ESPN The Magazine: 30 players polled on realignment, PEDs, expansion, etc.

[GuelphStormer]

Which of the eastern teams would be moved back to western conference Detroit or Columbus i don't think those two want to move back and it doesn't make sense to have TOR2 or QC play in the western conference.

The alignment will be adjust regardless of who gets expansion of the 3. Coyotes will have to be figured out again in 5 years

The NW is not like the markets in the previous expansion. It make sense to have both portland and seattle for reasons i stated earlier.

Neither Portland or Settle ever had NHL teams its better to use term unknown than poor.

which is why it is utterly ridiculous that you suggest the league would want to expand into both cities, leaving goldmines untapped. even more absurd is your argument that it would grow the game more than putting one of those teams into GTA2.

putting teams in both portland and seattle would surely result in another disaster that would necessarily result in one of them being relocated. im sorry, but the PNW is simply not capable of supporting two new nhl teams regardless of your personal optimism and excitement about your un-built arena.

(re)alignment is a red herring in this discussion ... a minor consideration at best.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

In your opinion, you mean. Both Portland and Seattle are growing and wealthy markets with deep corporate support, potential owners with very deep pockets, suitable arenas either in place or slated to begin construction, and a long history of junior hockey support. While I do think that there could be issues with Portland becoming the smallest market with both NBA and NHL teams and Seattle almost assuredly becoming a four sport market again as the NBA is sure to move back eventually, it's definitely not a sure thing that either would fail. And they arguably have as much going for them as any potential market, aside from the infallible mystique that untapped (or undertapped) Canadian markets are assumed to have as a sort of a priori truth these days.

 

[GuelphStormer]

In your opinion, you mean. Both Portland and Seattle are growing and wealthy markets with deep corporate support, potential owners with very deep pockets, suitable arenas either in place or slated to begin construction, and a long history of junior hockey support. While I do think that there could be issues with Portland becoming the smallest market with both NBA and NHL teams and Seattle almost assuredly becoming a four sport market again as the NBA is sure to move back eventually, it's definitely not a sure thing that either would fail. And they arguably have as much going for them as any potential market, aside from the infallible mystique that untapped (or undertapped) Canadian markets are assumed to have as a sort of a priori truth these days.

it's definitely not a sure thing that both would succeed either. indeed, it's not even a realistic hope that they could reach the middle. that's my point. one or the other, not both and certainly not right now.

the market arguments you provide to support the viability of each city equally apply to a bunch of other places too, especially to GTA2/SO and QC. tommy's argument was that franchises in both portland and seattle would "grow the game" more than having one in these other cites. i disagree.

seattle is likely the best US-based city for a team, but it's net financial contribution to the league, both in terms of gate (obviously) and in terms of viewership, advertising, and network contracts, pale in comparison to the net contribution of a team in hamilton, toronto or quebec city.

were there no distinction between canadian and american TV contracts, none of us would be having this discussion. these 3 canadian cities would obviously deliver a LOT more into the pockets of the league owners than ANY american city. let's be clear, a viewer who watches two games is the same as two viewers who watch one game each when it comes to advertising dollars. coke and ford would not be get a bulk discount advertising rate from nbc or cbc when they buy time on two SO games. and nbc and cbc will pay the league based on total expected viewership. of course its beneficial to have PNW-based local content, but the interest is simply not there yet to think a portland game would get anything close to the ratings of a hamilton game. so, this myth that the nbc contract is THAT much more valuable with an abundance of weak, watered-down markets is just plain wrong. portland provides no marginal benefit above seattle. but hamilton does provide a great deal of marginal benefit above other proximate existing content ... and it also provides a great deal more gate.

and this oft-raised issue of realignment based on times zones and travel expenses is little more than the tail wagging the dog.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

That's nice and all, but you've changed your tune on the matter from a double expansion in the American Pacific Northwest would fail to expansion elsewhere would be better.

That may be so, but we don't know the machinations behind the scenes on the subject. For all we know, there are powerful eastern brokers against adding another team in the eastern time zone so as to avoid being kicked back west (Detroit) or opposition to another team being added to their monopolized region (definitely Toronto and possibly Montreal).

