If you were GOD which team would u eliminate?

Status
Not open for further replies.

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
I have a terrific idea! Let's put hockey back where it's already failed once before...and create two more Canadian teams that have to go on NHL life-support!

VIVE LE WINNIPEG! VIVE LE QUEBEC!

Who cares that Winnipeg was only pulling in 11-12000 a night...it just makes sense that they have a team, because I want to live the Canadian dream! While we're at it, we should contract a team like Nashville...because...while they've only had one successful year, and while they had arguably the loudest arena during the playoffs, and while EVERY home playoff game sold out immediately...it's my myopic belief that they had their chance! Here, let me drag up attendance numbers, and ignore the fact that the Predators lost less money last year than the Oilers, the Devils, the Rangers, the Blues, and in fact...most other teams! Let me also ignore the fact that the hallowed Red Wings could barely get their building half-full during the abysmal 80s...or that the Canucks were once a laughingstock with one of the worst attendance records in the league. Who cares! They deserved the benefit of the doubt during THEIR mediocre years. I'm Joe TradNHLFan, and I wants what me wants! I'll continue to go around spouting the pedestrian belief that "overexpansion" is somehow the cause of all the NHL problems..and meanwhile I'll ignore how much my beloved Maple Leafs are paying Ed Belfour and Owen Nolan.

I WANT MY NHL!
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
nomorekids said:
I have a terrific idea! Let's put hockey back where it's already failed once before...and create two more Canadian teams that have to go on NHL life-support!

VIVE LE WINNIPEG! VIVE LE QUEBEC!

Who cares that Winnipeg was only pulling in 11-12000 a night...it just makes sense that they have a team, because I want to live the Canadian dream! While we're at it, we should contract a team like Nashville...because...while they've only had one successful year, and while they had arguably the loudest arena during the playoffs, and while EVERY home playoff game sold out immediately...it's my myopic belief that they had their chance! Here, let me drag up attendance numbers, and ignore the fact that the Predators lost less money last year than the Oilers, the Devils, the Rangers, the Blues, and in fact...most other teams! Let me also ignore the fact that the hallowed Red Wings could barely get their building half-full during the abysmal 80s...or that the Canucks were once a laughingstock with one of the worst attendance records in the league. Who cares! They deserved the benefit of the doubt during THEIR mediocre years. I'm Joe TradNHLFan, and I wants what me wants! I'll continue to go around spouting the pedestrian belief that "overexpansion" is somehow the cause of all the NHL problems..and meanwhile I'll ignore how much my beloved Maple Leafs are paying Ed Belfour and Owen Nolan.

I WANT MY NHL!

:lol

That was absolutely hilarious! Can't quote a specifit bit, it's all good :D

Concerning overexpension, I'd like to say I believe the expansions were done much, much too fast. As much from a business/marketing than from a hockey standpoint, it was a horrible plan. Going from 21 to 30 teams in roughly a decade. That's almost a 33% growth in too small a timeframe.

This isn't a "too teams in Florida soxx0rz annd steall ouwrcanadiann prideBettmanis behinds all this and the yanks are conqwerwring the worldz" message :D

I just believe there shouldn't be hockey in half those expansions yet. Should have been done over 20 to (preferably) 30 years. For the expansion team fan of course, he/she is very happy to have a hockey team and I'm happy for them. And what's done is done but I would disagree it isn't a cause of problems. Could have been much smoother.

Also, (and it is related to expansions but not their faults) I question the whys and hows of these expansions. They do seem like they were made with limited vision as a mean to cash grab. With the money being used unwisely in the manner of a freaking junkie. They should have used those funds wisely. But, as I said, this isn't about the expansion and more about the long time owners and their short term vision.
 

mzon

Registered User
Feb 13, 2003
441
0
Raleigh, NC
Visit site
I think 29 teams should be contracted; just think of how much depth would be in the NHL.

