| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
icey23
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 5723
Location: Louisiana
Back to top |
 Posted: 05/17/18 5:51 pm ::: Make a W Team |
Reply  |
|
| Ok since everyone seems to think the league needs more teams,make your WNBA team with all currently unsigned players!!
_________________
WIN THE DAY
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22472
Location: NJ
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/17/18 6:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
With two expansion teams, basically all current 6th woman get moved into starting roles. With two more teams, the following 24 players would've [likely] made a roster.
PGs:
Lindsey Allen
Sydney Colson
Morgan William
Alexis Peterson
SGs:
Carlie Wagner
Camille Zimmerman
Alex Harden
Jeanette Pohlen-Mavunga
Allison Hightower
SFs:
Jordan Hooper
Karlie Samuelson
Shakayla Thomas
Adaora Elonu
Aleksandra Crvendakic
Posts:
Emma Cannon
Mercedes Russell
Kaylee Jensen
Erlana Larkins
Mistie Bass
Reshanda Gray
Endy Miyem
Dev Peters
Cayla George
Evelyn Akhator
_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/17/18 6:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| That would be a terrible team. But I do like the concept. Perhaps it should start with fans of each team choosing 3 or 4 players to "protect" from their respective teams, and then have people create a team from unprotected/unsigned players, with the restriction that no more than one player can be taken from any single team.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6794
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/17/18 9:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
In an expansion draft you have access to slightly better players but I will give it a shot
Latta/L. Allen
Pohlen-Mavunga/Colson/Harden
S. Thomas/A. Prince
Cannon/George/Bass
Larkins/Hamson or A. Robinson
|
|
SpaceJunkie
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 4241
Location: Minnesota
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/17/18 9:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| That would be a terrible team. But I do like the concept. Perhaps it should start with fans of each team choosing 3 or 4 players to "protect" from their respective teams, and then have people create a team from unprotected/unsigned players, with the restriction that no more than one player can be taken from any single team. |
I didn't follow the WNBA back during the last expansion teams, so how many players normally get protected by each team, and where would the expansion team pick in the rookie draft?
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/17/18 9:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| J-Spoon wrote: |
In an expansion draft you have access to slightly better players but I will give it a shot
|
Quite a bit better if you consider there would 6 or 7 players who currently have a job, which would be available from every team.
For instance who would CT protect?
Let's say: JJ, Chiney, AT, JT, and Courtney Williams. Maybe they get to protect one more, but that leaves Bentley, Tuck, B.Holmes, Strick, Laney, and L. Brown for picking. Depending on need, but any of these first three especially would be a nice acquisition.
Of Washington: Say EDD, K. Thomas, Meeseman, Hill, and Toliver. So now Sanders, Cloud, Mo, TRP, SWK, Atkins, and T. Hawk are available.
In the past of course teams could 'cheat' by having UFAs who they didn't protect and couldn't be taken, but close that loophole and you can get some quality players. Not allstars but I'm guessing you could make up a team that was as good as/ better than the current Indiana team for instance...especially if the new teams got to participate in the lottery as well.
