Expansion Teams

[Dr Love]

I believe that corpses are prohibited in the new collective bargaining agreement (although IB is free to correct me if I am wrong).

I believe you're wrong because Sean Burke played last year.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

OK, which six do you propose we cut?

Perhaps the six franchises with the worst attendance this past season?

St. Louis
Chicago
NY Islanders
Washington
New Jersey
Boston

Yeah, let's whack the teams in the 3rd, 7th, and 8th largest American markets and two of the teams in the largest market (where the Rangers are already selling out), never mind the underlying reasons why attendance sucked in all six of those markets last year. I'm sure that will really help the NHL gain popularity.

While we're at it, let's start the, "Canada could support a pro hockey league without the help of the U.S." idea again, and I'll go dig out the thread where the idea was solidly refuted.

 

[coolguy21415]

The MTS Centre is build downtown nowhere near the old arena.You don`t know anything about the MTS Centre,the Winnipeg Jets or the city of Winnipeg so maybe don`t talk about them.

Is there a serious owner looking to bring the team back? I know the local government is keen on it, but I've yet to hear from a serious ownership group that wants to relocate a team to Winnipeg.

The MTS Center would probably need to be expanded, if an NHL team arrived. Are there many luxury boxes?

 

[MayDay]

Yeah, let's whack the teams in the 3rd, 7th, and 8th largest American markets and two of the teams in the largest market (where the Rangers are already selling out), never mind the underlying reasons why attendance sucked in all six of those markets last year.

Hey, I wasn't really being serious. I was only trying to use some facts to point out the hypocrisy of most HFBoards posters.

The moment a southern franchise struggles a little bit at the gate, HFBoards starts chomping at the bit to take away that franchise. "Move 'em to Winnipeg!" "Move 'em to Hamilton!" "Contract 'em!" "Those rednecks don't appreciate the game and don't deserve a team!"

However, when we look at the facts, we see that the teams that consistently get the worst attendance are northern teams. Teams like Chicago, Boston, Devils, and Islanders. Is this ever chalked up to poor hockey markets or bad fans? Oh, no. God forbid. No, there are a million "underlying reasons" to explain away the poor attendance. Bad ownership. Bad management. Bad arena in a poor location. Savvy, discriminating fans that won't shell out for an inferior on-ice product, and want to hold the team accountable.

There's a huge, gaping double-standard on HFBoards when it comes to attitudes towards northern and southern teams regarding attendance issues, and I'm surprised more people don't see it.

(And for the record, I'm a fan of a northern team. I just don't like the hypocrisy.)

 

[shatner_rules]

Apparently you know nothing about hockey, pondnorth, since when do you own the city of Winnipeg or know anything about pro hockey or other sports but pure ignorance

Are you the poster creating threads hyping the return of the Jets

Actually, pondnorth is correct: the MTS Centre is located downtown.

As far as serious owners there is the True North group headed up by Mark Chipman(owner of the AHL Manitoba Moose) and the Asper's(David & Leonard).

I still believe that an outside person with deep pockets has to be involved with the local people to make this work.

 

[tiredman]

I wouldn't be too happy either. I think Houston should get a team before KC. It is 4th most pop in US, has hockey history, a ready arena and a wanting owner. Texas is big enough for 2 NHL teams. In fact it would be smartest thing for NHL to do. But this is the NHL so i should expect a team in Compton, Cali before Houston.

If NHL does expand which i expect they will. (Cash grab and media attention) they should consider one of these expansion plans.