Contraction will not happen. Does anyone remember what happened when MLB tried to contract a few teams? It would cost the league millions and would be a legal nightmare.
 

membleypeg

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
569
0
Visit site
Reign Nateo said:
2. Carolina- I would move them to Portland name them the Renegades and move Detroit to the East. :innocent:

I hope that the NHL is able to maintain all of its franchises. As for any future Portland team, it just has to be called the Buckaroos (from the old western hockey league days) . One of my favourite monikers of all time.
 

habster

Registered User
Mar 11, 2002
210
0
Montreal
Visit site
I would contract Montreal. And then distribute the their stanleys cups to teams who doesn't have any or have forgotten what it looks like. *don't push, there's plenty for everyone*

Seriously though, I would RELOCATE Carolina, One of Florida's team, One of California's team and Nashville

Also, I feel people from the south can't relate from the game of hockey because ice is not accessible to them. So can't really grasp what hockey is all about.
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
Vlad The Impaler said:
This isn't a "too teams in Florida soxx0rz annd steall ouwrcanadiann prideBettmanis behinds all this and the yanks are conqwerwring the worldz" message :D
I wouldn't expect one from you, but that is a nice characterization! :lol

They do seem like they were made with limited vision as a mean to cash grab. With the money being used unwisely in the manner of a freaking junkie. They should have used those funds wisely.
I agree with you on that (no disrespect to those fans), these were totally cash grabs to keep the other teams afloat for a while with those expansion fees, my own favorite team included. I read somewhere (can't remember where at the moment) that the only reason the current CBA was extended in '99 was so the last expansion would go through and more expansion money would be put in the pot.

At this point however, we have 30 teams, and those same people whose teams were part of this cash grab need to realize that it's the responsibility of ALL to help those teams succeed. You can't just contract them with a "hey, thanks for playing and thanks for helping me make my payroll a few years ago, see ya".

habster said:
Also, I feel people from the south can't relate from the game of hockey because ice is not accessible to them. So can't really grasp what hockey is all about.
If one of you were in fact God, I wish you'd make posts like this stop. :shakehead Oh, and I do have access to ice, it's in my freezer. The kind you can skate on is about a half hour away, so I wouldn't say it's not accessible.
 

Roughneck

Registered User
Oct 15, 2003
9,609
1
Calgary
Visit site
I want to know what everybodys problem with Nashvill is as well. Hell, Atlanta is having more problems than the Preds are. The only problem I have with Nashville is that they are in the Western Confrence. Move Carolina to Portland and put Nashville in the SE Division so we can end this crazy geographical scheme. That is the real problem with the NHL. Then you can put Portland in the Pacific and move Dallas to the Central where it belongs.
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
1. Florida
2. Carolina
3. Nashville
4. Pittsburgh
5. Anaheim

Then, merge the Flames and Oilers into one franchise.
 

Thresher

Registered User
Jun 30, 2004
9,467
0
HECK
cw7 said:
I knew that Atlanta (somewhere around 4M including metro) couldn't be down in 83rd.

Since you mentioned Atlanta...the metro ranks 13th on the list

city: 435500
urban area: 3988900


others that take a significant climb up the #s ranking, from city to urban populations:

Raleigh, 131 --> 60th
Buffalo, 126 --> 44th
Tampa, 123 --> 28th
Pittsburgh, 117 --> 27th
Ottawa, 108 --> 67th
St. Louis, 103 --> 24th
Denver, 56 --> 26th
Boston, 49 --> 7th
Detroit, 27 --> 8th
Montreal, 25 --> 16th
 
Last edited:

crossxcheck

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
2,762
0
Nashvegas
Thresher said:
Since you mentioned Atlanta...the metro ranks 13th on the list

city: 435500
urban area: 3988900


others that take a significant climb up the #s ranking, from city to urban populations:

Raleigh, 131 --> 60th
Buffalo, 126 --> 44th
Tampa, 123 --> 28th
Pittsburgh, 117 --> 27th
Ottawa, 108 --> 67th
St. Louis, 103 --> 24th
Denver, 56 --> 26th
Boston, 49 --> 7th
Detroit, 27 --> 8th
Montreal, 25 --> 16th

Dude, if you count the urban/surrounding areas of any city while ignoring the same for those ahead of them it would "move up" any team. Ok...that sounds confusing. my point is that every city has a significantly larger population if you count urban/surrounding areas.
 

