Today Gary Bettman makes history by marking 31 years as NHL Commissioner, making him longest-serving chief executive among major North America sports

[sawchuk1971]

Bettman makes history, will mark 31 years as NHL Commissioner | NHL.com

Becomes longest-serving chief executive among major North American pro sports leagues

www.nhl.com

Detroit Red Wings senior vice president Jim Devellano won the Stanley Cup with the New York Islanders and Winged Wheelers. Devellano already had been an NHL sage when Bettman first cut his puck teeth at the League's Manhattan acreage.


"When Gary was hired, the owners gave him two big chores," Devellano told me the other day. "One was to grow the footprint of the NHL across America, mainly south and west, so we could catch up to the NFL and NBA in terms of teams. And make us 'national' for television purposes.


"Without a doubt, he accomplished that. The other chore was to get 'cost certainty' regarding rising player salaries when teams were bleeding many, many millions. The union and players fought back. But, in the end, Bettman delivered a hard salary cap. As a result, the NHL has never been stronger and, ironically, the players continue to prosper as they should."

Those who insisted that major league hockey couldn't thrive nontraditional markets were rebuffed, with teams such as the Tampa Bay Lightning, Anaheim Ducks, Carolina Hurricanes, Dallas Stars, Florida Panthers and Nashville Predators having developed substantial fan bases.


"Thanks in large part to Gary's leadership," NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said, "we have reached a point as a league and as a business where our time can be spent primarily on being creative, ensuring the game on the ice be maximizing fan interest and growing revenues. That makes it a lot of fun coming to work every day."

Click to read more...

 

[LadyStanley]

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

Let's hope it ends soon and a Canadian commissioner comes in with the aim of restoring dominance by Canadian teams to the league.

#MakeTheNHLGreatAgain

 

[KevFu]

Let's hope it ends soon and a Canadian commissioner comes in with the aim of restoring dominance by Canadian teams to the league.

#MakeTheNHLGreatAgain

Ignoring the "restoring dominance" part, but it stands to reason that as his tenure winds down, Bettman would go Legacy Shopping.

We see it with US Presidents coming to the end of eight years in office. One last crack at the history books. What are they going to say about you when you retire (or pass away?)

For Bettman, the talk of growth of the league is going to be quickly followed with work stoppages and the 1990s relocations.

He can't uncancel a season. But if there are more Canadian teams in the NHL when he leaves than when he started, and there's NHL teams Winnipeg and Quebec like when he took over... the growth of the game part gets bigger and the relocation mention gets pushed down.

It stands to reason that "announcing 36 teams with Houston, Atlanta and Quebec, and then take a bow and exit" would be his legacy shopping retirement strategy.

 

[Reaser]

But if there are more Canadian teams in the NHL when he leaves than when he started

Where are you getting "more" from?

Would need to be 9 Canadian teams in the league when he leaves for that to happen.

8 when he started. 7 now. Your 'legacy shopping' proposal of adding "Quebec" would make 8. Same number, not more.

 

[dj4aces]

Let's hope it ends soon and a Canadian commissioner comes in with the aim of restoring dominance by Canadian teams to the league.

#MakeTheNHLGreatAgain

Bettman is only there to do the owners' bidding. As fans, it's incredibly easy to lose sight of this. Devellano makes this clear in the quote from the original post. So, if the owners tell the new commissioner to expand Canada to 12 teams, it becomes their job to make that happen, whether they be American, Canadian, or any other nationality.

 

[BMN]

Bettman is only there to do the owners' bidding. As fans, it's incredibly easy to lose sight of this. Devellano makes this clear in the quote from the original post. So, if the owners tell the new commissioner to expand Canada to 12 teams, it becomes their job to make that happen, whether they be American, Canadian, or any other nationality.