The point is that a new team would be made up of 6th/7th players on current rosters, not the ones listed that got waived. Those waived would of course be less likely to be waived as they would fill in at the bottom of rosters which lost their current #6,#7 players. I really think there's enough talent right now for two expansion teams. Clay always disagrees, but he is the perpetual pessimist in this particular argument.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/17/18 9:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| SpaceJunkie wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| That would be a terrible team. But I do like the concept. Perhaps it should start with fans of each team choosing 3 or 4 players to "protect" from their respective teams, and then have people create a team from unprotected/unsigned players, with the restriction that no more than one player can be taken from any single team. |
I didn't follow the WNBA back during the last expansion teams, so how many players normally get protected by each team, and where would the expansion team pick in the rookie draft? |
Pilight can give you the exact data, but in general as I remember it, teams could protect 6 players, then there were UFAs which couldn't be picked. Actually I think each expansion team could pick one UFA and core them. They weren't in the lottery but had the 5th spot after the lottery teams in the draft.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66881
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/17/18 10:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| SpaceJunkie wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| That would be a terrible team. But I do like the concept. Perhaps it should start with fans of each team choosing 3 or 4 players to "protect" from their respective teams, and then have people create a team from unprotected/unsigned players, with the restriction that no more than one player can be taken from any single team. |
I didn't follow the WNBA back during the last expansion teams, so how many players normally get protected by each team, and where would the expansion team pick in the rookie draft? |
Pilight can give you the exact data, but in general as I remember it, teams could protect 6 players, then there were UFAs which couldn't be picked. Actually I think each expansion team could pick one UFA and core them. They weren't in the lottery but had the 5th spot after the lottery teams in the draft. |
It's changed every time they've done expansion. In the last one, with Atlanta, existing teams protected six and the Dream were allowed to select one UFA. Atlanta was given the #4 pick in the draft.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6794
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/17/18 10:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| J-Spoon wrote: |
In an expansion draft you have access to slightly better players but I will give it a shot
Latta/L. Allen
Pohlen-Mavunga/Colson/Harden
S. Thomas/A. Prince
Cannon/George/Bass
Larkins/Hamson or A. Robinson |
I agree with everything Myrtle said, the truth is if you added like 2 top 30 players to the team above they would immediately be competitive, not contenders but competitive. That is the difficulty for expansion team you need a couple (or a bunch) of top 30 players to be a true top team.
You need a little top talent more than a bunch of middling talent.
Looking at the team above you add say a McCoughtry and a Dolson two players that fall from 11-26 you probably have a decent squad.
Latta/L. Allen
Pohlen-Mavunga/Colson/Harden
McCoughtry/S. Thomas
Cannon/George
Dolson/Larkins/A. Robinson
|
|
sigur3
Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Posts: 6191
Location: Chicago-ish
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/17/18 11:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I actually had the same idea earlier today, but quickly realized that that an "all-waiver" team would automatically be the worst roster in the league. It's fun to think about, but...that team is BAD lol.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66881
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/18/18 7:05 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| sigur3 wrote: |
| I actually had the same idea earlier today, but quickly realized that that an "all-waiver" team would automatically be the worst roster in the league. It's fun to think about, but...that team is BAD lol. |
Expansion teams are always going to be bad at first. If they're not then you've waited far too long to expand.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16354
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/18/18 9:35 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| That would be a terrible team. But I do like the concept. Perhaps it should start with fans of each team choosing 3 or 4 players to "protect" from their respective teams, and then have people create a team from unprotected/unsigned players, with the restriction that no more than one player can be taken from any single team. |
Protecting 3 or 4 players would be much more generous to the expansion team that the league has ever been before.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/18/18 9:42 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| That would be a terrible team. But I do like the concept. Perhaps it should start with fans of each team choosing 3 or 4 players to "protect" from their respective teams, and then have people create a team from unprotected/unsigned players, with the restriction that no more than one player can be taken from any single team. |
Protecting 3 or 4 players would be much more generous to the expansion team that the league has ever been before. |
I agree. But it is what I would do if I were in charge of expansion (along with closing the FA loopholes). Force most teams to have to choose between leaving a solid veteran or one of their top young prospects unprotected. This would also give the expansion team actual starters to choose from rather than trying to make a team from only bench players.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11132
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/18/18 10:17 am ::: |
Reply |
|
The issue, of course, is that the existing owners decide what the expansion rules will be. Generally, in basketball, teams protect six or seven, and then once a player is taken from their roster, they get to protect another one.
So, on the bright side, take the seventh best player on each roster. A very quick and dirty look ...
Atlanta: Breland or Montgomery
Chicago: Williams or DeShields
Connecticut: Stricklen or Tuck (assuming Holmes is off the table)
Dallas: Davis, KCK or Thornton
Indiana: An expansion team right now
Las Vegas: Park? Not much here
Los Angeles: Beard or Carson
Minnesota: Probably would expose Whalen and Brunson, figuring neither would go to an expansion team
New York: Stokes, Vaughn or Zellous
Phoenix: Lyttle
Seattle: Bird (who likely wouldn't go)
Washington: Sanders or Currie
Of course you can quibble with specific names, but I think the level of player is about right -- and there would be a temptation to expose veterans who would make it clear they're not going to expansion teams.
