Bettman messed it up!

[toby91_ca 620]

So all his decisions are concerned with the almighty dollar (US)

Some are predicting that the Canadian dollar will be worth more than the US dollar by the end of the year

Currently at 0.95 I think.

[vangvace 12]

Bettman's biggest mistake was expanding the league to 30 teams. That just doesn't work with hockey, because there simply aren't enough good players to go around. The NBA can handle 30 teams because every team pretty much needs 5 decent players. A hockey team needs 20, and when only 3 of them have any kind of skill and the rest are bums who run over each other, who is gonna watch?

Red Wings games were far more exciting 4 or 5 years ago, when our team was the Western All-Stars. Now, we've got Datsyuk and Zetterberg, and when those 2 aren't on the ice, the game is just stale. They skate up and down the ice, dump the puck in, change, and skate around some more until a power play comes. I bet Ducks fans really cared 4 years ago, when the only player they had that made something happen was Kariya.

The only way to fix the NHL is to cut the number of teams, but that's not going to happen. On the contrary, Bettman has been talking about adding even more teams.

If the league were still almost strictly NA players I might agree with you. However, with the influx of players overseas (hell even the states), 30 properly placed teams can thrive. No they aren't first line players, but the league has never been first line only. The majority of any league are it's journeymen, the second-fourth lines, who's game has greatly improved over the years.

Sadly, more tweaking still has to be done, but contraction isn't the answer because at this point it will just bottleneck the game even more.

[evilmrt 636]

Good point made in the article, one I had mostly forgotten....

In 1994, after the Rangers won the Stanley Cup, there existed another universal view of the game, a view that was diametrically opposite to the one held today. At that time, the NHL was seen as the league poised for stardom.

So naturally, Bettman did what he does best. He shut the league down. It was only half a year that time, but it brought the league's momentum to a screeching halt.

And it has gone downhill ever since.

I remember how the attitude towards the NHL was back then after the Rangers won. Granted, it WAS Michigan....but it wasn't Detroit. And people were actually interested in OTHER teams than just the Wings. I haven't seen that in a while, and didn't think much of it until now.

Nobody here in Arizona seems to even know the Stanley Cup Finals are on. Phoenix Coyotes....whos that? All they know are the Phoenix Suns (yes, the Diamondbacks and Cardinals, too). If this league is supposed to be on the level of the other major leagues....why the hell doesn't anyone know (or care) about it?

The Preds guy says we're a bunch of whiners. Yeah I'm going to whine if people think I must be from Canada if I'm a hockey fan. Bettman has done an EXCELLENT job.

Keep up the good work, buddy!

[eva unit zero 271]

You all need to get a serious freaking clue.

[/font]

Bettman didn't join the league until 1993. At that point, there were 26 teams in the league, and the 30-team plan had ALREADY BEEN DECIDED.

The only expansion decision Bettman was involved in was which of the 11 bids would get the four teams to make the number 30.

Let's look at those again, shall we:

Columbus--decent sized city with no major pro sports, but rabid college fans.

Hamilton--Suburb of Toronto that wants to use Copps Coliseum rather than build an NHL-level arena.

Houston--Four bids from Houston with similar plans, put in while Dallas was still securing its market.

Atlanta--Former NHL city; Major city in an area fairly devoid of hockey.

Minneapolis/St. Paul--Everyone said it was a disgrace when the Stars moved.

Portland--A major city with an old but serviceable arena, but relatively nearby Vancouver was struggling with attendance at the time.

Nashville--a good-sized city with no professional sports over four hours away from the nearest NHL market.

Oklahoma City--good sized city with ok arena plan, but like Houston could have potentially threatened the Stars.

Houston and OKC are dismissed right away because of potential threat to Dallas. Portland is gone because of Vancouver. That leaves five bids for four teams. The Hamilton refused to submit a new arena plan when asked to come up with something other than Copps Coliseum. That and they would be inside Leafs territory--don't think Toronto wasn't hugely vocal against that.

This leaves four cities to host four teams.

Also--the contracts with Versus and NBC are only viewed as small because it's compared with the contract BETTMAN negotiated with ESPN. IIRC the Versus and NBC deals make the league more money that any NHL TV deal negotiated pre-Bettman.

