If you were GOD which team would u eliminate?

[LadyJet26]

obviously you live in the wrong part of BC. I lived there during the hard years, I didn't see it. I still don't see it. I knew a lot of people that got estactic when the Canucks won when they were crappy, it's not everyone, and where ever you live they obviously have better things to do. You have to remember there are a lot of new immigrants to the country in BC and there are a lot of Habs/Leafs fans in that province. Most of the British Columbian population aren't originally from BC, so why would they care about the Canucks?

 

[Kravitch]

i wouldn't i was born later and did not get to see the oilers ever make the playoffs til 97. i went through the tuff yrs in 95-97. My school is a perfect example of band wagoners i live in vancouver island where nobody cares about the canucks but when they made the playoff ppl started watching. There were about 10 kids out of 1500 that liked the canucks through the bad yrs

I'm proud to say that I have been cheering on the Canucks just as much last year as I did in 1997 and 1998.

 

[Kravitch]

Excuse me, but read the canucks.com message board. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Any decent Canucks fan knows not to read that garbage.

I did say there were new fans to the game, and how about the fans that were there during the rough years? Hiding in shame. Wouldn't you do the same?

I agree 100%. I admit I was once a member of the boards but left and joined here after realizing that 80% of what "fans" did on that board was all "Off Topic" crap. Besides, its embarassing when the official Canucks forum has to make two, thats right, two off topic boards to satisfy everyone.

The first off topic board is simply called "Off Topic". The second one is called "White Noise" and is intended for people who just feel like typing out random stuff.


UPDATE: I just clicked on the official Canucks forum now and the topic that is getting the most replies at the moment is entitled "CLICK HERE IF YOU ARE A VIRGIN."

 

[Sotnos]

i am not trying to convince anyone to contract tampa i am just saying hockey is not anywhere near as big down there as it is up here

What is your point then, exactly, except to denigrate the city of Tampa and its residents based on inaccurate news reports? If you want to rip on us, base it on something factual at least.

 

[McDeepika]

obviously you live in the wrong part of BC. I lived there during the hard years, I didn't see it. I still don't see it. I knew a lot of people that got estactic when the Canucks won when they were crappy, it's not everyone, and where ever you live they obviously have better things to do. You have to remember there are a lot of new immigrants to the country in BC and there are a lot of Habs/Leafs fans in that province. Most of the British Columbian population aren't originally from BC, so why would they care about the Canucks?

i have lived here for my whole life on vancouver island. I must say i liked it alot better when the canucks weren't a good team, becasue i could always go watch their games against the oilers now it is pretty hard to get tickets so i get to see the oilers once every 2 yrs or so it sucks.

 

[mzon]

i said revenues don't matter cuz after the cba all those types of things will change.

I love this logic that the new CBA will be small market friendly, but only to Canadian cities. They are not going to collectively bargain a time machine that will put all the relocated franchises back in their original cites. Revenues will always matter.

 

[SPV]

If I was God, I would contract the Yankees. Yes, that would be great, getting rid of the Yankees.


Oh, sorry, I'm supposed to pick an NHL team. Hmm, by the same logic I'd eliminate Montreal then. Imagine if I wouldn't have to suffer thru any more heartbreaking losses to the Yankees & the Canadiens. Ah, that would be wonderful.

 

[EYEuhFRAYtee]

Isn't Winnipeg getting a team again? I seem to remember reading something about an anonymous owner contacting city official up there about relocation. I wouldn't mind seeing the Jets come back to life as a franchise. Also, I'd love to see Carolina go back to Hartford - I want my WHALERS back, seriously they had the dopest uni's.

 

[Kravitch]

Isn't Winnipeg getting a team again? I seem to remember reading something about an anonymous owner contacting city official up there about relocation. I wouldn't mind seeing the Jets come back to life as a franchise. Also, I'd love to see Carolina go back to Hartford - I want my WHALERS back, seriously they had the dopest uni's.

That was awhile ago, yet no one has yet denied anything. I think they will get a team back. Besides, Gary Bettman had pritty much said Winnipeg has a chancewhen he was on CBC Newsworld.

A fan asked him how passionate Winnipeger still are about the Jets dispite being out of the league for 9 years. When the fan asked why Bettman was considering Houston and Kansas City as locations before Winnipeg, Bettman made a long statement concerning Houston, KC, and Winnipeg. Let me cut it down for you.