So given the weak state of the waiver wire, the starters need to come from the above list. If the teams protect seven, remove the better of the players listed.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63758
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/18/18 10:27 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| PUmatty wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| That would be a terrible team. But I do like the concept. Perhaps it should start with fans of each team choosing 3 or 4 players to "protect" from their respective teams, and then have people create a team from unprotected/unsigned players, with the restriction that no more than one player can be taken from any single team. |
Protecting 3 or 4 players would be much more generous to the expansion team that the league has ever been before. |
I agree. But it is what I would do if I were in charge of expansion (along with closing the FA loopholes). Force most teams to have to choose between leaving a solid veteran or one of their top young prospects unprotected. This would also give the expansion team actual starters to choose from rather than trying to make a team from only bench players. |
Since the owners have a say in this, if you were in charge of expansion, I don’t believe you would have a job for long.
Instead of jumping to that extreme, how about taking a baby step to protecting 5 players? Seems more realistic. And maybe let the team participate in the lottery at the lowest odds. Baby steps. Let’s not punish teams who have built great teams. Part of the charm of owning an expansion team is building your own great team through your own efforts. Look what Laimbeer took over. It was as bad as any expansion team could be. He seems up to the task. And I’m not sure these top 3 or 4 players would be amenable to being forced to another team, especially if they’re older like Seimone Augustus.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/18/18 10:36 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| A big problem is that you don't really get much by owning an expansion team. Aside from the probable losses (in both $ and games) for several years, even if you end up with some really great players in the draft they can decide to skip town or just take a year off if they want to play in a different location. Fowles, Delle Donne and Charles (3 of the last 4 MVPs) all forced trades to play where they wanted to and even lesser players have done so as well. Theoretically, it could work in reverse, but seems to me it would be more difficult in the case of an expansion time with a losing record.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11132
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/18/18 11:13 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I can't imagine existing owners agreeing to protect five, or allowing an expansion team to have a lottery pick.
The good teams don't want to hurt their chances, and the bad teams don't want to give up a lottery pick.
If I recall correctly, which is probably unlikely, I think teams protected seven last time, and I know if I were an existing owner, that's what I would want. Presumably I've been carefully building a roster -- and by the way, WNBA GMs spend a lot more time on this than we do -- over time, and to see it blown up by an expansion draft would be very frustrating.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66881
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/18/18 11:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| If I recall correctly, which is probably unlikely, I think teams protected seven last time, and I know if I were an existing owner, that's what I would want. |
It was six.
http://www.wnba.com/archive/wnba/dream/expansiondraft_080206.html
| Quote: |
| Atlanta selected from a pool of available players as determined by each of the other 13 WNBA franchises. Each team submitted a maximum of six players who were "protected" and therefore not eligible for selection in the Expansion Draft. Atlanta had the option to choose one player from each team without regard to current contract status, provided they pick no more than one unrestricted free agent. The Dream now have the right to designate that unrestricted free agent -- Betty Lennox -- as a "core" player, giving the team exclusive negotiating rights to her in exchange for an offer of a one-year, fully guaranteed contract at the maximum salary. |
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/18/18 12:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
I can't imagine existing owners agreeing to protect five, or allowing an expansion team to have a lottery pick.
The good teams don't want to hurt their chances, and the bad teams don't want to give up a lottery pick.
If I recall correctly, which is probably unlikely, I think teams protected seven last time, and I know if I were an existing owner, that's what I would want. Presumably I've been carefully building a roster -- and by the way, WNBA GMs spend a lot more time on this than we do -- over time, and to see it blown up by an expansion draft would be very frustrating. |
Sure, people love the idea of expansion and think it would be good for the league, but yet don't want to give up any of their good players.
One of the problems of expanding a niche sport is that to get local attention the team likely needs some early success, yet too often expansion teams are forced to make do with barely edible scraps. Thus it is hard to find owners who actually want an expansion team.
The NHL's most recent expansion actually forced teams to give up quality players and that team was able to make the post season in their first year. That was a very good thing for a league that wants to increase its footprint.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24344
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/18/18 5:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
I can't imagine existing owners agreeing to protect five, or allowing an expansion team to have a lottery pick.
The good teams don't want to hurt their chances, and the bad teams don't want to give up a lottery pick.