A-Houston, Ontario (This one would be most logical pick since it would be 1 Southern US and 1 Canada team. NHL head office could keep expanding to new market in South and a 7th team in Canada would make up for lose of Jets)

B-Houston, Winnipeg (If Winnipeg built a real stadium it would be possible)

C-Houston, KC ( It would balance out Western Conference allowing Blue Jackets to move. (Detroit cant move it would kill rivalrys with Chi, Stl, Nas and Col the NHL BOG would have to put a foot down on Ilitch and explain the importance of Detroit to Western Conferance. KC has a great arena and built in rivalry with Stl as its good points. But it failed miserably last time. At least Atlanta, Colorado and Minnesota showed good potential before they lost there teams, thus thats why they got 2nd chances)

D-Houston, Oklahoma (This would be least like by fans in Canada and would be ripped apart in media but it does make sense. Houston has Pop, History, Arena and ownership waiting while Oklahoma City has Arena and was nearly successful in mid 90's during expansion bids. They put on a great presentation for board and showed that Hockey could work. It would also be great rivalry wise with Dal, Hou and Nas. It would also balance out Western Conference allowing Columbus to move to East).

E-Las Vegas and KC (Ugh, this is the one i expect the NHL to do)

I would want expansion B but Winnipeg doesn't have an NHL arena. So i hope to see expansion A or Expansion D.

I dont want to see expansion E but it looks more and more likely that will be the leagues choice.

You're not the only one but I find it funny that almost nobody even mentions quebec city.

They always had better attendance than the average of the nhl even in their bad years. They also had better attendance than the jets. Plus, there is a plan for a new arena to be built that will be announced next month.

Coorporate support would also not be a problem for a quebec city team. Even Marcel Aubut, the owner of the nords, said it was bs to think it would be a problem since the nordiques (or a new team) would be supported by all the province.

Of course, Winnipeg has an advantage at this moment with their new arena. But if you mention Hamilton, you must also mention Quebec city since both don't currently have an arena.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Plus, there is a plan for a new arena to be built that will be announced next month.

Link?

 

[tiredman]

Link?

http://quebeclnh.com

it's in french. no time to translate at this moment.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

http://quebeclnh.com

it's in french. no time to translate at this moment.

My French is rusty, but good enough to confirm. Thanks!

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Actually, pondnorth is correct: the MTS Centre is located downtown.

As far as serious owners there is the True North group headed up by Mark Chipman(owner of the AHL Manitoba Moose) and the Asper's(David & Leonard).

I still believe that an outside person with deep pockets has to be involved with the local people to make this work.

frankly, I'm sick of seeing pro hockey that's not the NHL BEING DENIGRATED by posters who know nothing about the league said franchise plays in

My point is the Moose did play @ Winnipeg Arena and I don't liked being talked down to like I know nothing.

 

[King_Stannis]

Winnipeg would be choice number one, as they have what every new market craves to build up - a fanbase. They do have an arena that is a little small, but perfect for the size of the city and, as Mark Chipman states, could be run profitably. It should be noted that Bettman has stated there is no minimum seating requirement for an NHL arena. So long as revenue can be generated, you don't need a 20,000 seat arena.

As for the other team, Milwaukee would be a good fit. Seems like a good market that might thrive. If they were bound and determined to put it in the south, Houston might be a wise choice. History of pro hockey in the WHL, and a natural rivalry with Dallas work in their favor.

 

[shatner_rules]

frankly, I'm sick of seeing pro hockey that's not the NHL BEING DENIGRATED by posters who know nothing about the league said franchise plays in

My point is the Moose did play @ Winnipeg Arena and I don't liked being talked down to like I know nothing.

You'll have to take that up with pondnorth. I was just backing his comment that the MTS Centre is located downtown.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

You're not the only one but I find it funny that almost nobody even mentions quebec city.

They always had better attendance than the average of the nhl even in their bad years. They also had better attendance than the jets. Plus, there is a plan for a new arena to be built that will be announced next month.

Coorporate support would also not be a problem for a quebec city team. Even Marcel Aubut, the owner of the nords, said it was bs to think it would be a problem since the nordiques (or a new team) would be supported by all the province.

Of course, Winnipeg has an advantage at this moment with their new arena. But if you mention Hamilton, you must also mention Quebec city since both don't currently have an arena.

I would love to see a Quebec/Houston expansion. Only reason i didn't mention the city was a result of my lack of knowledge on new arena. Would it be NHL Caliber arena? Whats the economy like in QC right now?