"The NHL has no plans in putting a team in Houston or Kansas City". ".....when the time is right, we may concider Winnipeg."

In other words, it's looking good for Winnipegers. Having said that of course, don't hold your breath, cause it could take from 5-10 years before it happens.

JETS IN 2012!

 

[nomorekids]

Isn't Winnipeg getting a team again? I seem to remember reading something about an anonymous owner contacting city official up there about relocation. I wouldn't mind seeing the Jets come back to life as a franchise. Also, I'd love to see Carolina go back to Hartford - I want my WHALERS back, seriously they had the dopest uni's.

If Winnipeg gets a team...I'd wager it won't be within the next 10 or so years. Until there's some DEFINITE stability in the league, which isn't there right now. As for Hartford...having lived there for a while in school...it's cruel to hockey players to make them play in that black hole of a city. There is no more depressing place on earth.

 

[LadyJet26]

uhm... have you ever been to Winnipeg? Nothing is more depressing then spending almost 4 months entirely inside. January this year was an average of like -40 degrees C.

And nomorekids, I agree with you. Winnipeg will get one, but it needs to be in the right circumstances. Although one thing a new owner of a franchise here wouldn't need to worry about is a new arena. New one's opening in November.

 

[me2]

I think the "talent dilution" is one of the biggest myths in hockey, though. There are fourth liners today who would have DOMINATED the NHL of the seventies. You have to realize that there was a necessary increase in teams do the huge influx of European players. 20 years ago, it wasn't an issue, because 95 percent of the players were all from Canada...but slowly, Russians were allowed in...more and more Finns surfaced, and Swedes followed. Now, you're seeing Latvians, Belarussians, Norwegians, Austrians and even Germans. There's more teams but there's also more deserving players. The question is: was the talent level higher back then...or did it just seem that way because there were less "superstars," making those that WERE super-talented stand out more?

No argument there interms of players per team because Europe is filling the gap more than adeqautely. If there was the same amount of talent and only 24 teams I think that would be better for keeping salaries down because there would less pressure to chase UFAs. Also when you have expansion you have a sudden shortage of players, which causes a spike in salary. With time it'll even out but there are definite short term spikes with the market adjusts. I'm not blaming the expansion teams.

 

[Prince Mercury]

Florida's population is 17 million people. Canada's is 32 million. Ameican teams need to sell 70% of the tickets that a Canadian team needs to sell.

I don't care if Canada gets "shafted". Its bad for business and therefore bad for the NHL to have more franchises in Canada. Until Canada's economy improves significantly, American franchises are simply superior.

I'll remind you that in the past ten years, in which the number of Canadian teams has dropped, the league has been on a wreckless spiral of financial loss.

It's time to bring out the simple analogy. If I want to sell a few bags of dog food, which "market" is better - a group of a thousand bird owners, or a group of five dog owners? Here's a real noodle scratcher, eh?

The fact is population is an important factor in the success of hockey teams, but not the determining one. It's not about how many people live outside the arena, it's about how many are inside, filling the seats.

And finally - if you think for a minute that two teams of equal ticket demand, one Canadian and one American, that the prices are identical, each in their respective currency, you are ignorant and quite probably in denial. Canadians pay more in Canadian dollars than Americans do in American dollars - pretty damn reasonable arrangement. Also, I'd like to remind you that the Canadian economy is far better than the American economy at the moment. Just because our dollars are worth less doesn't mean we don't have more of them in comparasin.

i agree with you, and personally don't think ANY teams should be contracted. It's just a few clowns who think all of hockey's problems coincide with expansion. shrug.

The fact is that the NHL expanded too fast. Does that mean expansion is the answer? No, because elminating a team isn't turning back the clock.