A few notes:

Cleveland had an NHL team. It failed. It merged with Minnesota in the 70s, split back off in the 90s, and is now located in San Jose. Columbus supports their team better than Cleveland ever did.

Winnipeg did not suport the Jets. Phoenix, which 'barely knows' about the NHL, does a better job of supporting an NHL team than 'hockey cities' Winnipeg and Hartford. Quebec moving was a result of a total lack of corporate support, due to the cultural dominance of Montreal.

Let's look at one more thing:

Teams that have moved in the 14 years since Bettman took over: Hartford/Carolina, Quebec/Colorado, Minnesota/Dallas, Winnipeg/Phoenix

Four of the original 26 teams when Bettman took over. 15.3% moved.

Teams that moved between 1979 and 1993, the 14 years prior to Bettman: Atlanta/Calgary, Colorado/New Jersey, Minnesota(Cleveland)/San Jose.

3 of the original 17 teams from 1979. 17.6% moved.

So while you sit and complain about Bettman moving teams, the fact is that a smaller percentage of teams moved under Bettman than in the 14 years before him. Looking back another 11 years to the 'Original 12', in the span between 1968 and 1978, California/Oakland moved twice--first to Cleveland, and then merging with the North Stars. That's 16.7%.

Chance of teams moving under Bettman: Lower than it has been for any period of comparable length since the Original Six.

[vangvace 12]

foxsports

Those of you who remember commissioner Gary Bettman's assurance that the salary cap he needed to impose would keep ticket prices down might wonder about this.

Bettman could have prevented the year-long shutdown of the league by accepting a PA proposal that would have set payrolls at approximately $42 million. He refused, saying that such a figure was beyond the reach of owners. Two years later, we're at $50 million.

And if you're wondering how the cap figure can go so high, it's because revenues increased. Where did these revenue increases come from? They're almost totally the result of ticket-price increases.

Soon, Gary will once again tell us how he did it all for the fans.

In fact, the fans have been given a league driven by parity, a league devoid of powerhouse teams. And they're having to pay more for the privilege.

For this, the league was shut down for a year and interest was all but destroyed in the United States.

[evilmrt 636]

You all need to get a serious freaking clue.

You need to properly format your Bettman praising.

Isn't it fun disagreeing?

[Goulet! 0]

Goulet! appreciates eva unit zero's comments.

Here is a question for everyone, one that has not yet been asked (that Goulet! can find) but may be at the heart of the matter. Do the stateside fans (no offense to Goulet!'s Canadian brethren) here really want to see the NHL in the same 'popularity club' as MLB, NFL, NBA, NASCAR, Goulet!? The purists of each have made arguments very similar to those being made here regarding NHL's current circumstances and possible future. For those of us in the States, do we really and truly want weekly regional coverage and at least one national game of the week? Consider what goes along with that before answering.

[TheDude 0]

Blaming Bettman for the state of the NHL is so beyond stale. The past stoppage was because owners could not control their spending...players were getting contracts that clearly were unrealistic for the sport, and had to be reduced significantly for the survival of the game. All leagues suffer from stoppages, and since the NHL is a fringe/regional sport this trend has been accentuated. Clearly Bettman got the best tv deal that was available to him at the time.

Under his leadership the NHL has recently taken a large part of the obstruction and interference out of the game. Sure there have been growing pains, but it is clearly better that the wwe like takedowns that were prevalent before this have been significantly reduced. Don't believe me? Go watch some playoff highlights from 1998 or earlier(hint 1995 Devils).

Those of you who are putting all of the problems the NHL faces on him just aren't looking at the situation objectively. He is no Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis. Bettman has been receptive to imput from all angles, which includes the implimentation of things like the competitive committee to make changes to improve the overall state of the game.

Finally, the "instigator rule" I think is a good thing, and before any of you jump on me read it heres a direct quote

2006-07 NHL rulebook

Section 6 47.3 (pp. 145-146 in pdf format)

"The aggressor in an altercation shall be the player(or goalkeeper) who continues to throw punches in an attempt to inflict punishment on his opponent who is in a defensless position or is an unwilling combatant. A player(or goalkeeper) must be deemed the aggressor when he has clearly won the fight but continues throwing and landing punches in a further attempt to imflict punishment and/or injury on his opponent who is no longer in a position to defend himself."

here's the kicker and where the rule is not understood...

