|
JawKnee posted:black, gold, and obscenely-rich-old-man pink Good, another thing for Bruins fans to get mad about.
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 03:25 |
|
|
I like how they cited imbalance in conferences as a reason to not expand to Quebec when they purposefully did it that way so they could expand in the west.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Schlesische posted:I'd say it's got more to do with leaving a guaranteed parachute option open, so that if Arizona or Carolina want better deals they can go "well, we'd like to stay here, but Quebec has this shiny new arena and will offer me <way too much money> and you guys are being obstinate." It would be such a great gently caress you to Quebec if Arizona moves there and has to play in the Pacific for a year or two. I wonder if the league really thought someone like Seattle would have gotten it together and they would implement two teams together to balance the conferences. And if Seattle never works out I can't wait to watch another round of realignment.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Another thing to consider when comparing this team to other expansions is the difference in draft rules. In the last three drafts you got to protect one goaltender, five defensemen, and nine forwards or two goaltenders, three defensemen, and seven forwards. You were basically limited to the fourth line, a bottom pairing defense, and a back up goalie to put your whole team together. Now it's seven forwards, three defencemen, and one goaltender or one goaltender and any eight skaters. And as Zodijackylite said, teams aren't just two lines, a checking line, and goons. They won't be amazing, but Vegas will likely be able to put together a team with at least some skill and not just over the hill guys or people who wouldn't make the league without the new team. I couldn't find anything online, but did the names of unprotected players in the last draft ever get released, or just who was claimed?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Hahahhahaa holy poo poo that owns
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
While the name is pretty bland, I don't have a "wait that really is the name?" reaction to it the way I did when I saw the New Orleans Pelicans.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
The payoff of the delay is going to be even better when they go with something that is blatantly obvious/bland/totally loving sucks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
AsInHowe posted:JAMOKE UPDATE There is no chance they don't mess this up and it will be glorious. Like 300 guy for the Senators glorious.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:The Seattle Hawks Lest we not forget the Supersonics.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Yeah. Losing Fleury is one of those things that I know is what is best for the team, but I'm not going to be happy when it does. He would be great in LV though, he's the kind of person who would do a ton of public appearances and absolutely embrace the chance to be a face of a new franchise.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
As someone who pays as no attention to the NBA as possible, how likely are they to get a team back in Seattle? Do they have any move candidates or would they get an expansion team? I know the Oklahoma City move was full of bullshit, but if you have someone who wants to build an arena for hockey/basketball at no expense to the city, shouldn't the league be all over it?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Is the Seattle council still trying to use the excuse of "We don't want to build unless we're guaranteed basketball"? I want to say that during this saga one of the hold ups was the council not caring that the arena would definitely have a hockey team and possibly basketball when the NBA got to it because without the NBA it was a non-starter. I'm more curious what the NBA would do. Move a failing market (if there are any? Sacramento was the last team I heard having issues but I think that got resolved.) Expand to 31 teams? Unless the NBA is an old boys club I don't see why they aren't all over this idea and throwing support to it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Vegas has the luxury of offering money, term, and ice time that other teams probably can't or won't. I don't remember the circumstances of Radulov signing in Montreal, but he only got a one year deal while being a more proven commodity (albeit with some baggage). I can't imagine many other teams lining up to give a 30 year old career international player two years at 4.5.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
I fully expect them to gently caress it up but EA sent out a survey a few weeks ago that promised an expansion mode for NHL 18. They specifically mention the ability to play as the Knights or to add a 32nd team and go through the whole expansion process, although you can't see from the screen shots if you can do a draft for Vegas itself. I was hoping they would add a mode like this, even if the gameplay hasn't changed much/still has a ton of flaws.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 03:25 |
|
|
MononcQc posted:if they move the flames to Quebec City, change the logo for a big flaming Q, I won't care that quebecor owns them and would likely root for "les Q en feu" just for the pun. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 04:01
|
|