I don't need to, because any rational person knows that contraction would be a step backwards. And where are you getting your information? Revenues "shouldn't matter?" Only attendance should? That's called "cut to fit," in relation to your objectives. Hockey is a business...so not only do revenues "matter," they're EVERYTHING. If an owner is making money off of 14,000 a night...it doesn't matter to him how he gets it. Similarly, if a team sells out every night and is losing millions of dollars(as in the case of a couple of the Canadian teams,) then there's a problem. At the bottom of this, though, is the fact that neither the owners nor the players would support contraction. It would do nothing to improve the game, and wouldn only stunt the growth. You're quick to judge some of these teams as "failures," by the way. How can you gauge the success or failure of a team in such a short period of time? A period of time in which the on-ice product was mostly bad? Of course teams in new, non-traditional markets will struggle with attendance..when they're LOSING...but...as I mentioned earlier..so did the Red Wings. So did the Canucks. So did the Flames. When teams like Nashville, Columbus and Atlanta are putting out perennial contenders(which, through excellent drafting, all three likely will, eventually) THEN you can judge...if the attendance still isn't good. Give these markets a chance before you want them whisked back to a city that had poor attendance to start with(Winnipeg). Besides, the whole face of the situation will change if and WHEN this lockout is over and a more favorable CBA is in place.

First off, Columbus isn't doing poorly by anyone's standards, so I'm not sure what to say here.

Second, I don't understand what your vendetta with Winnipeg is, but I can't imagine defending Atlanta and badmouthing Winnipeg. How are the two cities in much different situations NHL-wise?

Regardless, comparing clubs like the Wings, Nucks and Flames to the Preds, Thrashers and, say, the Canes is ridiculous. The latter three have troubles selling tickets even when they're doing well. Hell, the Bolts had troubles selling tickets for the playoffs, going out on a Cup-winning run and having the best record in the conference for the season. If people don't like the sport, the league shouldn't lose money to keep a team where it's not wanted. A lot of you Americans need to understand that just because your team is failing doesn't mean you're not allowed to like hockey.

After all, what do Winnipeggers do when they wanna watch hockey? Think about that for a minute.

Now Tampa might make more money becasue of tv contracts etc but u can't tell me that things like that don't matter.

Ahh, here's the rub. See, you're completely wrong in this point, actually - no American team makes anything worthwhile off television. Canadians, however, flock to televised TV. Both the Stanley and World Cup finals drew in over 10% of the Canadian population for viewership. So in addition to rivaling any American team in terms of gate sales, Canadian teams also generate far more television revenue.

And yet it's a bad financial idea? ********.

haha, good luck trying to pay players in monopoly--er, canadian money.

Haha good luck being racist.

It really is too much for us to expect that a game we invented, a game that we coach and a game we play actually be played in our own country.

And nomorekids, I agree with you. Winnipeg will get one, but it needs to be in the right circumstances. Although one thing a new owner of a franchise here wouldn't need to worry about is a new arena. New one's opening in November.

I'm curious, what's going into the new arena right now anyway? Just the Moose?

I'm just curious because as a Torontonian it seems like a familiar situation. We've got both the ACC and Ricoh empty for the year, and Eugene Melnyk is trying to get the rights to the Gardens or build a new arena in Downsview for the Majors.

 

[190Octane]

I hope the only reason anyone suggests contracting the Ducks is because of the Disney influence (which is soon to be gone).

The team sold out for years until the Wilson and multiple Kariya debacles. When the team was in the playoffs, every playoff game sold out and the arena was crazy, does anyone remember game 6 in 2002 or just me?

Orange County, CA (the county that the city of Anaheim is in) has 2,846,289 (in 2000) people in it. These people are all within 20 minutes of the arena seeing as that Anaheim is almost centrally located in OC. I think a metro area of essentially 3 million people in it can support a team.

Not only that, the people who claim that Southern California can't support two teams fail to see that the Kings played to 98.6% capacity and the Ducks played to 87.3% capacity, even though both teams were mediocre and both teams under-performed (to be fair, the Kings under-performed due to injuries).

Any team can become a hockey hotbed if they have a winner. Dallas isn't exactly in a traditional market, yet they do well. The reason they do well is because they win. In any sport, if a team fails for more than one year, their attendence will suffer except in certain cases.

Chicago played to 64.7% capacity drawing 13,253/game but no one is crying for them to be contracted, why is that?

 

[kmad]

Chicago played to 64.7% capacity drawing 13,253/game but no one is crying for them to be contracted, why is that?

Original-six nostalgia factor.

 

[190Octane]

Original-six nostalgia factor.

So what it really comes down to is the fact that there is a segment of elitists who feels that other parts of the county don't deserve a team because they're jealous of our good weather?

If we're talking about unsuccessful franchises, Chicago certainly fits the bill.

