Balsillie/Phoenix part V
- Thread starter mouser
- Start date
- Status
TaketheCannoli
RIP
This makes the road trips even longer. For some reason, people think it's fine for western teams to regularly make these week long or longer trips, while eastern teams often go home after each game. Then you want to add to the western teams travel just to suit one team? If Balsille wants new site added to the west, it needs to BE in the west.
Otherwise, it just increases the odds that the BoG rejects his application.
Egil
Registered User
I used the following games:
Western Conference: 2 games
3 Canadian teams: 1 games
Eastern Teams: 0.5 games
Which I believe to be 100% accurate (and hence why despite many more teams the games go from 9 to 13).
I think the idea of Hamilton in the East is a non-starter. It would infuriate Detroit, and whatever team gets bumped. The SE division is all relatively close, so I doubt that gets changed by bumping Atlanta (then how replaces them?).
I also believe that Hamilton/Toronto 2 is better served in the West as it differentiates the product. HNIC would be in heaven.
I believe that Phoenix to Hamilton would produce a schedule for the 4 other NW teams that:
a) Has less total distance travelled
b) Has the same average road trip length
The time zone issue is valid (mainly for Vancouver). However, West to East is vastly preferable to East to West (a 4:30-5:30 start works ok for TV, a 10:30 start sucks). However, due to competition with the Leafs for TV time, I think later starts works ok for Hamilton as well. So long as they are in the West, this is always going to be an issue for them.
As I said above, I accounted for this in the # of games (13 up from 9). Vancouver already plays every Canadian team home and away (3 games), Detroit, Chicago, Columbus twice (6 games) and 4 games against the remaining Atlantic, NE teams and Washington. Adding Hamilton is easy to any 2-3 games against these other teams. In essence, it creates a pool of 16 games in a very centralized location, perhaps done in 3-4 road trips of 4-5 games for Vancouver/Calgary/Edmonton.
But you miss my point entirely because you are hung up on how far team A is from team B. I believe (honestly) that Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton would end up with a LESS grueling travel schedule with Hamilton instead of 2 games in Phoenix and 1 in Colorado.
Still simplistic, and yes the league does try to co-ordinate road trips (this is an extremely difficult constrained optimization problem). Hamilton adds a ton of flexibility to this problem, wheras Phoenix acts like a nasty, nasty constraint.
Let us look at Vancouver's road trips last season:
Calgary
Washington
Detroit
Buffalo
Chicago
Columbus
LA
Anahiem
NYI
NYR
Minnissota
Pittsburgh
Calgary
Columbus
Detroit
Minnissota
Colorado
Nashville
Edmonton
San Jose
Nashville
Atlanta
Edmonton
San Jose
St. Louis
Phoenix
Dallas
Calgary
Ottawa
Toronto
Montreal
LA
Anaheim
Phoenix
Dallas
St. Louis
Colorado
Chicago
Minnesota
Edmonton
Colorado
I count 5 road trips where Vancouver is within a hr flight of Hamilton, and easily tacked on at numerous times throughout most of these trips.
Vancouver had one off games with SJ, Edmonton and Colorado (last game of the season), the rest of the schedule is linked. Hamilton makes these links easier, not harder, than Phoenix (which gets tacked on nasty road trips with large distances between games).
I know your intuition is telling you that Hamilton means more travel for Vancouver, but I don't think that is the case. Believe it or not, Vancouver would have less travel if it played in the Eastern Conference than the West because the travel between games on a road trip, which more than offsets the longer initial and end flights to get to the East. No matter what Vancouver is going to have extended road trips.
Egil
Registered User
I think that Vancouver would get a BETTER travel schedule with 3 games in Hamilton and 1 fewer in Colorado and 2 fewer in Phoenix.
Calgary took 6 eastern roadtrips last year. To make 3 of these roadtrips a single game longer isn't a big deal whatsoever. Having talked to NHL players (who play in the West), they don't really mind roadtrips, its a time to get away from the hectic local media and have use the roadtrips as a time to bring the team closer together.
Some of you guys are making it sound like adding Hamilton to the NW would make their travel schedules KHL Siberiaesque. It's really not a big deal. And I'm a Flames fan.