I don't understand why people lose sight of this when not only what you've said above is correct, but also...

they can't cite the dream commissioner to which they are comparing Gary--- specifically as it pertains to the matter of supposedly being "anti Canadian." It couldn't be John Ziegler, who among other things was commissioner when the league had to be beer-boycotted into admitting Winnipeg, Quebec City and Edmonton. Surely not Clarence Campbell, who oversaw the first expansion which doubled the number of teams in the league without adding a single Canadian one. And Gil Stein.....enough said.

The league's desire to expand its continental footprint pre-dates Bettman significantly, he just came in during the most dramatic chapter of the story. So uneducated fans try to simplify the tale as "the league was this idealistic model of putting teams where the 'real fans' are and then along came Gary Bettman to ruin it."

If one wants to criticize the league/ownership board writ large, that's one thing. But to criticize Gary Bettman for the league's expansion vision is such a bad take that exposes a lack of knowledge about anything that came before it.

Re: Bettman's reign, I'll always maintain that his image as a "the south at all costs" crusader has actually worked in his favour as far as legacy building because it has overshadowed his biggest failure as a commissioner: overseeing *three* significant work stoppages including the loss of an entire season.

PS FWIW I assume @Big Z Man 1990 was making a parody post.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

My attitude about Bettman remains the same.

If you're looking for someone to blame, he's little more than a boogeyman. With the possible exception of him being hardcore in favor of keeping the Yotes in Arizona back when the league owned them, I honestly don't think that the current NHL would really look all that much different from if someone else or multiple other people had served in his role over the decades. He's certainly powerful, but it's ultimately the owners that have the power, and I don't think he has the pull to single-handedly push the NHL in any direction. So anger towards him seems misplaced.

And frankly? One of the jobs of a commissioner is to take heat off owners, and he's done that swimmingly. Nobody's a better heel than him

But for anyone that praises him, I don't get that either. Yes, revenue is way up, but if you look at everyone else in the sports realm that's the case for every major entity. In fact, when viewed as part of a overall rising tide that benefited basically all sports, the NHL actually looks like they benefited comparatively less than MLB, the NFL, and especially the NBA.

 

[dj4aces]

PS FWIW I assume @Big Z Man 1990 was making a parody post.

If that's true, then my apologies. Even then, I feel like it still needed to be said... you know, for the people in the back.

 

[KevFu]

Where are you getting "more" from?

Would need to be 9 Canadian teams in the league when he leaves for that to happen.

8 when he started. 7 now. Your 'legacy shopping' proposal of adding "Quebec" would make 8. Same number, not more.

You're absolutely right. Like most people, I botched the early 90s expansion timeline.

Most people are going to assume Bettman presided over expanding the league from 21 to 32+ teams; so most the media will probably incorrectly give him credit for Ottawa as I did.

 

[KevFu]

Re: Bettman's reign, I'll always maintain that his image as a "the south at all costs" crusader has actually worked in his favour as far as legacy building because it has overshadowed his biggest failure as a commissioner: overseeing *three* significant work stoppages including the loss of an entire season.

Absolutely. The "southern crusader" image is drastically overblown, as the common denominator in his actions regarding relocation has been time:

He has fought for every existing market to retain their franchise, while pointing out the realistic threat of losing a team if they don't get a new arena, across the board.

He wasn't confident and assertive in his power as a new commish early for that to be more than words with the first four; and has openly admitted that. At the time he felt his hands were tied, when they were only tied on two.

-- which BTW, same number of American teams moved south as Canadian ones. It's just that his hands really were tied on the American ones: Their owners weren't willing to sell the team, and were free to move them.


The attempt to move the Oilers to Houston was the turning point. Ignoring an ownership statute temporarily to keep them in Edmonton. And after that, he's used tacking on "seven years, no relocation" clauses to new team purchases, and seeking local ownership.

All that, and the facts that he kept saying "well, if the Coyotes go anywhere, it should be back to Winnipeg" and the speed at which the Thrashers went to Winnipeg are what lead me to believe that Quebec getting a team back and Bettman stepping down will be near simultaneous events (barring anything health/medical obviously).

 

[Reaser]

You're absolutely right. Like most people, I botched the early 90s expansion timeline.