If there are willing owners in say Seattle, Portland, the GTA, and Quebec City, and the only major difference is that nobody opposes the American markets and several teams oppose the Canadian markets, it wouldn't be too surprising to see the NHL expand along the path of least resistance. They'll still make a mint on expansion fees and Portland and Seattle both seemingly have deep-pocketed owners with roots in their markets that relocation wouldn't be much of a concern for the foreseeable future.

As for the TV argument, I think the case could be made that the NHL is confident that they'll get a huge amount out of whatever Canadian network(s) they sign with regardless of if there's a team in Quebec City or not, so I don't think that's much of a issue one way or the other for the league.

 

[GuelphStormer]

That's nice and all, but you've changed your tune on the matter from a double expansion in the American Pacific Northwest would fail to expansion elsewhere would be better.

That may be so, but we don't know the machinations behind the scenes on the subject. For all we know, there are powerful eastern brokers against adding another team in the eastern time zone so as to avoid being kicked back west (Detroit) or opposition to another team being added to their monopolized region (definitely Toronto and possibly Montreal).

If there are willing owners in say Seattle, Portland, the GTA, and Quebec City, and the only major difference is that nobody opposes the American markets and several teams oppose the Canadian markets, it wouldn't be too surprising to see the NHL expand along the path of least resistance. They'll still make a mint on expansion fees and Portland and Seattle both seemingly have deep-pocketed owners with roots in their markets that relocation wouldn't be much of a concern for the foreseeable future.

As for the TV argument, I think the case could be made that the NHL is confident that they'll get a huge amount out of whatever Canadian network(s) they sign with regardless of if there's a team in Quebec City or not, so I don't think that's much of a issue one way or the other for the league.

of course there are all sorts of machinations behind the scenes, see hamilton for the past 25 years.

no, i havent changed my tune on double expansion into PNW. apologies if what I wrote was unclear. if the league expands into both portland and seattle at the same time, one of those two franchises WILL fail. thus, if two expansion teams are "needed", then put one in PNW and one elsewhere (where it will actually make money for everyone involved).

 

[No Fun Shogun]

There were people that said that moving into both Edmonton (merger/expansion) and Calgary (relocation) in the span of a year would be disastrous, too, and both are still there now, even with their fair share of issues over their histories.

Seattle and Portland are sufficiently far apart and have access to their own distinct markets that I can honestly say that I don't see a scenario where expanding into both simultaneously would result in a greater chance of failure for either versus only expanding into one or the other separately. In fact, if anything, it might do both some good by creating an obvious new rivalry that would be easy for fans to rally around and the teams to market, as it already exists in other sports (MLS, NCAA, and previously the NBA), and both teams would probably be cellar dwellers for the first couple years as is the norm for expansion teams.

 

[MoreOrr]

There were people that said that moving into both Edmonton (merger/expansion) and Calgary (relocation) in the span of a year would be disastrous, too, and both are still there now, even with their fair share of issues over their histories.

Man, you're digging back for that one. You might as well just have gone back to the 67 expansion. But Edmonton came into the League already with a team, and so did Calgary; so there's really no comparison to be made with two expansion teams in the same area in the same year, not unless you look at the 76 expansion. The closest thing would the the two Florida teams, and that was in two separate years. And such could be done in the Pacific NW. But there's zero reason to think that QC isn't going to get a team within the next 4 years, max.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Sure there's a comparison. Two distinct markets in relative proximity to each other joined the league at almost the same time. The success of one didn't necessarily have a negative impact on the other. And, if anything, it could be said that having an immediate rival in relatively close proximity actually helped.

Same would almost assuredly be the case for Seattle and Portland. If either or both are doomed to failure, the presence of another team in the American Pacific Northwest would really have nothing to do with it as the two markets are distinct. They're about a two and a half hour drive from each other, so I doubt we'd see a huge proportion of fans make the trek down or up if only one got a team, and they'd still have TV rights to their own states should they both go in (plus a little bleed over into Washington for Portland).