I completely agree.
Guys, check out the NHL map, this realignment is definitely the best proposal I've seen.
TaketheCannoli
RIP
Adding a single game adds either a back to back and two extra days or without a back to back then 3 or more days to each trip. Your Flames have a hard enough time attracting UFAs and like most western teams, wear down towards the end of the season. How much did the western travel add to the Flames injury and fatigue problems that had them dressing 15 players near the end. Do you think they want to add to that?
Using the same argument, relocating Phoenix further isolates Dallas and creates a bigger issue in tacking on stop overs there.
Actually Phoenix's location is pretty decent when tacked on to a South West swing through California.
Egil
Registered User
What it does to Dallas is less clear for sure. But I think it is clear that the 3 teams with the worst travel are Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary in that order, so there concerns come above the rest.
Huh? C'mon man, you know that Calgary's situation had much more to do with the cap than the travel.
I'll post some numbers so we can really see what the injury situation is actually like:
http://www.fromtherink.com/2009/3/18/802866/isles-are-nhl-s-most-injur
In terms of man games lost to injury for the past for seasons, the highest ranking NW team is Colorado, which ranks 9th in the league.
6 of the 8th most injured teams over the past four seasons are in fact Eastern Conference Teams
As we see, there is no factual correlation between injuries and travel.
As a Flames fan you should consider that in the past three seasons the Flames have had one and back trips to Colorado the most out of all the NW teams.
All things being equal Calgary would be getting the shaft more than anyone.
Egil
Registered User
But what is the cause of the injuries?
Is it # of days on the road (I don't see why a player staying in a 5 star hotel is more likely to get injured than a player staying at home).
Is it distance travelled? I think partially because players can't recover as well when they have to fly out after a game, they can't sleep as well when getting in at 2 am, etc. I think that this is ~ 1/3 of the effect. This is what costs the team money, so they care about this quite a bit however.
Is it time between games? I think this is the big one, ~ 2/3 of the effect. Hamilton removes constraints and adds options for scheduling 1/3 of the road schedule. Phoenix on the other hand adds constraints to the road schedule. The fewer constraints, the more likely a team is to get road trips with 1 game every 2 days (which is the ideal).
Hence, I believe that Hamilton would produce a better travel schedule for the team ($$ from distance traveled) and the players (more time between games on the road).
Egil
Registered User
Dallas is within < 1.5hr flight from St. Louis, Nashville and Colorado. I don't think that is a major issue, as Phoenix is about a 2 hr flight from Dallas (and as you will note from Vancouver's schedule, a flight made twice by Vancouver).
TaketheCannoli
RIP
The cap became a problem due to injuries. One of the greatest causes of injury is fatigue. The longer a team is on the road, the more they get fatigued. Western teams are at a disadvantage already.This exacerbates the problem. I think the only logical progression is in order:
Option #1 team stays in Phoenix, of that can't be done then
Option #2 team moves to Winnipeg, if not possible then
Option #3 team can only locate in either the Mountain or Pacific time zones
Egil
Registered User
I think it is because the proposed realignment is non-intuitive and wasn't pondered before.
And your response to the fact that over the past four seasons, 6 of the top 8 most injured teams were in the Eastern conference is....?
TaketheCannoli
RIP
There are certainly other factors that come into play for injury. Conditioning, medical staff decisions, luck etc. Fatigue is definitely a major contributor. Adding a team in Hamilton to any western division is a poor move.
I believe the NHL is best served by having this franchise in the Mountain or Pacific time zones.
KevFu
Registered User
MoreOrr said:
That's all very true... which is kind of while I qualified my statement with:
Not because the geography works (because with six divisions and these 30 teams, it's never going to work)
While it doesn't make any sense and there's zero benefit to Hamilton in the Northwest... there's not a single configuration with 30 teams in these locations and six divisions of five that makes an ounce of sense.
Not when you have:
7 teams in the Pacific/Mountain Time Zones (3 south, 3 north, one middle)
2 teams in Central TZ, South
3 teams in the Central TZ, North
4 teams in the East TZ, South
14 teams in the East TZ, North
It's not a matter of finding a perfect alignment. It's a matter of finding an alignment with the least number of problems.