 

[Resolute]

Really?? So, every team has a strong 6 man defensive corpse? Every team has 2-4 guys that can score 30 goals +?

I would love for you to show me the period in history where every team had a strong 6 man corpse (sic).

Goal scoring is a poor indicator of overall talent. Put an average player up against an inferior defense, and he will score goals

I'd rather the league contract than to expand. saying the league has too much talent per team now is silly.

I never said the league has "too much talent per team now". I said the talent pool is not diluted. Specifically, it is not diluted relative to the 1970s and 80s.

There is not a direct correlation between offense and skill.

How so? Wouldn't an overabundance of talent force player costs downward?

This argument presupposes that players costs are as high as they could possibly go. If the talent pool was as diluted now as it was in the late 70s/early 80s, one could argue, cap notwithstanding, that the few truely talented players would have gained a much larger share of the revenue pie relative to their peers.

Moreover, given that teams will always fight eachother for the best free agents, they will spend to their limits regardless. The number of dollars spent would not change, simply the division of the pie.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I would love to see a Quebec/Houston expansion. Only reason i didn't mention the city was a result of my lack of knowledge on new arena. Would it be NHL Caliber arena? Whats the economy like in QC right now?

ESSENTIALLY NIL

IF the Nordiques couldn't last in Quebec, what makes Quebec support anything other than their junior league Remparts, even the development franchise (the current Calder Cup Champion Bulldogs started their existence there) was forced to relocate.

 

[saskganesh]

ESSENTIALLY NIL

IF the Nordiques couldn't last in Quebec, what makes Quebec support anything other than their junior league Remparts, even the development franchise (the current Calder Cup Champion Bulldogs started their existence there) was forced to relocate.

We also learned from you today that the MTS Centre is at Polo Park.

AHL attendence is an imperfect measure of gauging potential NHL support. Why is this? Many people don't care that much about minor league sports. It may be good hockey but it lacks glamour of not being the best.

Minnesota did not support the Moose to the same extent they support the Wild for example.

 

[MayDay]

AHL attendence is an imperfect measure of gauging potential NHL support. Why is this? Many people don't care that much about minor league sports. It may be good hockey but it lacks glamour of not being the best.

Minnesota did not support the Moose to the same extent they support the Wild for example.

If I'm not mistaken, the people of Hartford have largely refused to support the WolfPack out of spite for losing the Whalers, and also because the WolfPack is the farm team of their old hated rival Rangers.

So yeah, I agree that AHL support does not necessarily gauge the potential for support for the NHL. Particularly in a former NHL town like Hartford or Winnipeg, where people may be unwilling to upport an inferior product to the one that they were used to.

 

[SoCalPredFan]

Hey, I wasn't really being serious. I was only trying to use some facts to point out the hypocrisy of most HFBoards posters.

The moment a southern franchise struggles a little bit at the gate, HFBoards starts chomping at the bit to take away that franchise. "Move 'em to Winnipeg!" "Move 'em to Hamilton!" "Contract 'em!" "Those rednecks don't appreciate the game and don't deserve a team!"

However, when we look at the facts, we see that the teams that consistently get the worst attendance are northern teams. Teams like Chicago, Boston, Devils, and Islanders. Is this ever chalked up to poor hockey markets or bad fans? Oh, no. God forbid. No, there are a million "underlying reasons" to explain away the poor attendance. Bad ownership. Bad management. Bad arena in a poor location. Savvy, discriminating fans that won't shell out for an inferior on-ice product, and want to hold the team accountable.

There's a huge, gaping double-standard on HFBoards when it comes to attitudes towards northern and southern teams regarding attendance issues, and I'm surprised more people don't see it.

(And for the record, I'm a fan of a northern team. I just don't like the hypocrisy.)

Quote for Truth. Amen, brother!

The hypocrisy is so thick around here. All you hear about are the "pathetic-ness" of Nashville, Atlanta, Phoenix, Carolina (and, amazingly, even Tampa and Columbus, who sell very well).

