Unsigned UFAs as of August 1, 2010

1) Kovalchuk turned down a contract to stay with Atlanta. This was confirmed by Don Waddell here. Kovalchuk had no desire to sign with a non-contender. By August 1 he was negotiating with only New Jersey and LA. The chances of an expansion team being able to sign Kovalchuk are slim. Please explain how an expansion team would be able to beat out New Jersey and LA for Kovalchuk’s services.

2) Anti Niemi and Turco are both attached to the Blackhawks. If you signed Turco the Hawks would not have walked away from Niemi. You’ll need to find another goaltender. That shouldn’t be too hard.

3) is this team cap compliant? Many of the players on this list took less to stay with good teams. For an expansion team to sign them they would have to pay a premium. Have you taken this in to account?

4) If these players are on a new team what players fill these roles on other teams? Kovy is with New Jersey. Turco with Chicago. Stempniak with Phoenix. Mitchell is signed. So is Clarke McArthur. What would those other teams do? If you add a team and create wholes on other teams you show only that the talent is too thin. How would the teams that didn’t get these players fill these spots. Particularly difficult will be Kovalchuk and the Devils and Stempniak and the Coyotes. Each of those teams will see a serious reduction in talent without those players.

5) I thought you’ve been contending that two teams would be added. What is the other teams roster? Adding only one team would not work schedule-wise.

6) Even if Kovalchuk is signed to one of these expansion teams who are the other 5 top line players (2 teams with 3 players per top line is six players total)? My contention has been from the start that there is not sufficient top line talent to support two additional NHL teams. You’ve yet to comment on that.

7) If you sign Stempniak from Phoenix and add two new teams that will likely receive revenue sharing next season what are the financial impacts on the Coyotes? Taking a top player from Phoenix will have a negative impact on the Coyotes ability to compete. The inability of the Coyotes will likely have a negative impact on the teams ability to sell tickets as the fan base would be upset a high talent was not retained. The result is a less competitive team that will draw less that will get less revenue sharing because that pot of money is now being split by two additional teams. What happens to the Coyotes? If you add teams but turn the Coyotes in to a non-viable team then you’ve failed.

7) If you say that the Coyotes are kept in business by expansion fees generated by new teams then explain how Stempniak is not re-signed by the Coyotes. Additionally, if all other teams split this money explain how the Predators, Hurricanes, and other teams with a self imposed cap below the NHL cap explain the impact this will have on free agency.

Also, please respond to my analysis of AHL vs NHL attendance in the other thread. It’s been up since about noon yesterday and you’ve posted numerous times on that thread but evaded that post every time. Is there a reason you need to evade that analysis?

AHL signings, drafting, NCAA signings,

European League signings, and KHL signings

Who are these players. If a player in the Euro leagues or KHL was able and willing to play in the NHL now why aren’t they? You can’t simply claim there is talent over there so I can count that. You need to show how and why they would come over. Given that they are not over now it would appear that the players in those leagues are either 1)incapabale of playing effectively at the NHL level, or 2) unwilling to come play in the NHL. I’m not certain how adding a team affects that.

Yes, Kovalchuk is indeed an unsigned UFA on August 1, 2010. Yes, he is

unsigned. He counts. He is included. Count Kovalchuk in.

You cannot simply stipulate this and consider it a thought experiment for supporting expansion. There is always talent on the free agent market. In this new CBA there is always the ability to build a team from free agents. Montreal turned over half of their team last year and was able to compete and go deep in to the playoffs. Saying that there is talent on the market to build a team is not the same as saying there is sufficient talent to expand. You can shuffle a deck of cards all you want, that doesn’t mean you’ll somehow get to viable decks. Or, if you prefer this, you can shuffle 30 decks of cards all you want that doesn’t mean you’ll get 32 viable decks. Every one of those 32 decks will be missing a few cards.

Check out this wrap up from the TSN and Globe and Mail joint series titled “Why Not Canada?” which examined the viability of new teams in Canada.

Below is a direct quote from the article:

The NHL Salary Cap will be $58.5 million during the 2010-11 season. So could smaller markets such as Quebec City and Winnipeg afford to compete at the cap, along side the NHL’s other six franchises. Probably not.

Now, TSN and the Globe and Mail are in Canada. At the very least they are objective and in all actually are probably somewhat support the idea of having more teams in Canada. Inspite of all this and using the best analysis available to them they found that smaller Canadian markets are likely not able to support an NHL franchise at current salary cap levels. On top of this their analysis assumed a sell out for all 41 regular season home games. While that is not out of the question it’s certainly not assured.

So even under the best of circumstances two new teams in Canada are likely to need revenue sharing to be viable. If those two teams are to get revenue sharing then that will eat in to the pie of revenue sharing funds thereby reducing the funds available to Phoenix, Nashville, Atlanta and Florida. This will put these teams in an even deeper hole when it comes to trying to compete which could further reduce the ability of those teams to compete which could increase the need for revenue sharing funds which would then ripple throughout the NHL as a whole.

Financially the NHL cannot afford to expand. The NHL would be better off from a financial perspective in relocating the most struggling franchises (Phoenix and Atlanta) to markets where they will at the least struggle less, and potentially be economically viable. If the NHL could move two teams this would reduce the number of locations that could support expansion teams also further limiting the leagues ability to expand.