Most people are going to assume Bettman presided over expanding the league from 21 to 32+ teams; so most the media will probably incorrectly give him credit for Ottawa as I did.

That happens. Worse is when 'everyone' gives Bettman the credit for getting the NHL back on ESPN in 1992, the deal that also included the language for being on espn2 the following season and set the framework for getting onto broadcast/network/OTA.

Especially a year ago today with all the 30-year anniversary stories and threads -- tons gave Bettman all the credit for the ESPN deal in 1992, excluding the ASG the ABC games being the first NHL games on OTA/broadcast TV in nearly a decade and a half, and making the NHL such a big part of the espn2 launch.

The amount of times I had to repeat that it was Stein!

 

[aqib]

Absolutely. The "southern crusader" image is drastically overblown, as the common denominator in his actions regarding relocation has been time:

He has fought for every existing market to retain their franchise, while pointing out the realistic threat of losing a team if they don't get a new arena, across the board.

He wasn't confident and assertive in his power as a new commish early for that to be more than words with the first four; and has openly admitted that. At the time he felt his hands were tied, when they were only tied on two.

-- which BTW, same number of American teams moved south as Canadian ones. It's just that his hands really were tied on the American ones: Their owners weren't willing to sell the team, and were free to move them.


The attempt to move the Oilers to Houston was the turning point. Ignoring an ownership statute temporarily to keep them in Edmonton. And after that, he's used tacking on "seven years, no relocation" clauses to new team purchases, and seeking local ownership.

All that, and the facts that he kept saying "well, if the Coyotes go anywhere, it should be back to Winnipeg" and the speed at which the Thrashers went to Winnipeg are what lead me to believe that Quebec getting a team back and Bettman stepping down will be near simultaneous events (barring anything health/medical obviously).

It would have been too much to move 3 teams in 3 years especially all of them out of Canada. I wonder why Houston wasn't in the mix for the Jets the year before.

 

[Reaser]

Absolutely. The "southern crusader" image is drastically overblown, as the common denominator in his actions regarding relocation has been time:

He has fought for every existing market to retain their franchise, while pointing out the realistic threat of losing a team if they don't get a new arena, across the board.

He wasn't confident and assertive in his power as a new commish early for that to be more than words with the first four; and has openly admitted that. At the time he felt his hands were tied, when they were only tied on two.

-- which BTW, same number of American teams moved south as Canadian ones. It's just that his hands really were tied on the American ones: Their owners weren't willing to sell the team, and were free to move them.

"First four": He wasn't part of the Minnesota-to-Dallas relocation. That was in the works prior to him being chosen as [future --his first decision after getting the job was to take a few months off--] commissioner, permission to relocate as well as the destination being Dallas was determined prior to him "officially" becoming Commissioner, twas merely only announced a month after he officially started as commissioner. So he has no blame there, but also no credit for trying to keep the North Stars in Minnesota. In theory his first action as commissioner could have been to halt the process and save the North Stars -would have been a great start- but in practice that would have been beyond a tough ask and fairly unrealistic.

"Southern Crusader": Sharks, Kings, Ducks, Stars, Lightning and Panthers were non-Bettman. Majority of the "South" pre-dates him and/or he had no role in.

"Same number of American teams moved south as Canadian ones": Not really, since the CAN-to-USA and/or to-the-south relocations he presided over were QUE-to-COL, WPG-to-PHX & HAR-to-CAR. Even if he was involved with MIN-to-DAL saying "same number" is a bit of a disingenuous/convenient way to phrase it. The issue would be % of teams. In roughly his first 3-years on the job Canada lost 25% of their teams. Including Ducks & Panthers (awarded before he officially started as commissioner,) Bettman started with 26-franchises, 8 in CAN, 18 in U.S., By the time the four-expansion teams were announced in 1997, roughly four and a half years into his tenure, the NHL had (had plans for) 30-franchises, 6 in Canada, 24 in the U.S.. With a, at that time, net loss of 2 CAN markets, +6 U.S. markets (a loss of 1 U.S. market and gain of 7 U.S. markets.) Which also doesn't help perception in the 'same number of teams relocated' attempt at excusing.