"A player or goalkeeper who is deemed to be the aggressor of an altercation will have this recorded as an aggressor of an altercation for statistical and suspension purposes."

"A player or goalkeeper who is deemed to be both the instigator and aggressor of an altercation shall be assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting, a ten-minute misconduct(instigator) and a game misconduct penalty(aggressor).

The instigator rule is clearly something that should not be removed from the game when looking at the rule as it actually is and not by misconceptions of it, because for one of the fighters to continue to throw punches when his opponent doesn't want to fight or is an undefensable position is busch league and has no business in the NHL.

[Drimo 0]

Do I watch the game [on Versus]?

No, because I don't got it! Not all cable companies are willing to pay these high prices which Comcast forks to these other companies for a channel that is probably outdrawn by your local PBS station.

Agreed! My cable company (Time Warner) does not provide Versus either. I have been calling them every week and submitting requests online at http://www.timewarnercable.com/cincinnati/...r/feedback.html to help raise their awareness that there are people who want to watch Versus.

I am sick of going to BW3 to watch the games. The last time I went, it was game 3 of SCF and the Pistons vs. Lebron James game was on all of the TVs except the one I requested to watch hockey. I was the only person watching hockey and BW3 management changed the channel on me 4 times because they didn't like hockey. Of course, I complained to the manager and he apologized, but it angers me that of the 1 TV showing hockey, people requested to have it turned to the basketball game when every TV except that one was already showing basketball. I wasn't even sitting around anyone else! It just angers me that our sport does not get more respect, nor do the fans get respect from other people.

[vangvace 12]

Under his leadership the NHL has recently taken a large part of the obstruction and interference out of the game. Sure there have been growing pains, but it is clearly better that the wwe like takedowns that were prevalent before this have been significantly reduced. Don't believe me? Go watch some playoff highlights from 1998 or earlier(hint 1995 Devils).

Those of you who are putting all of the problems the NHL faces on him just aren't looking at the situation objectively. He is no Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis. Bettman has been receptive to imput from all angles, which includes the implimentation of things like the competitive committee to make changes to improve the overall state of the game.

Finally, the "instigator rule" I think is a good thing, and before any of you jump on me read it heres a direct quote

2006-07 NHL rulebook

Section 6 47.3 (pp. 145-146 in pdf format)

"The aggressor in an altercation shall be the player(or goalkeeper) who continues to throw punches in an attempt to inflict punishment on his opponent who is in a defensless position or is an unwilling combatant. A player(or goalkeeper) must be deemed the aggressor when he has clearly won the fight but continues throwing and landing punches in a further attempt to imflict punishment and/or injury on his opponent who is no longer in a position to defend himself."

here's the kicker and where the rule is not understood...

"A player or goalkeeper who is deemed to be the aggressor of an altercation will have this recorded as an aggressor of an altercation for statistical and suspension purposes."

"A player or goalkeeper who is deemed to be both the instigator and aggressor of an altercation shall be assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting, a ten-minute misconduct(instigator) and a game misconduct penalty(aggressor).

The instigator rule is clearly something that should not be removed from the game when looking at the rule as it actually is and not by misconceptions of it, because for one of the fighters to continue to throw punches when his opponent doesn't want to fight or is an undefensable position is busch league and has no business in the NHL.

SystematicErrosion of the game

Slam sports

STPeteTimes

Foxsports

The instigator rule was put in place for a few reasons, curb fighting, prevent stars from being dragged into fights, line brawls and (In my opinion) bring in cooperate sponsors.

While I do see the point of 47.12 (last 5 mins.) and kinda agree with it, the instigator rule as a whole stinks.

It used to be just an extra minor, but now you get the 2-5-10 plus work your way towards a quick suspension even if you get your ass handed to you because you started it. As it stands now 3 fights = 2 games gone and add another game every time after that. Many of the players want it gone and many superstars have spoken out against it. The GMs have put the request in to get that changed to 5 games but...

Finally, and most important, your confusing the aggressor part with the instigator part of the 47 series. The aggressor part nobody has a problem with to my knowledge. The instigator is a different story though.

