NHL to Seattle Volume XIII - UPDATE 12/7 NHL will accept Seattle application - Expansion fee $650 M

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheLegend

Megathread Gadfly
Aug 30, 2009
35,968
27,443
Buzzing BoH
More:

Take a look at your alignment and look at it as 4 divisions (or, as I think will happen: Conferences). What do you see?

Pacific: All PTZ teams, PLUS Colorado
Central: All CTZ teams, PLUS Calgary and Edmonton

Never mind the east for now. What you have written down is one of the common Western re-alignments for a Seattle expansion. There would really be NO need to break that further. In fact, I submit the idea that breaking it into 4x4 in the West is WORSE. It's certainly worse for Minnesota. Only American franchise in that division. I think your 4x4 in East and West is a non-starter. There has literally been NO communication from the league indicating any desire to do that. Meanwhile, there has been lots of communication from the league with the idea of 4 8-team conferences.

Assuming Arizona stays, you either get what you have posted, or you get Arizona and Colorado trading places with Calgary and Edmonton.

But, like others have said, it's 3 years out at least. Arizona might relocate. Calgary is at an impasse with their city government. Who knows what might happen? Hey, the easiest thing might happen: AX>HOU, in which case the alignment issue is trivial.

Thanks MNN....

I know what your stance is on the Yotes but I appreciate the objectivity. For a moment there I was going to ask Tommy when I should order the moving trucks. ;)

Coyotes currently have a rivalry with the CA teams (and maybe Vegas in the near future). To move them into a CTZ division wouldn’t be the same (except Chicago because Yotes fans absolutely hate the Chicago bandwagon that lives in the valley :laugh:).

Keeping them in the PTZ and adding Colorado wouldn’t be bad since Denver is the same distance to PHX as SoCal is.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,403
2,742
Thanks MNN....

I know what your stance is on the Yotes but I appreciate the objectivity. For a moment there I was going to ask Tommy when I should order the moving trucks. ;)

Coyotes currently have a rivalry with the CA teams (and maybe Vegas in the near future). To move them into a CTZ division wouldn’t be the same (except Chicago because Yotes fans absolutely hate the Chicago bandwagon that lives in the valley :laugh:).

Keeping them in the PTZ and adding Colorado wouldn’t be bad since Denver is the same distance to PHX as SoCal is.

In terms geographical location it doesn't make sense for Colorado they are more closer to the other central teams than Edmonton and Calgary and like i said the Alberta teams may actually prefer to be more closer to their divisional rivals. If the NHL didn't give a rip about alignment on where teams play in which division, Quebec would have gotten a team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oilers Propagandist

TheLegend

Megathread Gadfly
Aug 30, 2009
35,968
27,443
Buzzing BoH
In terms geographical location it doesn't make sense for Colorado they are more closer to the other central teams than Edmonton and Calgary and like i said the Alberta teams may actually prefer to be more closer to their divisional rivals. If the NHL didn't give a rip about alignment on where teams play in which division, Quebec would have gotten a team.

.
It’s more like if the players union didn’t give one, Tommy. You forget the NHLPA vetoed a realignment proposed by the owners not too many years ago.

Denver is a 1:15 hop over the Rockies to PHX and part of the year they share the same time zone. Vegas has the same flight time as PHX. SoCal is just another hour flight time.

Those cities are all closer than the Alberta twins are. San Jose is the same. The only stretch for them would be Vancouver.
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
More:

Take a look at your alignment and look at it as 4 divisions (or, as I think will happen: Conferences). What do you see?

Pacific: All PTZ teams, PLUS Colorado
Central: All CTZ teams, PLUS Calgary and Edmonton

Never mind the east for now. What you have written down is one of the common Western re-alignments for a Seattle expansion. There would really be NO need to break that further. In fact, I submit the idea that breaking it into 4x4 in the West is WORSE. It's certainly worse for Minnesota. Only American franchise in that division. I think your 4x4 in East and West is a non-starter. There has literally been NO communication from the league indicating any desire to do that. Meanwhile, there has been lots of communication from the league with the idea of 4 8-team conferences.