Yet, when you look at the actual attendance figures, none of those teams are even in the bottom 5.

Sure, several of those teams have their share of problems (Nashville with little corporate support; Phoenix with a pitiful on-ice product, etc) ---- but it's a ridiculous bias in my opinion.

Also, interestingly, it has been just 11 years ago (1996) that Edmonton had 6200 season tickets and attendance was 7000 or 8000 per night for some games (ref: http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070715/SPORTS02/707150399/0/SPORTS01)

I'm sick and tired of the Sun Belt hatred. Are we not allowed to love the great sport of hockey, too?

 

[Fourier]

Winnipeg would be choice number one, as they have what every new market craves to build up - a fanbase. They do have an arena that is a little small, but perfect for the size of the city and, as Mark Chipman states, could be run profitably. It should be noted that Bettman has stated there is no minimum seating requirement for an NHL arena. So long as revenue can be generated, you don't need a 20,000 seat arena.

As for the other team, Milwaukee would be a good fit. Seems like a good market that might thrive. If they were bound and determined to put it in the south, Houston might be a wise choice. History of pro hockey in the WHL, and a natural rivalry with Dallas work in their favor.

I was in Winnipeg recently for work and I talked to a number of locals about the
possibiulity of a franchise someday returning to Winnipeg. I was told, but have
no confirmation, that when the MTS Center was built it was part of the
design consideration to allow for a relatively inexpensive expansion to NHL standards.
Can anyone confirm this or was this more wishful thinking.

I was also lucky enough to spend about two weeks in Quebec City very recently.
I say lucky because it is a beautiful place to visit. If you have not been there
you should go. This said and as much as I loved the old Nordiques, I am not at
all convinced that the city would support an NHL franchise at todays prices.
Correct me if I am wrong but the local economy still seems to be dominated
by tourism and civil service jobs. Many of these jobs are not particularly high paying
nor would the employers be the type you would usually think of as being natural sponsors for an NHl franchise. But perhaps the bottom line for me is the sense
that for a rather small population base the city offers way to many interesting
and very affordable things to do as competition for the entertainment dollars.
As I said, I used to love watching the Nordiques. Outside of the Oilers, they were
generally my favourite team to watch during there tenure in the NHL. This comes from someone who as a kid was a die hard Habs fan so I am very uneasy about admitting this in public. As such I would be more than happy to be proven wrong.

 

[Fourier]

Quote for Truth. Amen, brother!

The hypocrisy is so thick around here. All you hear about are the "pathetic-ness" of Nashville, Atlanta, Phoenix, Carolina (and, amazingly, even Tampa and Columbus, who sell very well).

Yet, when you look at the actual attendance figures, none of those teams are even in the bottom 5.

Sure, several of those teams have their share of problems (Nashville with little corporate support; Phoenix with a pitiful on-ice product, etc) ---- but it's a ridiculous bias in my opinion.

Also, interestingly, it has been just 11 years ago (1996) that Edmonton had 6200 season tickets and attendance was 7000 or 8000 per night for some games (ref: http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070715/SPORTS02/707150399/0/SPORTS01)

I'm sick and tired of the Sun Belt hatred. Are we not allowed to love the great sport of hockey, too?

You do have reason to call hypocrisy into question on this. I also stated
during the Nashville discussion that I thought that the NHL should be as
concerned about a team like Chicago as about the Southern franchise in general.
However, the concern would be for a different reason. Lack of fan support in
a nontraditional market often means major financial viability issues.
This was also the case for Edmonton by the way. In markets like Chicago,
Boston etc. there are enogh revenue streams available to ownership or
enough resources in the ownership groups that there is no reason to believe
that the franchise is not financially stable. This is a big part of the problem.
In places like Chicago, it seems that there is little incentive for the ownership
to address the obvious on ice problems. As such the fans feel they are being
completely taken advantage of and they do the only thing they can do
to protest and that is to stay away. The only market I can think of that
seems to be immune to this is Toronto where the Ballad years show that
their fans will come no matter how bad ownership treats them. All of this
relates to a discussion on a different thead concerning the degree to which
the NHL is or as some might say is not a gate driven league.