47.11 Instigator - An instigator of an altercation shall be a player or goalkeeper who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria:

distance traveled

gloves off first

first punch thrown

menacing attitude or posture

verbal instigation or threats

conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident

obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season.

all subjectively given out though of course

Edited June 5, 2007 by vangvace

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Blaming Bettman for the state of the NHL is so beyond stale. The past stoppage was because owners could not control their spending...players were getting contracts that clearly were unrealistic for the sport, and had to be reduced significantly for the survival of the game. All leagues suffer from stoppages, and since the NHL is a fringe/regional sport this trend has been accentuated. Clearly Bettman got the best tv deal that was available to him at the time.

Under his leadership the NHL has recently taken a large part of the obstruction and interference out of the game. Sure there have been growing pains, but it is clearly better that the wwe like takedowns that were prevalent before this have been significantly reduced. Don't believe me? Go watch some playoff highlights from 1998 or earlier(hint 1995 Devils).

Those of you who are putting all of the problems the NHL faces on him just aren't looking at the situation objectively. He is no Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis. Bettman has been receptive to imput from all angles, which includes the implimentation of things like the competitive committee to make changes to improve the overall state of the game.

Finally, the "instigator rule" I think is a good thing, and before any of you jump on me read it heres a direct quote**edited for length***

It's Bettman's job to oversee the owners and try to get them to act in the best interest of the league. Yes the owners couldn't control themselves, but a better commish probably could've avoided losing a season. Remember that Bettman was responsible for the deal that put the league so out of whack when he locked the players out half a season in 95.

Much lke his inability to get the one vote needed for the two-thirds majority in changing the schedule. Instead it falls one short because of 11 greedy short sighted owners, and Bettman once again spouts to the press how fans love the current schedule.

As for taking obstruction out of the game, Bettman denied for a decade that there was even a problem, saying crap how fans come up to him and say how much they love the game and quoting some fictional poll. It wasn't until he and the other idiot Goodenow caused the shutdown before they finally addressed the clutching and grabbing.

And if you remember a lot of that was led by the players, Shanahan in particular. Not Bettman. You're excusing him and awful lot while at the same time crediting him with something he didn't start.

With the instigator rule, the language you quoted is very different from how the rule is implemented. But that's just a minor point in my dislike for Bettman.

I just don't understand people who give him a free pass. He is the commissioner of the NHL. Who else if not him is ultimately responsible for the state of the game? It's like saying Ken Lay and Skilling aren't at fault for running Enron into the ground because they're not accountants, it's a big company and there's a lot of people giving input.

Edited June 5, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[TheDude 0]

@vangvance

The aggressor portion of the rule is important to the overall rule, because without that there is no instigator and other subsequent misconduct penalties as defined. The conjunction "and" implies that both "instigator" and "aggressor" must be present for a instigator penalty to be assessed.

"A player or goalkeeper who is deemed to be both the instigator and aggressor of an altercation shall be assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting, a ten-minute misconduct(instigator) and a game misconduct penalty(aggressor).

Whatever problems arise are found in the interpretation of the rule, not the rule itself. My thoughts are Bettman has been unfairly criticized--like the instigator rule, and that's why I brought it up. Both are not perfect, but completely scrapping them isn't prudent either.

Edited June 5, 2007 by TheDude

[rick zombo 3,739]

You all need to get a serious freaking clue.

[/font]

Bettman didn't join the league until 1993. At that point, there were 26 teams in the league, and the 30-team plan had ALREADY BEEN DECIDED.

The only expansion decision Bettman was involved in was which of the 11 bids would get the four teams to make the number 30.

Let's look at those again, shall we:

Columbus--decent sized city with no major pro sports, but rabid college fans.

Hamilton--Suburb of Toronto that wants to use Copps Coliseum rather than build an NHL-level arena.

Houston--Four bids from Houston with similar plans, put in while Dallas was still securing its market.

Atlanta--Former NHL city; Major city in an area fairly devoid of hockey.

Minneapolis/St. Paul--Everyone said it was a disgrace when the Stars moved.

Portland--A major city with an old but serviceable arena, but relatively nearby Vancouver was struggling with attendance at the time.

Nashville--a good-sized city with no professional sports over four hours away from the nearest NHL market.

Oklahoma City--good sized city with ok arena plan, but like Houston could have potentially threatened the Stars.