Well there you have it then. Which scenario would get more resistance: switching Calgary and Edmonton to the Central in exchange for Colorado to the Pacific, or... trying to find some way to split the East into 4-team Divisions ??

And I guess you're probably correct, the second option would probably be almost impossible for those Eastern teams to come to any kind of an agreement on.
 

TheLegend

Megathread Gadfly
Aug 30, 2009
35,968
27,443
Buzzing BoH
Bettman just quoted that Seattle will be given permission to apply for expansion. Will allow ticket drive to commence shortly. Price tag will be $650 million.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,403
2,742
I wonder if Thunderbirds can survive once NHL arrives.

I think the thunderbirds are going to be fine. There is a huge difference in terms of cost of a ticket. A NHL team will help grow the sport and all other teams in the state will benefit.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
Well there you have it then. Which scenario would get more resistance: switching Calgary and Edmonton to the Central in exchange for Colorado to the Pacific, or... trying to find some way to split the East into 4-team Divisions ??

And I guess you're probably correct, the second option would probably be almost impossible for those Eastern teams to come to any kind of an agreement on.

Yes, and besides which, you have placed the wrong choice. The choices are:

1- Slot Seattle into the Pacific and move AZ to the Central, KEEPING 8-TEAM DIVISIONS
2- Slot Seattle into the Pacific and move Colorado to the Pacific, moving CGY/EDM to the Central, KEEPING 8-TEAM DIVISIONS
or,
3- Your own fantasy about 4-team divisions, which inconveniences all of the east, PLUS makes life Hell for Minnesota, and doesn't really give any of the California/SW teams any great benefits.

Answer: The owners will have to fight over 1 and 2, but they won't think about 3 along with fighting about how to split the west.

And 2nd answer: Who knows what will happen in the mean time? These are possible:
1- Edwards gets fed up and sells the Flames, because Calgary won't give him what he wants. In that case, Seattle gets a relo instead of an expansion (see Bettman's comments today about that, without mentioning CGY).
2- AZ finally moves, and Bettman gets his Xmas present, because they move to Houston.
3- AZ has to move, but Fertitta doesn't want to pay through his nose for a team, so AZ has to move to SEA.
 

Ernie

Registered User
Aug 3, 2004
12,759
2,157
I think the thunderbirds are going to be fine. There is a huge difference in terms of cost of a ticket. A NHL team will help grow the sport and all other teams in the state will benefit.

I dunno about that. Seattle has two WHL teams in the region already. Vancouver, with similar demographics, can barely support one.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,403
2,742
Yes, and besides which, you have placed the wrong choice. The choices are:

1- Slot Seattle into the Pacific and move AZ to the Central, KEEPING 8-TEAM DIVISIONS
2- Slot Seattle into the Pacific and move Colorado to the Pacific, moving CGY/EDM to the Central, KEEPING 8-TEAM DIVISIONS
or,
3- Your own fantasy about 4-team divisions, which inconveniences all of the east, PLUS makes life Hell for Minnesota, and doesn't really give any of the California/SW teams any great benefits.

Answer: The owners will have to fight over 1 and 2, but they won't think about 3 along with fighting about how to split the west.

And 2nd answer: Who knows what will happen in the mean time? These are possible:
1- Edwards gets fed up and sells the Flames, because Calgary won't give him what he wants. In that case, Seattle gets a relo instead of an expansion (see Bettman's comments today about that, without mentioning CGY).
2- AZ finally moves, and Bettman gets his Xmas present, because they move to Houston.
3- AZ has to move, but Fertitta doesn't want to pay through his nose for a team, so AZ has to move to SEA.

Seattle is getting an expansion team cause building won't be ready no sooner than 20-21 season. So lets drop the idea of relocation to Seattle.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,403
2,742
I dunno about that. Seattle has two WHL teams in the region already. Vancouver, with similar demographics, can barely support one.

Prices are much different than in Vancouver. I don't see it being a problem. Having the two WHL teams allow families who can't afford NHL tickets can go to watch a hockey match.
 