 

[KevFu]

I wonder why Houston wasn't in the mix for the Jets the year before.

Short answer: The Jets were sold first; intending to go to Minnesota and only started city shopping after that deal fell through. The arena in Houston was controlled by the AHL owner, who wasn't gonna lease the building to an NHL team and put himself out of business.


The AHL owner and NBA owner in Houston fought for three years over who'd control a new Houston arena, which Houston was willing to build, but AHL owner wasn't willing to let the Rockets out of their lease if he wasn't part of the new arena.

During that time, both guys bid for, and lost out, on NHL expansion. Houston (the city) sat back and hoped the NHL decision would settle "whom do we build for?" And the NHL passed because there was no arena deal with any owner's bid.

The entire time, the Rockets guy was faced with "Start building a new arena to SHARE now" or "Sole control of the arena, but wait until 2003."

His attempted move of the Oilers was to get the new arena NOW. He'd control all the revenue of the new arena for the Oilers and concerts/events, and the Rockets would finish their lease and then move into the new arena in 2003.

Unless the AHL guy agrees to an earlier buyout; which he probably will because he's in the Hockey/Arena business and there's a better hockey team and better arena in town now. It was really about crushing the other guy more than wanting hockey at that point. Which is why once the Oilers deal fell apart, he never tried for an NHL team again.

 

[aqib]

Short answer: The Jets were sold first; intending to go to Minnesota and only started city shopping after that deal fell through. The arena in Houston was controlled by the AHL owner, who wasn't gonna lease the building to an NHL team and put himself out of business.


The AHL owner and NBA owner in Houston fought for three years over who'd control a new Houston arena, which Houston was willing to build, but AHL owner wasn't willing to let the Rockets out of their lease if he wasn't part of the new arena.

During that time, both guys bid for, and lost out, on NHL expansion. Houston (the city) sat back and hoped the NHL decision would settle "whom do we build for?" And the NHL passed because there was no arena deal with any owner's bid.

The entire time, the Rockets guy was faced with "Start building a new arena to SHARE now" or "Sole control of the arena, but wait until 2003."

His attempted move of the Oilers was to get the new arena NOW. He'd control all the revenue of the new arena for the Oilers and concerts/events, and the Rockets would finish their lease and then move into the new arena in 2003.

Unless the AHL guy agrees to an earlier buyout; which he probably will because he's in the Hockey/Arena business and there's a better hockey team and better arena in town now. It was really about crushing the other guy more than wanting hockey at that point. Which is why once the Oilers deal fell apart, he never tried for an NHL team again.

Its bizarre that they sold to a Minnesota group without an arena deal in Minnesota. The NHL should have made sure whoever bought had an arena squared away. The arena in Nashville was ready to go. Even Portland would have probably jumped in.

 

[KevFu]

Its bizarre that they sold to a Minnesota group without an arena deal in Minnesota. The NHL should have made sure whoever bought had an arena squared away. The arena in Nashville was ready to go. Even Portland would have probably jumped in.

I don't think it's bizarre... as fans we tend to look at things from a big picture, league as a whole standpoint: "The Jets almost moved to Minnesota." Why didn't "The Jets and Minnesota...."

But there's really multiple parties that are "the Jets" and "Minnesota." And all the individual parties are acting in their own self interest:

- The old Jets owner didn't get an arena deal in Winnipeg, so he's done. What does he care if there's a deal done in Minnesota or not? That's the new owner's problem.

- The new owners bought a team because that's when the team was for sale, and there's competing interests to own a team in Minnesota (I don't know the exact timeline on all the attempted dealings WRT relocation, expansion bids, arenas and when deals were done and construction started, but the gist here is spot on). So they buy the Jets before having an arena deal (why would an arena deal with owners of no team?), hoping that "We can bring you a team NOW" leapfrogs other people working on NHL to Minnesota and they get to own the team. They also don't risk losing an expansion bid, they definitely will own an NHL team if they buy the Jets.