Houston and OKC are dismissed right away because of potential threat to Dallas. Portland is gone because of Vancouver. That leaves five bids for four teams. The Hamilton refused to submit a new arena plan when asked to come up with something other than Copps Coliseum. That and they would be inside Leafs territory--don't think Toronto wasn't hugely vocal against that.

This leaves four cities to host four teams.

Also--the contracts with Versus and NBC are only viewed as small because it's compared with the contract BETTMAN negotiated with ESPN. IIRC the Versus and NBC deals make the league more money that any NHL TV deal negotiated pre-Bettman.

A few notes:

Cleveland had an NHL team. It failed. It merged with Minnesota in the 70s, split back off in the 90s, and is now located in San Jose. Columbus supports their team better than Cleveland ever did.

Winnipeg did not suport the Jets. Phoenix, which 'barely knows' about the NHL, does a better job of supporting an NHL team than 'hockey cities' Winnipeg and Hartford. Quebec moving was a result of a total lack of corporate support, due to the cultural dominance of Montreal.

Let's look at one more thing:

Teams that have moved in the 14 years since Bettman took over: Hartford/Carolina, Quebec/Colorado, Minnesota/Dallas, Winnipeg/Phoenix

Four of the original 26 teams when Bettman took over. 15.3% moved.

Teams that moved between 1979 and 1993, the 14 years prior to Bettman: Atlanta/Calgary, Colorado/New Jersey, Minnesota(Cleveland)/San Jose.

3 of the original 17 teams from 1979. 17.6% moved.

So while you sit and complain about Bettman moving teams, the fact is that a smaller percentage of teams moved under Bettman than in the 14 years before him. Looking back another 11 years to the 'Original 12', in the span between 1968 and 1978, California/Oakland moved twice--first to Cleveland, and then merging with the North Stars. That's 16.7%.

Chance of teams moving under Bettman: Lower than it has been for any period of comparable length since the Original Six.

All good points.

But you can't overlook the fact that Bettman inherited a healthy league in 93. In 1994, the league NHL was growing in poularity.

It has been on a downward twist ever since.

Who do you blame?Jacques Lemaire? Kurt Cobain? Or the NHL Commissioner?

Edited June 5, 2007 by rick zombo

[TheDude 0]

It's Bettman's job to oversee the owners and try to get them to act in the best interest of the league. Yes the owners couldn't control themselves, but a better commish probably could've avoided losing a season. Remember that Bettman was responsible for the deal that put the league so out of whack when he locked the players out half a season in 95.

Much lke his inability to get the one vote needed for the two-thirds majority in changing the schedule. Instead it falls one short because of 11 greedy short sighted owners, and Bettman once again spouts to the press how fans love the current schedule.

As for taking obstruction out of the game, Bettman denied for a decade that there was even a problem, saying crap how fans come up to him and say how much they love the game and quoting some fictional poll. It wasn't until he and the other idiot Goodenow caused the shutdown before they finally addressed the clutching and grabbing.

And if you remember a lot of that was led by the players, Shanahan in particular. Not Bettman. You're excusing him and awful lot while at the same time crediting him with something he didn't start.

With the instigator rule, the language you quoted is very different from how the rule is implemented. But that's just a minor point in my dislike for Bettman.

I just don't understand people who give him a free pass. He is the commissioner of the NHL. Who else if not him is ultimately responsible for the state of the game? It's like saying Ken Lay and Skilling aren't at fault for running Enron into the ground because they're not accountants, it's a big company and there's a lot of people giving input.

I should have been a bit more carefull in regards to the word choice in my first post. It could be seen as giving Bettman a free pass, but that was not my intention or how I feel about him as a commissioner. He has made mistakes, but IMO criticism of him has gone a bit overboard. Yes I do realize he didnt get the ball rolling on the competitive committee. My point was he has been at times(not always) receptive to opposing viewpoints.

[Winged Scooter 0]

Cleveland had an NHL team. It failed. It merged with Minnesota in the 70s, split back off in the 90s, and is now located in San Jose. Columbus supports their team better than Cleveland ever did.

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect, Minnesota may have merged with a Cleveland team, but Minnesota moved to Dallas in the early 90's, San Jose was a true expansion team.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

All good points.

But you can't overlook the fact that Bettman inherited a healthy league in 93. In 1994, the league NHL was growing in poularity.

It has been on a downward twist ever since.