By the way, New Jesrey is one place that I cannot explain. The Devils have
been a success story on the ice for many years but it does not seem to translate
directly into people in the seats the same way it does in other cities.

 

[hockydude5000]

By the way, New Jersey is one place that I cannot explain. The Devils have been a success story on the ice for many years but it does not seem to translate directly into people in the seats the same way it does in other cities.

I'm not defending the bad attendance in any way, but a lot of it has to do w/ the bad access to the arena (traffic jams surround the Meadowlands), and we'll really see the viability of the market when the new arena opens this season, with the train accessibility and the increased convenience that come w/ this.

Speaking of my Canes, a lot of the bad attendance we used to have came from the horrible teams of 02-04, and the huge Cup victory of '06 definitely increase our share of bandwagon fans, but as long as we keep winning, all these bandwagoners will become the die-hards. It just takes a few years to really get the fanbase going.

 

[MayDay]

In places like Chicago, it seems that there is little incentive for the ownership
to address the obvious on ice problems. As such the fans feel they are being
completely taken advantage of and they do the only thing they can do
to protest and that is to stay away.

I'm not defending the bad attendance in any way, but a lot of it has to do w/ the bad access to the arena (traffic jams surround the Meadowlands)

And this is exactly my point.

How come, with northern teams like Chicago and New Jersey, poor attendance is a result of smart fans protesting bad ownership, or bad arenas in poor locations? But when a southern team struggles on the ice and loses attendance, its because the fans aren't there or they don't appreciate hockey enough?

Maybe those are good and legit reasons why Chicago and New Jersey struggle with attendence. But might there also be good reasons why some southern teams also struggle, other than "bad fans"? I just don't understand why the northern teams (esp. Original Six teams like Chicago and Boston) get a pass on poor attendance, get the benefit of the doubt, but the southern teams do not.

It's that double standard where I think people's pre-existing prejudices come out. People aren't interested in comparing apples to apples and being fair. They only want to reinforce their own preconception that hockey doesn't belong in the south. It's a selfish view in my mind. If you love the game of hockey, wouldn't you want it to grow and be available to as many people as possible so they can also enjoy it?

 

[coolguy21415]

Well I think it's the same problem in the south as in the north. Fans are protesting bad ownership or bad management. Be it Chicago, Boston, Florida or Atlanta the fans don't want to watch a loser, especially a loser that looks like a loser for the near future. Some markets seem to be exempt, but most aren't.

It just happens that in newer markets are more vulnerable to the debate because often they don't have any kind of demonstrable fan base that will attend regularly in an upswing cycle.

I don't really care where teams are, or how attendance is. I just want to watch my Canadiens win Stanley Cups. If y'all want to contract, that would certainly help the odds of that happening.

 

[Fugu]

I would love for you to show me the period in history where every team had a strong 6 man corpse (sic).

I'm not sure this proves anything. In a 6 team NHL that sourced players from different pools of talent altogether, firstly, and then had different reserves on talent and its own version of owner and NHLPA collusion.... it is hardly the ideal model to study. I'll go on to ask for the opinion of what an appropriate metric should be to determine talent dilution-- or lack thereof.

Going from 6 to 12 teams certainly did dilute NHL talent... that was the intent of the expansion draft. At every stage of expansion, technically talent is diluted. However, some believe that NHL level of play breeds more NHL-capable talent, eventually allowing enough NHL-level talent to be available that we can no longer consider things diluted. What period of time is required to accomplish this, especially if you are the expansion team and basically starting with players left unprotected and whatever else you can find. Draft and development take several years, as you know. The entire justification for the ordering of the entry draft is to help build up the weaker (less talented) teams.

