If I were to take a poll of Canadian NHL fans about expansion and offered the following two choices, which would prevail: Putting a new team in Canada (for argument's sake Hamilton but where ever really) when the league-wide depth cannot support more teams, or putting a team in a KC or Las Vegas, or any other 'non-traditional' place in a time when the league does have enough depth to support the forming of a new team? This is more of a hypothetical question, since both conditions cannot happen at once. I'm just trying to gauge what the most important reasons for opposing expansion are. Personally, I hate to see the talent pool get watered down. I think we can all agree that the latest round of expansion was too many, too quick. (Although feel free to debate me ). Columbus would be struggling just as much in any other city and Minnesota would have run it's airtight system if it had been elsewhere also. A team needs a couple of seasons to be built the right way, bridging the gap between the initial excitement of a new team and respectibility is probably the hardest thing to do. Please add your thoughts to this, I'm genuinely interested to find out what the bigger 'evil' of expansion is. And if any of what I've said is confusing or seems out of whack, call me out so I may try and explain my point better or perhaps clarify.