Who do you blame?Jacques Lemaire? Kurt Cobain? Or the NHL Commissioner?

I think that's the best and the simplest way to judge Bettman's effectiveness.

Where the league was at in 1994 and where it is now.

(R.I.P Kurt Cobain) :rockstar:

Edited June 5, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[rick zombo 3,739]

I think that's the best and the simplest way to judge Bettman's effectiveness.

Where the league was at in 1994 and where it is now.

(R.I.P Kurt Cobain) :rockstar:

Indeed.

[DEVILSWATERBOY 10]

huh

Yeah Columbus has been confusing. Maybe he took population numbers during the Mich-OSU game?

read post #8 and you may understand what I meant,why 3 teams in California,2 in Florida 1 in Carolina why not put these teams were fans are at that actually understand the game this is only 1 area Bettman has messed up Bettman step down,leave, quit, resign or just plan get out of Dodge

Edited June 5, 2007 by DEVILSWATERBOY

[vangvace 12]

@vangvance

The aggressor portion of the rule is important to the overall rule, because without that there is no instigator and other subsequent misconduct penalties as defined. The conjunction "and" implies that both "instigator" and "aggressor" must be present for a instigator penalty to be assessed.

"A player or goalkeeper who is deemed to be both the instigator and aggressor of an altercation shall be assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting, a ten-minute misconduct(instigator) and a game misconduct penalty(aggressor).

Whatever problems arise are found in the interpretation of the rule, not the rule itself. My thoughts are Bettman has been unfairly criticized--like the instigator rule, and that's why I brought it up. Both are not perfect, but completely scrapping them isn't prudent either.

Very true. Llook at 47.11 and 47.21 because those both apply without the inclusion of "aggressor".

Nobody has a problem with the aggressor portion of it to my knowledge but many have a problem with instigator side of it.

Aggressor keeps the stars from being mugged.

Instigator, as it stands now, leaves the protection of said stars to the refs and the NHL...

[stlwing14 0]

Shanny will become Commish after another season with the Rangers. Involvement in ending the lock-out and being a fan favorite on the teams he has been on esp (Saint Louis, Detroit, and NYC) would make him one of the better replacements. Whether that turns out good or not is a different story. But I doubt it can get any worse than what the league has become now.

[Jwo 7]

Agreed! My cable company (Time Warner) does not provide Versus either. I have been calling them every week and submitting requests online at http://www.timewarnercable.com/cincinnati/...r/feedback.html to help raise their awareness that there are people who want to watch Versus.

I am sick of going to BW3 to watch the games. The last time I went, it was game 3 of SCF and the Pistons vs. Lebron James game was on all of the TVs except the one I requested to watch hockey. I was the only person watching hockey and BW3 management changed the channel on me 4 times because they didn't like hockey. Of course, I complained to the manager and he apologized, but it angers me that of the 1 TV showing hockey, people requested to have it turned to the basketball game when every TV except that one was already showing basketball. I wasn't even sitting around anyone else! It just angers me that our sport does not get more respect, nor do the fans get respect from other people.

After the second time you should of demanded free beer and food.

[eva unit zero 271]

Cleveland had an NHL team. It failed. It merged with Minnesota in the 70s, split back off in the 90s, and is now located in San Jose. Columbus supports their team better than Cleveland ever did.

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect, Minnesota may have merged with a Cleveland team, but Minnesota moved to Dallas in the early 90's, San Jose was a true expansion team.

George and Gordon Gund owned the California Golden Seals, which later became the Cleveland Barons. This team then merged with the Minnesota North Stars. The Gunds became the owners of the merged franchise through a buyout process overseen by NHL President John Ziegler. In 1990, the Gunds wanted to move the North Stars to the San Francisco Bay Area. Their move request was denied. Instead, Ziegler allowed them to sell the franchise and awarded them a new one, the Sharks. The Stars would protect 14 skaters and 2 goalies, and the Sharks would then select the same from the organization's remaining player pool. The two teams then took turns selecting players until the Sharks roster reached 30 players. After this, an expansion draft was held in which each team drafted ten players.

Simply put, the Gunds merged their franchise with Minnesota throug ha buyout, and then split off again from the North Stars, selling off the Minnesota franchise they had acquired in the process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_NHL_Disp...xpansion_Drafts

Edited June 6, 2007 by eva unit zero