Thresher

Registered User
Jun 30, 2004
9,467
0
HECK
crossxcheck said:
my point is that every city has a significantly larger population if you count urban/surrounding areas.

yes, of course - however, as far as ranking goes - when comparing urban areas, it shuffles the list...therefore, some do move down (with a smaller urban contingent, yet a significantly larger city populace)

for example...San Jose is ranked 30th as a city...but, the urban # has SJ in the 78th slot

Calgary also drops from 31st to 84th...


oh yeah, and... NHL 9:15 "Thou shalt not contract"
 

Bileur

Registered User
Jun 15, 2004
18,475
7,194
Ottawa
donelikedinner said:
1. Carolina
2. Anaheim
3. Florida
4. Nashville/Atlanta

Pittsburgh to Winnipeg

IMO Florida to Québec would be crasy. MTL vs. QC Théo & Koivu vs. Luongo & Jokinen
 

ChrisKreider20

But y u mad?
Jul 21, 2004
5,664
20
Toronto
frankly there are teams you just can't get rid of.....
Montreal
Toronto
NYR
Detroit
Chicago
Boston

There's too much history.

Other teams that shouldn't be removed
Minnesota (Dedicated fans)
Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Vancouver (dedicated fans)


Teams they should add....
Winnepeg, Atlantic Provinces squad, Maybe a team from Maine....

To get rid of....

Doubles in states....
LA or Anaheim
FLA or TB
NJ or NYI (one) though the island has dedicated fans so prolly NJ


Southern Teams w/ no fan base

Nashville, Columbus, Maybe even Atlanta....

Honestly...who watches hockey in Texas..bye bye Dallas.....
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
Rancid said:
frankly there are teams you just can't get rid of.....
Montreal
Toronto
NYR
Detroit
Chicago
Boston

There's too much history.

Other teams that shouldn't be removed
Minnesota (Dedicated fans)
Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Vancouver (dedicated fans)


Teams they should add....
Winnepeg, Atlantic Provinces squad, Maybe a team from Maine....

To get rid of....

Doubles in states....
LA or Anaheim
FLA or TB
NJ or NYI (one) though the island has dedicated fans so prolly NJ


Southern Teams w/ no fan base

Nashville, Columbus, Maybe even Atlanta....

Honestly...who watches hockey in Texas..bye bye Dallas.....

1. Columbus has one of the best attendance records in the LEAGUE. Your first step in discrediting yourself.
2. Dallas had one of the longest sellout streaks going, at one point..and is consistently in the top of the league in that regard. Step two.
3. If we want to talk about who's being a burden on the league and is almost solely responsible for the current state of the league..let's not look beyond your own New York Rangers. Didn't they just make public that they're in the top six in the league for most money lost? They did. You can cite "history" all you want, but don't cast dispersions upon teams like Nashville, Florida and Columbus..all that actually have a FUTURE...for what your team did in the past.
4. Hockey in Winnipeg failed already. We've been over that. Had they been selling out their games when they were moved, we might make a case for it. And this is coming from a guy who grew up loving the Jets. It saddens me that it didn't work, but it didn't work, nonetheless.
5. NHL Hockey in...Maine? Have you been to Maine? You might as well put a team in Montana. They simply don't have the population to support it. The AHL's Portland Pirates are just big enough.
6. A team for ALL the maritime provinces...in say...Halifax...is a bit more feasible...but just a bit. That's Leafs and Habs country, depending on where you go...and a lot of those fans wouldn't be quick to abandon a lifetime love for a new team that might take ten years to catch on.
 

Kravitch

Guest
nomorekids said:
5. NHL Hockey in...Maine? Have you been to Maine? You might as well put a team in Montana. They simply don't have the population to support it. The AHL's Portland Pirates are just big enough.

Considering that the MLB may put a team in Virginia, I say anything is possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->