| | Expansion Roster Spots |  |
|
|
| Expansion Roster Spots | | 12-6-1 | | 79% | [ 11 ] | | 10-6-1 | | 21% | [ 3 ] |
| | Total Votes : 14 | | | |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
buckie54-Oilers
Admin
Posts : 331
Join date : 2013-06-26
Age : 32
Location : Alberta
 |  Subject: Expansion Roster Spots  Mon May 02, 2016 11:56 am | |
| | |
|
 | |
CapsGM
Posts : 13
Join date : 2015-02-24
| | Subject: Re: Expansion Roster Spots Mon May 02, 2016 3:43 pm | |
| I would say 10-5-1, but you had already said 12-6-1. So I think we go with that.
I will lose some good players either way. It's a good thing. If you have cap issues, this can help. | |
|
| | |
Stevie Wild
Posts : 28
Join date : 2013-07-19
| | Subject: Re: Expansion Roster Spots Wed May 04, 2016 10:12 am | |
| I am voting for 12-6-1 with assuming there is no protection for youths outside of the above noted numbers: everyone not on protected lists including prospects available. | |
|
| | |
StefanK
Posts : 31
Join date : 2015-01-01
| | Subject: Re: Expansion Roster Spots Wed May 04, 2016 1:10 pm | |
| - Stevie Wild wrote:
- I am voting for 12-6-1 with assuming there is no protection for youths outside of the above noted numbers: everyone not on protected lists including prospects available.
We said a longtime ago prospects will not be part of this. Prospects are never part of any expansion. | |
|
| | |
Guest
Guest
| | Subject: Re: Expansion Roster Spots Thu May 05, 2016 12:04 pm | |
| I think either way, the new teams will have decent talent, some teams will probably need cap shedding next season anyways so theres that also |
|
| | |
IslandersGM
Posts : 76
Join date : 2014-11-09
| | Subject: Re: Expansion Roster Spots Sat May 07, 2016 12:30 pm | |
| by the rule book uncreated prospects are not eligible and theres a limit on the number of goalies and players under 24 that can be lost | |
|
| | |
IslandersGM
Posts : 76
Join date : 2014-11-09
| | Subject: Re: Expansion Roster Spots Sat May 07, 2016 12:32 pm | |
| 1A. 12 FORWARDS, 6 DEFENCEMAN, 1 GOALIE
1B. 11 FORWARDS, 5 DEFENCEMAN, 2 GOALIES
2. Max loss of one 20 year old and younger
3. Max loss of two 24 years old and younger
4. Max loss of 1 Goalie | |
|
| | |
StefanK
Posts : 31
Join date : 2015-01-01
| | Subject: Re: Expansion Roster Spots Sat May 07, 2016 4:10 pm | |
| - IslandersGM wrote:
- 1A. 12 FORWARDS, 6 DEFENCEMAN, 1 GOALIE
1B. 11 FORWARDS, 5 DEFENCEMAN, 2 GOALIES
2. Max loss of one 20 year old and younger
3. Max loss of two 24 years old and younger
4. Max loss of 1 Goalie I feel like the number need to go up with the number of players saved. That list is based off of the 8 FORWARDS, 4 DEFENCEMAN, 1 GOALIE we used the first time. The goal should have been to make two more competitive team and not have two teams that come in and struggle. We voted and saved an extra six players per team. That's more less two full teams of player that are not on the list. The number should go up the number of total player protected. 2. Max loss of TWO 20 year old and younger 3. Max loss of THREE 24 years old and younger 4. Max loss of TWO Goalie | |
|
| | |
buckie54-Oilers
Admin
Posts : 331
Join date : 2013-06-26
Age : 32
Location : Alberta
| | Subject: Re: Expansion Roster Spots Sat May 28, 2016 11:12 pm | |
| I like that idea Stefan.
.
But only losing 1 Goalie. | |
|
| | |
IslandersGM
Posts : 76
Join date : 2014-11-09
| | Subject: Re: Expansion Roster Spots Mon May 30, 2016 3:18 pm | |
| it should be left as is in the rules. theres plenty of talent for the new teams to draft with leaving as is. we are only 1 year removed from the last expansion with these rules that the Panthers and Blues had to follow these new teams should follow in the same path as those two | |
|
| | |
Sponsored content
| | Subject: Re: Expansion Roster Spots | |
| |
|
| | |
| | Expansion Roster Spots | |
|