If I recall correctly, which is probably unlikely, I think teams protected seven last time, and I know if I were an existing owner, that's what I would want. Presumably I've been carefully building a roster -- and by the way, WNBA GMs spend a lot more time on this than we do -- over time, and to see it blown up by an expansion draft would be very frustrating. |
Sure, people love the idea of expansion and think it would be good for the league, but yet don't want to give up any of their good players.
One of the problems of expanding a niche sport is that to get local attention the team likely needs some early success, yet too often expansion teams are forced to make do with barely edible scraps. Thus it is hard to find owners who actually want an expansion team.
The NHL's most recent expansion actually forced teams to give up quality players and that team was able to make the post season in their first year. That was a very good thing for a league that wants to increase its footprint. |
Also, assuming ESPN is just paying a lump sum to the league every season, each extra team means that total gets cut into one extra slice. Same for any league-wide sponsorship deals like the Verizon one. The numbers around professional sports are so murky that who knows how big of a part of total income those figures are, but that's another reason for individual owners to not necessarily be too keen on expansion. |
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21925
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/18/18 9:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
I can't imagine existing owners agreeing to protect five, or allowing an expansion team to have a lottery pick.
The good teams don't want to hurt their chances, and the bad teams don't want to give up a lottery pick.
If I recall correctly, which is probably unlikely, I think teams protected seven last time, and I know if I were an existing owner, that's what I would want. Presumably I've been carefully building a roster -- and by the way, WNBA GMs spend a lot more time on this than we do -- over time, and to see it blown up by an expansion draft would be very frustrating. |
Sure, people love the idea of expansion and think it would be good for the league, but yet don't want to give up any of their good players.
One of the problems of expanding a niche sport is that to get local attention the team likely needs some early success, yet too often expansion teams are forced to make do with barely edible scraps. Thus it is hard to find owners who actually want an expansion team.
The NHL's most recent expansion actually forced teams to give up quality players and that team was able to make the post season in their first year. That was a very good thing for a league that wants to increase its footprint. |
Teams protecting their players - fair enough.
Shitty teams protecting their lottery picks - sorry but they get no sympathy from me on that one.
If I was the league then I'd limit expansion to only 1 team per season (not that excessively rapid expansion is an issue right now anyway), and I'd give the new team the overall draft picks 1, 4, 7 & 10 so that the fans have something to get excited about.
All remaining picks would be distributed normally (so the lottery that year would effectively be for picks 2, 3, 5, 6)
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
Aladyyn
Joined: 23 Jul 2017
Posts: 1560
Location: Czech Republic
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/19/18 4:32 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
I can't imagine existing owners agreeing to protect five, or allowing an expansion team to have a lottery pick.
The good teams don't want to hurt their chances, and the bad teams don't want to give up a lottery pick.
If I recall correctly, which is probably unlikely, I think teams protected seven last time, and I know if I were an existing owner, that's what I would want. Presumably I've been carefully building a roster -- and by the way, WNBA GMs spend a lot more time on this than we do -- over time, and to see it blown up by an expansion draft would be very frustrating. |
Sure, people love the idea of expansion and think it would be good for the league, but yet don't want to give up any of their good players.
One of the problems of expanding a niche sport is that to get local attention the team likely needs some early success, yet too often expansion teams are forced to make do with barely edible scraps. Thus it is hard to find owners who actually want an expansion team.
The NHL's most recent expansion actually forced teams to give up quality players and that team was able to make the post season in their first year. That was a very good thing for a league that wants to increase its footprint. |
The whole "teams were forced to give up good players" narrative is revisionist history. Nobody in the world thought Vegas would be anywhere near as good as they are. They got good players because NHL GMs are stupid and have no idea how to evaluate talent. And hell, 2/3 of their top line was TRADED to them. Florida didn't have to give them 2 top line forwards, nothing forced them to do it. But they still did it. That's not on expansion draft rules, that's on incompetence.
|
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5155
Location: Carson City
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/19/18 7:22 pm ::: Re: Make a W Team |
Reply |
|
| icey23 wrote: |
| Ok since everyone seems to think the league needs more teams,make your WNBA team with all currently unsigned players!! |
After watching Indiana-Chicago today it is truly difficult to argue for expansion.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/22/18 1:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Aladyyn wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
I can't imagine existing owners agreeing to protect five, or allowing an expansion team to have a lottery pick.