Daximus

Wow, what a terrific audience.
Sponsor
Oct 11, 2014
38,856
24,729
Five Hills
Congrats Seattle fans! Now just move Arizona to Houston, they play in the central and all we need to do is wait for someone to move to Quebec doesn't seem like the NHL wants any of their teams to move though.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,403
2,742
Congrats Seattle fans! Now just move Arizona to Houston, they play in the central and all we need to do is wait for someone to move to Quebec doesn't seem like the NHL wants any of their teams to move though.

They aren't going to say anything in regards to relocating a team until it happens.
 

Daximus

Wow, what a terrific audience.
Sponsor
Oct 11, 2014
38,856
24,729
Five Hills
They aren't going to say anything in regards to relocating a team until it happens.

Carolina would have been a lay up. But it seems like all parties involved are keen on keeping the team there at all costs. Just like they have been with the Yotes. The NHL has zero interest in losing another American team to a Canadian market and will probably only ever do it as a last resort. Sucks for Nords fans. They likely won't ever have another team.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
Seattle is getting an expansion team cause building won't be ready no sooner than 20-21 season. So lets drop the idea of relocation to Seattle.

While I agree that there won't be a team there until the 20-21 season (earliest), I would not dismiss the possibility that Seattle is the only viable market in the west, because Fertitta won't pay the price. In which case, the Yotes stay until the Key remodel is done, and THEN move.

Basically, I think it's like this:
Seattle is guaranteed a team. 20-21 may be too ambitious, we'll find that out soon. 21-22 may be a possibility.

Whether it's a new team, or the Yotes coming at that time, we don't know yet. And, we can't for awhile.

And, interestingly, while even Bettman suggested relo today, I don't know how you hide that, because the Bonderman group is going to want to create an infrastructure, and that can't just disappear if the Yotes come. It's just fascinating watching.

And the best is: No public money for Key. Yay!!!
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,403
2,742
While I agree that there won't be a team there until the 20-21 season (earliest), I would not dismiss the possibility that Seattle is the only viable market in the west, because Fertitta won't pay the price. In which case, the Yotes stay until the Key remodel is done, and THEN move.

Basically, I think it's like this:
Seattle is guaranteed a team. 20-21 may be too ambitious, we'll find that out soon. 21-22 may be a possibility.

Whether it's a new team, or the Yotes coming at that time, we don't know yet. And, we can't for awhile.

And, interestingly, while even Bettman suggested relo today, I don't know how you hide that, because the Bonderman group is going to want to create an infrastructure, and that can't just disappear if the Yotes come. It's just fascinating watching.

And the best is: No public money for Key. Yay!!!

The NHL is not going to do the here have expansion but we are going to take it away the give you a relocation instead. That is not going to happen. There could be delays in construction that pushes the team back another year. And no other group out there for another market is gonna pay 650m for a team. So lets move on.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
The NHL is not going to do the here have expansion but we are going to take it away the give you a relocation instead. That is not going to happen. There could be delays in construction that pushes the team back another year. And no other group out there for another market is gonna pay 650m for a team. So lets move on.

Kindly explain what Dreger means by this, then...

 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,403
2,742
Kindly explain what Dreger means by this, then...



Then explain who else is going to pay 650m for expansion for #32? What the NHL may consider doing is not what is actually going to happen. We have no building now to house a team if one moves. And it would be stupid to have 2 or more lame duck season then move a team. Again what happens if Seattle's arena is delayed that's another year added to the 2 lame duck seasons.

Vegas already had an arena (I believe) to temporary house a team if they had a relocation instead of expansion.

The NHL is leaving themselves an out in case its a relocation instead of expansion (doubtful) or a team isn't granted at all if things go south.
 

BKIslandersFan

F*** off
Sep 29, 2017
11,447
5,060
Brooklyn
In terms of alignment, how about moving Flames and Oilers to Central and moving Dallas or Colorado to Pacific?

Canucks would lose traditional rivals but gain a new one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->