The Hamilton to the Northwest creates very few additional problems. Yeah, it makes a travel disaster division (but Dallas already thinks they are in one). But those issues stem from a team moving from two time zones away, not necessarily how you align.
Unless you move teams around SOLELY for alignment purposes, it's not going to be a good fit. You just do the best you can.
Your arguments are so good, you should apply that reasoning to the Eastern Conference and explain to all the teams there that mixing western Divisions with eastern Divisions is really beneficial to everyone's travel. Really, I'm not being sarcastic! The larger the western Divisions are, to include eastern teams, the better it is. But of course, NO eastern teams want any part of such a scenario. However, if the League applied your reasoning then at the very least Detroit and/or Columbus would better serve the "West" by being put in the Northwest or the Pacific Division in order to reduce overall, "coordinated" travel.
Hey, I've used the argument many times that having a geographically compact eastern Division mixed in with each of the large western Divisions would actually mean less overall travel for those western Divisions, but NO ONE in the East wants any part of such a scenario. For example, a Division with:
Detroit, Toronto, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Columbus
put in the Western Conference would make travel better for the Western Conference, in addition to being better for Detroit and Columbus.
So, putting Hamilton in the Central would not only help Detroit and Columbus, but would still improve overall travel in the West. Hamilton doesn't need to be in a 4 Time Zone Northwest Division to do that. Chicago in with Minnesota would make travel better for the Northwest.
All I see here are different standards being used for the Western Conference and the Eastern Conference. Make things better for the "West" by enlarging Divisions with multiple Time Zones, keep things better for the "East" by having smaller Divisions all in one Time Zone.
* Here's an idea:
Teams like Dallas, Colorado, and Vancouver are really in the middle of nowhere when it comes to other teams in the "West", they're not really close to any other teams. It would serve those teams better if each one were put in a compact "Eastern" Division because their overall travel will actually be reduced. And then, Hamilton and a couple other eastern teams can be put in the "Western" Divisions because in fact having more eastern teams in the "West" will be good for western travel. It's a fact, really, so what's stopping the League from doing.
Last edited:
There's a thread on the Canuck's board. Here's a sample of the sentiment from there:
Appears that about 80-90% of the posts there share that sentiment.
Appears that about 80-90% of the posts there share that sentiment.
Mod-edit: deleted.
Incorrect. He is referring to the fact that JB's offer includes $22.5 specifically set aside for Gretzky.
As well, and here is some new information that I have not previously mentioned (which might be of interest if we can get off the relocation stuff and back on topic), it also would be subject to the following deductions:
1. The amount by which the NHL revenue sharing portions wind up being less than $25 million;
2. All amounts remaining payable to the players pursuant to the 2008-09 season (the several millions that were recently discussed and forming part fo the $17 million required to operate the franchise for this interim period);
3. All liabilities payable in respect of the acquired assets incurred during the period between May 5 and the closing date for the transaction (including the above mentioned player contracts).
4. Had JB been successful in having his offer for DIP financing approved, those monies would conceivably also have been deducted. That is moot now.
Some of these reduce the purchase price, while others may or may not not change the amounts payable by JB (they may, if the parties decide it is easier for JB to pay them and reduce the proceeds rather than JB paying to Moyes and Moyes paying the bills). Either way, they reduce the amounts available for the creditors under Jb's proposal.
As well, if somehow JB got Gretzky to come with the franchise and waive his contract payments in writing, Moyes would get the payments otherwise due to TGO. I cannot imagine why Gretzky would consent to waive $14.5 mil, though.
Perhaps this will get us back on track.
Incorrect. He is referring to the fact that JB's offer includes $22.5 specifically set aside for Gretzky.
As well, and here is some new information that I have not previously mentioned (which might be of interest if we can get off the relocation stuff and back on topic), it also would be subject to the following deductions:
1. The amount by which the NHL revenue sharing portions wind up being less than $25 million;
2. All amounts remaining payable to the players pursuant to the 2008-09 season (the several millions that were recently discussed and forming part fo the $17 million required to operate the franchise for this interim period);
3. All liabilities payable in respect of the acquired assets incurred during the period between May 5 and the closing date for the transaction (including the above mentioned player contracts).
