 at 2:41 AM | Registered Commenterdisappointed labru

expansion is an atrocious idea for anyone who isn't a greedy owner, or i guess fans in the city that gets the team. this league already is 2-4 teams too big. there's 30 teams in the NBA and MLB, both much MUCH stronger leagues than the NHL. NFL has 32. Buttman's ego is probably telling him he has to have 32 also, just to say he has as many teams as the NFL. But if MLB can't support 32 know where Im going with this.

look around the league and see how many borderline NHL players there are. now let's add 44 more. jeeez.

but, this being the NHL, i guess there's no stopping a bad idea and greed.

April 15, 2013 at 8:24 AM | Registered CommenterResigned Russell

Russell, it gets worse...

More teams could mean pore games on a given night, which would mean more refs, that today are not good enough to officiate at the NHL level.

April 15, 2013 at 11:57 AM | Registered CommenterHomer

Add to that a lot of Russians that want to stay in Russia after the Olympics...

I bet Florida and Calgary will welcome it though, they will no longer suck the hardest ;-)

April 15, 2013 at 1:14 PM | Registered Commenterdisappointed labru

I can't see there being any expansion with teams like Phoenix still in trouble. No point in worrying for nothing.

April 15, 2013 at 1:42 PM | Registered CommenterChuckProuse

While I agree that there shouldn't be expansion with other teams like Phoenix, Florida etc in trouble, never underestimate greed and stupidity. Greed on the part of existing owners wanting expansion fees which go straight to them (ie/ it's not HRR to be split with players), and stupidity of someone willing to pay the rumoured $250M+ to get into the club of NHL team ownership. Moving a team like Phoenix or Florida to a better market would make sense from a fan's point of view, but putting an expansion team in one of those markets makes them more money short term (they're still propping up the have not teams and league ownership of Yotes further drains owner pockets).

Add Bettman's ego and it's like getting dangerously close to happening.

Speaking of Gary.......he's been conspicuous by his absence since the lockout ended. Does he think that people will have forgotten who he is by the time the Finals are over so that he can again feed his own need to be in the spotlight and present the Cup to the winning captain? If I was that captain, I'll pull it out of the weasel's hands and skate away -- no picture with you, beeyotch.

April 15, 2013 at 2:18 PM | Registered CommenterKardinal

I don't know if it's for nothing. I agree with what Kardinal states above. Also it would make the strangely imbalanced proposal for realignment so much more sensible.

And even if it's for nothing, it would be a nice thought experiment: what if...? What would be the legalities, exceptions etc. Who would be the most valuable players for the team? For now and for the future? And how would you balance your protections, to endanger the rebuild as little as possible?

April 15, 2013 at 5:04 PM | Registered Commenterdisappointed labru

Would not put it by Butman and the NHL to fold a team and then sell an expansion franchise. Lot less legal crap and large expansion fee.

April 15, 2013 at 6:15 PM | Registered CommenterSunburned Senior

The part that we always forget in this is the fact that the US economy is just balls. I remember going to the Syracuse outlets back in 2006 on just a random weekend and cash was flying through the doors. I tend to go back annually and the deals are still great but it's a ghost town comparatively, and most shoppers are Canadians. Even pre Christmas it's nothing like it once was.

That saying, people aren't willing to try to spend a couple hundred dollars on a sport that they don't know. The new conference model allocates well for either a 32 team league... or a 28 team league. I've even heard that the league may fold Phoenix and then issue an expansion team to Quebec just to collect the expansion fee. I hate that idea as the union will hate it, 30-60 players (including AHL Team) would have to relocate their families and the new owners wouldn't want to pay a premium when they can get a team and move it for $50M less...not that I work in personal finance...

Going back to Labru's original point, I don't think that protecting players by sending them down would work, but the key is that you can only lose one player

April 15, 2013 at 11:02 PM | Registered CommenterPost Draft Pan

How would that work though. Two expansion teams need 44 players. One from every team would mean that 14 have to come from somewhere else. Is there an extra round of entry drafts? Or are they able to pick from the AHL as well? And even then, those players mostly aren't able to play immediately.

April 16, 2013 at 3:36 AM | Registered Commenterdisappointed labru

Well if there's 2 expansion teams, each team loses 2. So that starts you with a base of 30 palyers for each team. I think there's also a rule that if you lose a goalie, you can't lose another one, so as an example, St. Louis would probably protect Jake Allen and lose Elliott (granted, I'd probably take one of their D). The rest of the team is built via free agents and there are some opportunities for European players to come over too. Trades for picks also seems to be popular.

A couple things though from yoru choices, you protected Lundin in one option. This wouldn't really need to be done. 1. He's terrible so who cares 2. He's a UFA at the end of ther year. There's no requirement for him to sign with the expansion team. This was done years ago, when I think that teh Sharks chose Mathieu Schneider from teh Rangers who was a UFA and he just ended up resigining with the Rangers - total waste of a pick. Something else that teams may do would be to leave an attractive player exposed to ensure they're the one getting picked. Maybe a guy coming off of a contract in 1 year would be attracitive in that way. As an example, if the Sens were protecting 5 D, I'd go with Karlsson, Cowen, Weircioch, Gryba, Phillips while leaving Gonchar, and Lundin, both UFAs, unprotected. trades are also done to protect palyers. Back in the Florida draft, teams could protect 2 goalies whitout a penalty on the rest, so Vancouver traded for Vanbiesbrouck to protect Kirk MacLean and Kay Whitmore....yes, I did all of this by memory too...geez.

When you said that the players are ready to play yet, you're right. Ottawa had what, 4 wins in the first season?

April 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM | Registered CommenterPost Draft Pan

lol I think it was 10 which is the lowest wins in a season or something. (Even worse than Columbus, ouch)

April 16, 2013 at 10:29 AM | Registered CommenterSpezzial Delivery

If the fans in Quebec and wherever are as proud as in Winnipeg they probably fill the building regardless.

I'd start with a GM with a vision and a long serving assistant coach from a successful franchise. I bet for instance Pierre would be able to assemble quite a nice team for you. Add a coach he could see eye to eye with... I don't think they would make the playoffs the first year, but do some massive team building and you'll surprise many.

April 16, 2013 at 1:22 PM | Registered Commenterdisappointed labru