- There's expansion owner bids, trying to cut an arena deal so they can win a team from the NHL. And partnering with St. Paul for control of an arena with no NBA team makes sense for them.

- There's St. Paul trying to build a new arena and land a team. If they're not ready with an arena opening for next season, why work with the new Jets owners? You can't help them until you have a completed building. The expansion bid group has the same timeline as you do, so partnering with them makes the most sense.

- There's the NBA arena operators, whom the new Jets owners HAVE to work with if there's no new arena ready (again, I don't know the timeline). Is it in their best interest to make a deal to share an arena with a hockey team? If they know there's gonna be a new arena in St. Paul that's going to compete with them - and almost certainly will make an offer to the hockey team - wouldn't you book as many events (you control the revenue of) before the metro has two arenas, and not share revenue with a hockey team for events in your building?

That last one sounds really compelling for why the Jets didn't move to Minnesota. Again, I don't know the timeline of it all, but that one sounds really plausible.

 

[aqib]

I don't think it's bizarre... as fans we tend to look at things from a big picture, league as a whole standpoint: "The Jets almost moved to Minnesota." Why didn't "The Jets and Minnesota...."

But there's really multiple parties that are "the Jets" and "Minnesota." And all the individual parties are acting in their own self interest:

- The old Jets owner didn't get an arena deal in Winnipeg, so he's done. What does he care if there's a deal done in Minnesota or not? That's the new owner's problem.

- The new owners bought a team because that's when the team was for sale, and there's competing interests to own a team in Minnesota (I don't know the exact timeline on all the attempted dealings WRT relocation, expansion bids, arenas and when deals were done and construction started, but the gist here is spot on). So they buy the Jets before having an arena deal (why would an arena deal with owners of no team?), hoping that "We can bring you a team NOW" leapfrogs other people working on NHL to Minnesota and they get to own the team. They also don't risk losing an expansion bid, they definitely will own an NHL team if they buy the Jets.

When the ASG gave up on the Thrashers the league pushed them towards Winnipeg. I remember Daly saying 6 other cities inquired but Winnipeg was the league's mandated destination.

Its mind blowing in retrospect that when Shenkarow decided he was done and couldn't do it anymore that the NHL didn't have more of a hand in the process of vetting the owners and where the team would win up.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

"Southern Crusader": Sharks, Kings, Ducks, Stars, Lightning and Panthers were non-Bettman. Majority of the "South" pre-dates him and/or he had no role in.

NHL started expanding down south when Bettman was in high school. Funnily enough.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

Absolutely. The "southern crusader" image is drastically overblown, as the common denominator in his actions regarding relocation has been time:

He has fought for every existing market to retain their franchise, while pointing out the realistic threat of losing a team if they don't get a new arena, across the board.

He wasn't confident and assertive in his power as a new commish early for that to be more than words with the first four; and has openly admitted that. At the time he felt his hands were tied, when they were only tied on two.

-- which BTW, same number of American teams moved south as Canadian ones. It's just that his hands really were tied on the American ones: Their owners weren't willing to sell the team, and were free to move them.


The attempt to move the Oilers to Houston was the turning point. Ignoring an ownership statute temporarily to keep them in Edmonton. And after that, he's used tacking on "seven years, no relocation" clauses to new team purchases, and seeking local ownership.

All that, and the facts that he kept saying "well, if the Coyotes go anywhere, it should be back to Winnipeg" and the speed at which the Thrashers went to Winnipeg are what lead me to believe that Quebec getting a team back and Bettman stepping down will be near simultaneous events (barring anything health/medical obviously).

If the Oilers had moved to Houston they likely would have changed their name because the NFL Oilers relocating left a bitter taste in the mouth of many Houstonians and they probably would not have supported the team if it kept the Oilers name.

If that's true, then my apologies. Even then, I feel like it still needed to be said... you know, for the people in the back.

It was dead serious.