ODC said:
Yeah, who cares about those stupid Canadians, Expos fans be damned !
Since you need to be beaten with a clue stick, Canada and Canadian teams are the lifeblood of the league. If you can't comprehend and its ramifications, then I have no time explain it.
There's many reasons outside of hockey that a team in Vegas does not belong, but I'm not going to waste any more energy on a pointless debate with you since you are willing to sell out the league and the game like a whore.
And finally, I'm right, you're wrong. Have the last word and deal with it.
You have yet to prove that you are right by any means. Your responses are quick and lack any form of argument against the team in Vegas. Moreso, you sound more offended that I would besmirch those beloved Canadian teams - especially based on your avatar, the Canucks.
I'll give you that yes, the lifeblood of the league does exist in Canada and that the NHL in recent years has allowed this to fall on deaf ears, creating a Catch 22 where it seems the most basic core market has been largely ignored by the league that was created from it. However, my point was that when these discussions come up about new cities being added, people are so quick to nominate Bible Belt teams for relocation, and often back it up with modest argument. I'm playing devil's advocate and asking a very basic question of why it has to be one of these teams. Granted their on-ice successes are lackluster at best, and in places like Carolina the attendance can reach as low as 8,000 a game. But what about some of the other teams? Where's the credibility? The statement (having trouble finding it... anyone recall?) made by the Edmonton front office was to offer some insight that wasn't so narrow and biased about obvious fact that it isnt only those southern teams who are ailing.
In the same respect, as much as Canada is the lifeblood of the league in terms of heritage and fan support, America is equally, if not more... Because if the American product were nonexistent, the NHL would never be where it is today. The NHL would be a niche sport battling the likes of Major League Lacrosse and the Nationial Women's Football League. Those prized Flames and Oilers would boast superstar talent of the likes of Robert Kron and Tomi Kallio as the NHL's talent would be playing in some European Superleague where the money is at.
Again, to steer this ship back in the right direction to express my argument: Las Vegas' contention to land a team has some solid merit. Reading the thread, I know some stereotypes exist about the hearlded gambling roots - but how do you argue that a city that is the same metro size as other hockey markets like Columbus and Nashville simply tourism? Gambling is becoming less the issue and is no longer the city's sole source of revenue. In the past 10 years, many of the entertainment industry's revenues have come from seeing those once free shows and taxing decadence not on the casino floor, but in the absolutely enourmous night life that has sprung up with gambling. Alongside this is the obvious growth that has occured in and around this desert resort.
Athletes mired in this? They'd do it in any city. A few years back, Theoren Fleury and a few Chicago Blackhawks got busted at a Columbus, Ohio stripclub for fighting. Not to say the storied troubles of Theo Fleury had some influence, but the point made is that not-so-famed activity could occur in any city and shouldn't lampoon the Vegas ideal by saying that it would moreso.
And anyways, No team in the desert? We're already in the desert. Phoenix Coyotes, anyone?
To close, it's all devils advocacy here. I think the first city that's going to land a team, if there's relocation or expansion any time soon, is Kansas City. Even then, by the time the NHL steers itself away from imminent destruction there may already be a pro team in Vegas, so this would all be moot-point argument.