 

[kmad]

Of course attendance will be down when the team goes through a few horrible seasons, but to move an NHL team out of Chicago, the third-largest city in North America, a team that has supported itself for almost 90 years, would be ludicrous. Especially when they have an up-and-coming merchandise cash-cow in Tuomo Ruutu, who could potentially be the most exciting NHL player in a few years. Bettman would be lynch-mobbed if he even thought about moving Chicago.

 

[190Octane]

Ah my friend, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Everyone is quick to move teams out of the sun belt claiming it won't work, but there are places it can work. I think with cost certainty, the right brand of marketing (including grass roots programs) and successful franchises (not just a Stanley Cup run followed by sliding back into mediocrity) that these sun belt franchises can not only survive but they can thrive.

Tampa a few years ago would've been a prime contraction candidate but now they're the defending champions with a rabid fanbase. So many people are impatient but you can't expect to go into a brand new market with a brand new game and have it be easy.

 

[kmad]

Wouldn't playing devil's advocate only serve a purpose if I was in favor of contraction? I don't think we have a difference of opinion here..

Anyways, I think that instead of contracting Carolina and Florida that the teams should simply be moved to better markets like Seattle or Portland. This way we're not decreasing cash flow, which contraction would do - we're just optimizing it.

 

[190Octane]

Wouldn't playing devil's advocate only serve a purpose if I was in favor of contraction? I don't think we have a difference of opinion here..

I meant in general, not particularly with you.

Carolina I could see being moved, but that's a franchise that just hasn't been successful anywhere. Hard for a city to get behind a team that has been mediocre everywhere.

 

[LadyJet26]

I'm curious, what's going into the new arena right now anyway? Just the Moose?

I'm just curious because as a Torontonian it seems like a familiar situation. We've got both the ACC and Ricoh empty for the year, and Eugene Melnyk is trying to get the rights to the Gardens or build a new arena in Downsview for the Majors.

Just the Moose. Sad really, when they don't even attract 8000 to a game and the local baseball team is practically sold out every night

 

[nomorekids]

I'll remind you that in the past ten years, in which the number of Canadian teams has dropped, the league has been on a wreckless spiral of financial loss..

and it would have been even worse. edmonton and calgary aren't exactly making money...and if you pretend for a second that Phoenix was still Winnipeg, I'm pretty sure that the situation would be even worse for them. The NHL is subsidizing these teams, and that would be at least more. Don't blame the downfall of the NHL on the loss of a weak market.

It's time to bring out the simple analogy. If I want to sell a few bags of dog food, which "market" is better - a group of a thousand bird owners, or a group of five dog owners? Here's a real noodle scratcher, eh?

The fact is population is an important factor in the success of hockey teams, but not the determining one. It's not about how many people live outside the arena, it's about how many are inside, filling the seats..

which, in winnipeg, was about 11-12,000.

The fact is that the NHL expanded too fast. Does that mean expansion is the answer? No, because elminating a team isn't turning back the clock..

I assume you mean contraction, and I agree. It was too quick, but I don't think it was a bad idea, on the whole.

First off, Columbus isn't doing poorly by anyone's standards, so I'm not sure what to say here.

Second, I don't understand what your vendetta with Winnipeg is, but I can't imagine defending Atlanta and badmouthing Winnipeg. How are the two cities in much different situations NHL-wise?.

I know that, for the moment...Columbus isn't doing poorly in attendance. I stated that, earlier in the thread in defense of the BJs. However, I think their next season will be telling. Every expansion team started out strong in attendance, and I can't speak for anyone but Nashville, but the Preds averaged over 16,500 for their first couple of seasons. It wasn't until the team was consistently not improving that attendance started to hurt...and I will reiterate this point...season after season of poor results will hurt ANY market. I don't have a vendetta with Winnipeg, contrary to your belief. I wouldn't mind seeing a team back there...but I don't think it's realistic until we're no longer in a situation where 3\4 of the teams in the league are in dire straits. As for Atlanta, I'll defend them until I see that their fans don't support a winner. Atlanta fans haven't had much to cheer for as of yet, and you can't fault people who haven't been exposed to hockey before for not catching on to the thrilling fever of losing. If, after a couple of successful years on the ice, the team is still drawing 12,000 a night..then we'll call it a failure. Same for all the other teams.