The good teams don't want to hurt their chances, and the bad teams don't want to give up a lottery pick.
If I recall correctly, which is probably unlikely, I think teams protected seven last time, and I know if I were an existing owner, that's what I would want. Presumably I've been carefully building a roster -- and by the way, WNBA GMs spend a lot more time on this than we do -- over time, and to see it blown up by an expansion draft would be very frustrating. |
Sure, people love the idea of expansion and think it would be good for the league, but yet don't want to give up any of their good players.
One of the problems of expanding a niche sport is that to get local attention the team likely needs some early success, yet too often expansion teams are forced to make do with barely edible scraps. Thus it is hard to find owners who actually want an expansion team.
The NHL's most recent expansion actually forced teams to give up quality players and that team was able to make the post season in their first year. That was a very good thing for a league that wants to increase its footprint. |
The whole "teams were forced to give up good players" narrative is revisionist history. Nobody in the world thought Vegas would be anywhere near as good as they are. They got good players because NHL GMs are stupid and have no idea how to evaluate talent. And hell, 2/3 of their top line was TRADED to them. Florida didn't have to give them 2 top line forwards, nothing forced them to do it. But they still did it. That's not on expansion draft rules, that's on incompetence. |
It was a combination of a bunch of things:
1...and most importantly - teams were not able to protect all the players they wanted to. The reason so many trades happened is because they didn't want to lose a player that they were unable to protect. For many teams this meant trading a young prospect to get some control over who left.
2 - the way the salary cap works in the NHL there were good players left unprotected for Vegas to choose from.
While Vegas did exceed expectations by quite a bit, the expansion draft was much more new team friendly than other drafts (past WNBA expansion drafts included). And the results were a beautiful thing. A brand new team playing for the Stanley Cup. Talk about bringing excitement to a new fan base, rather than have them suffer through years of barely watchable play before there was something to cheer for.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11132
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/22/18 9:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| Aladyyn wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
I can't imagine existing owners agreeing to protect five, or allowing an expansion team to have a lottery pick.
The good teams don't want to hurt their chances, and the bad teams don't want to give up a lottery pick.
If I recall correctly, which is probably unlikely, I think teams protected seven last time, and I know if I were an existing owner, that's what I would want. Presumably I've been carefully building a roster -- and by the way, WNBA GMs spend a lot more time on this than we do -- over time, and to see it blown up by an expansion draft would be very frustrating. |
Sure, people love the idea of expansion and think it would be good for the league, but yet don't want to give up any of their good players.
One of the problems of expanding a niche sport is that to get local attention the team likely needs some early success, yet too often expansion teams are forced to make do with barely edible scraps. Thus it is hard to find owners who actually want an expansion team.
The NHL's most recent expansion actually forced teams to give up quality players and that team was able to make the post season in their first year. That was a very good thing for a league that wants to increase its footprint. |
The whole "teams were forced to give up good players" narrative is revisionist history. Nobody in the world thought Vegas would be anywhere near as good as they are. They got good players because NHL GMs are stupid and have no idea how to evaluate talent. And hell, 2/3 of their top line was TRADED to them. Florida didn't have to give them 2 top line forwards, nothing forced them to do it. But they still did it. That's not on expansion draft rules, that's on incompetence. |
It was a combination of a bunch of things:
1...and most importantly - teams were not able to protect all the players they wanted to. The reason so many trades happened is because they didn't want to lose a player that they were unable to protect. For many teams this meant trading a young prospect to get some control over who left.
2 - the way the salary cap works in the NHL there were good players left unprotected for Vegas to choose from.
While Vegas did exceed expectations by quite a bit, the expansion draft was much more new team friendly than other drafts (past WNBA expansion drafts included). And the results were a beautiful thing. A brand new team playing for the Stanley Cup. Talk about bringing excitement to a new fan base, rather than have them suffer through years of barely watchable play before there was something to cheer for. |
It will be interesting to see if owners in other sports see the advantages of the NHL process when they consider expansion -- or default to simple greed.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
|
|