Goal scoring is a poor indicator of overall talent. Put an average player up against an inferior defense, and he will score goals.

Is goal differential a better measure? The better the talent overall, the lower the GD? Do coaches and GM's really not make as much of a difference as anyone would like to admit, because if you get the top draft picks for several years in a row.... at least under the old system..... even I could coach a superstar studded line-up to a Cup win, or two or three or four.........

Obviously elite level talent is limited. What can be considered the median?

I never said the league has "too much talent per team now". I said the talent pool is not diluted. Specifically, it is not diluted relative to the 1970s and 80s.

The talent pool being less diluted relative to the 1970-80's doesn't really mean it isn't still diluted based on the fact that there are now 30 teams. As I noted above, doubling the league size most certainly dilutes talent. I'm not sure you can get away with saying that since the next expansions weren't as great, that then there is no dilution of talent. What's the appropriate metric to use?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
How so? Wouldn't an overabundance of talent force player costs downward?

This argument presupposes that players costs are as high as they could possibly go. If the talent pool was as diluted now as it was in the late 70s/early 80s, one could argue, cap notwithstanding, that the few truely talented players would have gained a much larger share of the revenue pie relative to their peers.

Moreover, given that teams will always fight each other for the best free agents, they will spend to their limits regardless. The number of dollars spent would not change, simply the division of the pie.

Again, talent dilution today that is less than the talent dilution of the time period you reference does not mean there is a complete lack of talent dilution. It is a matter of degree.

I'm not sure how you factor in the highest possible price aspect (and perhaps, relative to what?). The revenue disparities being as great as they were (and still are although revenue sharing does help to some extent) actually meant that some prices were too high for several teams, but not all teams. Were they reaching their limit before the lockout? Bettman said having 74% of NHL aggregate revenue going to players was too much. What drove the prices to that level?

The truly elite talent always did get the most money ONCE they were free agents. That is true under both systems, however the current one - as you noted - has limited the size of the pie. Within that limit, a market economy of sorts is working. It is however subject to all sorts of pressure on how that money is spent. Firstly, and most importantly, the age of free agency is dropping. I said almost two years ago that during the transition from the old to the new CBA, we'd see increasing pressure on both UFA and RFA 'prices' due to the gap between entry level contracts and UFA ages converging. Secondly, in the scenario where the cap both rising while simultaneously increasing the players' share of the pie, you would see some salary inflation. Not all of the best players are on the market every year. Thus there is greater than expected competition for players who ARE free agents in a given year under this scenario. The entire cap range has to rise, which means teams at the top end will spend, while dragging up the bottom end with them. Nashville is currently under the floor and will simply have to spend money, whether they want to or not.

What is driving that top echelon upwards? Is there a plethora of talent at the top 2 line level or top 2-3 D level where teams can just walk away from what we have become accustomed to calling "ridiculous contracts."

I'm asking. I know there is linkage, and a cap, etc., but what causes teams to go into these frenzies each summer? I at least think that an overabundance of talent should make it a buyers' market...

 

[MayDay]

However, some believe that NHL level of play breeds more NHL-capable talent, eventually allowing enough NHL-level talent to be available that we can no longer consider things diluted. What period of time is required to accomplish this, especially if you are the expansion team and basically starting with players left unprotected and whatever else you can find.

I think this is absolutely a real phenomenon, but I also think that it takes 1-2 generations to see the effects. It's not fair to expect NHL players to start being produced from Miami or Phoenix or Dallas.

However, we are starting to see American players being drafted from places that got expansion teams in 67 or later. Look at the increasing number of players drafted from California, New Jersey, the Philly-area, even a few from the Maryland/D.C. area.

Even if you look back a few years, one of the best American players came from St. Louis (Pat LaFontaine). Would he have taken up hockey if the Blues weren't formed in '67?

I think the arrival of an NHL team does spur youth hockey in an area, and that eventually (in the long run, as these youth hockey programs have to develop a lot) will translate into NHL players and a larger talent pool to draft from.