 

[sawchuk1971]

There is a long list of reasons why Quebec would be a better NHL market than Portland, and we've been over them ad nauseum.

man..it would've better if quebec had built a new arena back in 1995...

i think its too late for quebec to get a NHL...the nhl's TPTB don't want quebec...sad to say....

 

[gstommylee]

There were people that said that moving into both Edmonton (merger/expansion) and Calgary (relocation) in the span of a year would be disastrous, too, and both are still there now, even with their fair share of issues over their histories.

Seattle and Portland are sufficiently far apart and have access to their own distinct markets that I can honestly say that I don't see a scenario where expanding into both simultaneously would result in a greater chance of failure for either versus only expanding into one or the other separately. In fact, if anything, it might do both some good by creating an obvious new rivalry that would be easy for fans to rally around and the teams to market, as it already exists in other sports (MLS, NCAA, and previously the NBA), and both teams would probably be cellar dwellers for the first couple years as is the norm for expansion teams.

The portland vs seattle hockey rivalry already exists in the WHL league so it would be no different than the rivalry between sounders and Timber were when they went from division 2 soccer to MLS. The rivalry has actually grown since both Seattle and Portland joined MLS

 

[Riptide]

I don't understand the need for Quebec City outside of nostalgia. I understand almost every Canadian fan will apparently vote for any Canadian city, guess it is time we do the same as USA hockey fans, because it is ridiculous logic at times. What does Quebec City really bring? It doesn't excite me over Portland or Seattle in the least. If we want to go the sure fire Canadian route Toronto 2 makes a ton more sense than Quebec City for me. They should be an Eastern Conference relocation threat as leverage, might upset them but that is all I see out of that market.

A, true fans are not going to vote for just "any Canadian city". I'm not opposed to TO2, QC, or southern Ontario (Hamilton, etc). But I wouldn't support any other city out side of the GTA/QC. As to why? They had a team, and lost it through no fault of their own. And a team there would succeed. It might not be Toronto (ref QC), but it would do at least as well as Ottawa or Winnipeg. And both of those teams are assets to the league.

As for the US... again, if it makes sense, then sure. I'd love to see a team (or two) in the PNW, but if it was up to me, would likely go with GTA and QC first. Simply because I think those two would have a lot more success than the PNW. But it really depends on what the league wants to accomplish, and I think this will be the main driver as to who will get teams.

of course there are all sorts of machinations behind the scenes, see hamilton for the past 25 years.

no, i havent changed my tune on double expansion into PNW. apologies if what I wrote was unclear. if the league expands into both portland and seattle at the same time, one of those two franchises WILL fail. thus, if two expansion teams are "needed", then put one in PNW and one elsewhere (where it will actually make money for everyone involved).

How can you say that? Would the PNW have the same success that the GTA/QC would? I doubt it. But there's no way to say with the certainty that you're saying, that it WILL fail. There's a lot of factors there (as to whether it could/couldn't succeed) and it would take at least a decade (likely closer to two) before we would know either way.

 

[gstommylee]

A, true fans are not going to vote for just "any Canadian city". I'm not opposed to TO2, QC, or southern Ontario (Hamilton, etc). But I wouldn't support any other city out side of the GTA/QC. As to why? They had a team, and lost it through no fault of their own. And a team there would succeed. It might not be Toronto (ref QC), but it would do at least as well as Ottawa or Winnipeg. And both of those teams are assets to the league.

As for the US... again, if it makes sense, then sure. I'd love to see a team (or two) in the PNW, but if it was up to me, would likely go with GTA and QC first. Simply because I think those two would have a lot more success than the PNW. But it really depends on what the league wants to accomplish, and I think this will be the main driver as to who will get teams.



How can you say that? Would the PNW have the same success that the GTA/QC would? I doubt it. But there's no way to say with the certainty that you're saying, that it WILL fail. There's a lot of factors there (as to whether it could/couldn't succeed) and it would take at least a decade (likely closer to two) before we would know either way.

Also has to consider the uniqueness of the pacific northwest given the nearest US based NHL team is the sharks and the avs. There will be a lot more people (covering 5 states) watching Portland and Seattle NHL hockey than i think people realize imo.