4. Had JB been successful in having his offer for DIP financing approved, those monies would conceivably also have been deducted. That is moot now.
Some of these reduce the purchase price, while others may or may not not change the amounts payable by JB (they may, if the parties decide it is easier for JB to pay them and reduce the proceeds rather than JB paying to Moyes and Moyes paying the bills). Either way, they reduce the amounts available for the creditors under Jb's proposal.
As well, if somehow JB got Gretzky to come with the franchise and waive his contract payments in writing, Moyes would get the payments otherwise due to TGO. I cannot imagine why Gretzky would consent to waive $14.5 mil, though.
Perhaps this will get us back on track.
Last edited by a moderator:
KevFu
Registered User
This is a whole lot of genius I'm not going to quote all of. And it's probably off-topic for the Phoenix thread (at least my thoughts on the matter).
Gimme a little bit and I'll make a new thread on why I think a "baseball style" conference alignment is the way to go
If I were you, I am not sure I would be critiquing the thinking of other posters in this regard. I put it to you that your thnking is abysmally flawed, for the following reasons:
1. While Copps is ultimately owned by the municipal government, JB's transaction with the City places all control and revenue generated by Copps for the next 20 (and up to 32) years, as well as that of the convention centre and playhouse (which includes a significant parking facility, by the way), in the sole control of JB. As such, while the asset may be owned by the City, the complete benefit of the assets accrues to JB and not the City.
2. Given that the City has given all benefits from the arena to JB, there is no protection that has been given against a competing arena. You have for all intents and purposes given the arena away for the next 20-32 years. The City is clearly in a worse position than if JB had built his own arena. This is beyond debate.
Among the many points that you and others fail to appreciate is that JB's lease is effectively for the remaining effective life of the facility. When JB's lease is up, the City will not have a valuable asset any more. They will have a 54-year-old (or so) arena with 32-year-old upgrades. It will be ready for demolition.
Most of the regulars here know how much I LOATHE analogies, but I will indulge you with one. Assume I own a 20-year-old house with a market value of $200k. Assume that house has about 32 years left before it will be completely outmoded and of littel to no market value, except for the lot on which it is built (since in 32 years I can tear down the house and build a new one). I lease that house to you for the remaining 32 years of its life, for you to sublet at a profit. I still "own" the house, but you get all the money that is going to be generated from leasing that house for the rest of its life. Even though I still "own" the house, who is getting the full benefit (hint: it ain't me)?
Mod-edit: deleted.
May I ask a question, to whoever may want to answer?
Is this truly a "Business" topic? To me it seems more like a "power struggle", now involving the courts, between the League/the BOG/MLSE against Balsillie's attempts to bring the Coyotes to Hamilton.
Now here I may be totally "business naive", but how is keeping the Coyotes in Phoenix the better "business" decision for the League over having the team in Hamilton? I'd really like to be clarified about that. "Power Struggle" and now made into a "legal Power Struggle", of course with financial implications for all those people who are owed money due to the Coyotes financial woes in Phoenix, yes.
And part of that Power Struggle is innately based in "where" Balsillie wants to put a team. And "where" then becomes innated related to alignment, no matter how you look at it.
But of course, I should wait for the answer to my question above. This might actually be a "pure" business issue.
May I ask a question, to whoever may want to answer?
Is this truly a "Business" topic? To me it seems more like a "power struggle", now involving the courts, between the League/the BOG/MLSE against Balsillie's attempts to bring the Coyotes to Hamilton.
Now here I may be totally "business naive", but how is keeping the Coyotes in Phoenix the better "business" decision for the League over having the team in Hamilton? I'd really like to be clarified about that. "Power Struggle" and now made into a "legal Power Struggle", of course with financial implications for all those people who are owed money due to the Coyotes financial woes in Phoenix, yes.
And part of that Power Struggle is innately based in "where" Balsillie wants to put a team. And "where" then becomes innated related to alignment, no matter how you look at it.
But of course, I should wait for the answer to my question above. This might actually be a "pure" business issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
