Toggle sidebar

Jeremy Jacobs bullish on Houston and Seattle, not Quebec

Fenway

Fenway

HF Bookie and Bruins Historian
Sponsor
Sep 26, 2007
68,796
98,909
Cambridge, MA
Melrose Munch said:
Montreal and Boston were in the save division and the Leafs were in the west as you very well know. I disagree that the Bruins are the top rival. Montreal and Toronto is nearly 100 years old.
Click to expand...

I go to Montreal several times a year and the 2 best barometers are bartenders and scalpers and they agree Boston still brings a buzz that Toronto doesn't. That might change with Toronto coming out of a 50 year coma but we shall see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: powerstuck and Melrose Munch

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,630
2,090
Fenway said:
I go to Montreal several times a year and the 2 best barometers are bartenders and scalpers and they agree Boston still brings a buzz that Toronto doesn't. That might change with Toronto coming out of a 50 year coma but we shall see.
Click to expand...
In fairness outside of 1992-2005 Toronto has been awful for the better part of 50 years as you have said. And during that time frame the Habs were at their worst. We'll see ;)
 
mikelvl

mikelvl

Registered User
Aug 6, 2009
5,911
2,082
Newton, MA
Now with the Houston Rockets owner expressing interest in an NHL franchise, I'm thinking that the league has a real fallback plan if Arizona doesn't get it's sh$t together on a new arena. They want 16 teams in the West. Seattle will be 16 and the league would approve of a move from Arizona to Houston, not QC. QC will remain the top option if an Eastern team goes belly up so to speak. Unless they can save Arizona, then I suppose they could add Houston in the West and QC in the East if the league really wants to go to 34 teams. And frankly, the expansion fee may indeed convince the owners to do so.
 
mouser

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,334
12,675
South Mountain
cupcrazyman said:
I am all for growing the game but at what point do the number of teams truly water down the on ice product ? If not already.
Click to expand...

Never, unless the NHL suddenly expands by some absurd number of teams no one would even suggest.

The league has survived expansions over short periods of 100% new players in the 1967 expansion and 33%+ new players in the wave of teams in the 90's and 00's.

Adding a team or two here and there going forward (a few % of new players each) isn't going to damage the on-ice entertainment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: garbageteam and Montrealer

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,433
4,286
Auburn, Maine
mikelvl said:
Now with the Houston Rockets owner expressing interest in an NHL franchise, I'm thinking that the league has a real fallback plan if Arizona doesn't get it's sh$t together on a new arena. They want 16 teams in the West. Seattle will be 16 and the league would approve of a move from Arizona to Houston, not QC. QC will remain the top option if an Eastern team goes belly up so to speak. Unless they can save Arizona, then I suppose they could add Houston in the West and QC in the East if the league really wants to go to 34 teams. And frankly, the expansion fee may indeed convince the owners to do so.
Click to expand...

Arizona doesn't have to go anywhere, mike....
 

patnyrnyg

Registered User
Sep 16, 2004
10,849
875
Very simple. He knows the team in Quebec City would have more revenues than his Bruins, thus increasing the cap without increasing the Bruins revenues, thus lowering the Bruins profits. Houston and Seattle will not, so the cap dips a little (or just doesn't go up as much) while his revenues remain the same, thus increasing his profits.
 
Hal1971

Hal1971

Registered User
Mar 26, 2012
345
25
Quebec City
I've seen every reason why Quebec will not get a team, west-east imbalance, Canadian Dollars, French city, too small market and now, because it will be too succesfull, it will increase the cap ??? :huh::confused:
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,630
2,090
@dilbert719 what about Norfolk, VA if Atlanta doesn't work?

then we can do this

expansions:que/nor/hou/sea ari goes to kc
bos/que/tor/ott/mtl/det
pit/nyr/nyi/njd/phi/wsh/buf
nor/car/tpa/fla/cbus

chi/stl/nsh/hou/dal/kc
wpg/edm/cgy/van/col
ana/la/lv/sj/sea

not clean but everyone is happen. personally I dislike this.
 
Bixby Snyder

Bixby Snyder

IBTFAD
May 11, 2005
3,509
1,647
Albuquerque
www.comc.com
patnyrnyg said:
Very simple. He knows the team in Quebec City would have more revenues than his Bruins, thus increasing the cap without increasing the Bruins revenues, thus lowering the Bruins profits. Houston and Seattle will not, so the cap dips a little (or just doesn't go up as much) while his revenues remain the same, thus increasing his profits.
Click to expand...