Regardless, comparing clubs like the Wings, Nucks and Flames to the Preds, Thrashers and, say, the Canes is ridiculous. The latter three have troubles selling tickets even when they're doing well. Hell, the Bolts had troubles selling tickets for the playoffs, going out on a Cup-winning run and having the best record in the conference for the season. If people don't like the sport, the league shouldn't lose money to keep a team where it's not wanted. A lot of you Americans need to understand that just because your team is failing doesn't mean you're not allowed to like hockey..

The Canes and Preds both sold out their arenas during the only time in their history that they "did well." The Canes then crashed down to earth and haven't picked themselves up since, so all the progress they made with people was lost. A market isn't made and destroyed in 6-7 years, though. I do think they're the weakest market in the league, though...but I'm still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, for now. And as much as you say the Bolts "had trouble selling tickets," every one of their games after the first round was sold out, and the people that couldn't get tickets were outside in the sweltering heat watching the game on a projection. All three Preds first round games sold out within a couple of hours of going on sale. Success makes people interested, and teams like the Bolts, Preds and Thrashers are on the upswing. Give them the benefit of the doubt..

After all, what do Winnipeggers do when they wanna watch hockey? Think about that for a minute..

Curse themselves for not going to games when they had the chance, and shrug it off to see the Moose play?

Haha good luck being racist..

Stating that the NHL players would go through the roof if their teams tried to pay them in Canadian money makes me racist? Okay, guy. Well, clearly the players ARE in it for the love of the game, and I'd expect that it would take a lot more than money to really upset--oh wait, nevermind.

It really is too much for us to expect that a game we invented, a game that we coach and a game we play actually be played in our own country..

Not at all, but don't be so naive as to think the NHL could survive without the US, and don't be so selfish as to assert that Americans don't deserve hockey. I promise you that, despite being born in New York and raised in Tennessee, I love hockey every bit as much as you do. Not only that, I'm willing to bet that my knowledge of the game is on the level with yours, as well. I'd say the same for a few of the other Nashville posters--Triggrman has played his entire life, SmokeyClause is an encyclopedia of hockey facts. We love the game, and just because your city lost its team...you think ours should, too? That's not fair, and says little for your sense of empathy. I'm sorry the Jets owner screwed your city, but don't take it out on us. Let hockey truly fail until you feel good seeing it leave the newer teams.

 

[nomorekids]

Wouldn't playing devil's advocate only serve a purpose if I was in favor of contraction? I don't think we have a difference of opinion here..

Anyways, I think that instead of contracting Carolina and Florida that the teams should simply be moved to better markets like Seattle or Portland. This way we're not decreasing cash flow, which contraction would do - we're just optimizing it.

the problem is, no one in seattle and portland are interested in owning a hockey team. the NHL has, in the past...TRIED to get hockey in these places...with no biters. for now, it's on the hold...and hockey fans in Seattle seem to support the Nucks, anyway.

 

[Verbal Kint*]

Just thought I'd let you know that I enjoyed that before everyone jumps down your throat!

Pretending I didn't hear the last part, it was absolutely beautiful.

 

[StevenintheATL]

I think some teams would do better if they played in a different part of the city they are in. A team may have a large number of fans who don't go to as many games as they like because of the location of the arena. Some folks aren't willing to trek downtown from the burbs 40+ times a season, plus in many downtown areas, the arenas are in sketchy locations where just going to the parking lot by the arena can be an adventure. Perhaps putting the arena in the burbs might be what could benefit some clubs. In several cities, the sports teams got the local gov't to build them new facilties intown by threatening to get a new facility built for them in the suburbs. You can also look at cities where there multiple arenas in town, downtown and in the burbs. Look at some cities where the NHL team plays downtown and there's a minor league team playing in an arena in another part of town; some of these minor league teams draw as similar % of capacity as the NHL teams. Unfortunately, arenas cost money, and in these budget-minded times, many cities would rather lose a team than fork out several hundred million $$$ to build a new arena for a perenially also-ran. The Pens may be getting a new arena through slot machine revenues, that is if they survive the lockout. Some cities can't do like what Atlanta did to finance Philips Arena; with Atlanta being a major convention town and home of one of the world's busiest airports, it was a no-brainer to add a tax to city hotel rooms and to airport rental cars in order to help finance the arena, as they were guaranteed to make enough revenue off of those taxes. A smaller market team doesn't have the luxury of that and trying to survive in a small market in an outdated arena in the current climes is tough.