:facepalm:

That's just flat-out ridiculous. Ottawa and Winnipeg are barely making a profit if any but Quebec is gonna surpass the Bruins in revenue?
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,630
2,090
tor/mtl/buf/det/bos/ott
nyr/nyi/njd/phi/pit/wsh
cbus/tpa/car/nor/fla
chi/stl/nsh/hou/dal/min
van/wpg/edm/cgy/col/
sea/la/lv/phx/sj/ana

another one
 
Last edited:

NickWIHockey

Registered User
Jan 3, 2013
316
22
Port Washington, WI
Why not Milwaukee as a relocation? Would fit naturally in the Central and you could put it in the West, at least at first. i think we're going to 36 teams, with Seattle and Quebec being 2 of the new teams. Markets size doesnt mean squat, if there isnt a good fanbase. We've seen that in Atlanta twice, and the Coyotes has been a huge trainwreck. if you have a choice between a medium-sized market, but with a longstanding connection to hockey, vs a large market with no connection, I'm doing the former. We've been chasing ' huge markets' for decades, when its cities like Nashville, that have worked. Bring back Quebec. Relocate to Milwaukee and Houston. get Seattle and Portland as expansions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: powerstuck
powerstuck

powerstuck

Nordiques Hopes Lies
Jan 13, 2012
7,596
1,545
Town NHL hates !
Atticus Finch said:
The NHL doesn't want all the southeastern teams lumped together in one division. That's why the current alignment has the Florida teams in the Atlantic and Carolina in the Metro.
Click to expand...

Why not ? They can travel by busses and save a shit-ton of cash. I mean travel is one of the big concerns for the league.
 
Kagomeboy

Kagomeboy

HF board regular Otaku
Mar 7, 2017
1,709
230
Coquitlam
Atticus Finch said:
No, I'm not joking. According to Forbes Ottawa and Winnipeg are in the bottom third of the league as far as team value. These rankings are from 2016 and neither team has done anything to improve their value. https://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/#tab:overall
Click to expand...
STILL NOT BOTTOM,THAT IS FLORIDA AND CAROLINA.

check their profile on forbes it says here: The team is profitable despite playing in the NHL's smallest arena with a capacity of just 15,272.
 
Bixby Snyder

Bixby Snyder

IBTFAD
May 11, 2005
3,509
1,647
Albuquerque
www.comc.com
ulyssesjoyce said:
Still not the bottom though.Sens also have an issue with their arena not being near the downtown core.
Click to expand...

Look, man, both are lower revenue teams in the NHL. Being #20 and #21 sure as hell doesn't make "jets and sens are top team in profitability" like you said, does it?

Clearly, you have drunk the kool-aid that gets passed around here that owning Canadian teams is a license to print money.
 

garbageteam

Registered User
Jan 7, 2010
1,409
659
mouser said:
Never, unless the NHL suddenly expands by some absurd number of teams no one would even suggest.

The league has survived expansions over short periods of 100% new players in the 1967 expansion and 33%+ new players in the wave of teams in the 90's and 00's.

Adding a team or two here and there going forward (a few % of new players each) isn't going to damage the on-ice entertainment.
Click to expand...

Of all the anti-expansion reasons diluting player talent rings the most hollow. You can easily find 100 players not currently playing in the NHL for various reasons who will not solely by virtue of them sharing the same ice as McDavid and Matthews make the on-ice product any less watchable.

Of course if they added over 500 players it'd be a different story, but adding three more NHL rosters won't change a thing. There are top guys in Europe, decent vets who can't catch a contract, guys held up in juniors because the senior rosters are full. Even one of the worst teams in the league (VAN) has a logjam at forward and NHL level players get benched or sent down to the minors.

The only reason fans might not like expansion is because it slightly reduces their team's chance of a Stanley Cup. The on-ice product can easily support a 34 team league.
 
Kagomeboy

Kagomeboy

HF board regular Otaku
Mar 7, 2017
1,709
230
Coquitlam
Atticus Finch said:
Look, man, both are lower revenue teams in the NHL. Being #20 and #21 sure as hell doesn't make "jets and sens are top team in profitability" like you said, does it?

Clearly, you have drunk the kool-aid that gets passed around here that owning Canadian teams is a license to print money.
Click to expand...

Me drinking kool aid.no man ,even on the Forbes profile they said the jets are profitable.Stop with they are not dead last as you were suggesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom