Expansion Teams

SoCalPredFan

Registered User
Apr 14, 2007
259
0
Portland, OR
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.

The Preds drafted Blake Geoffrion, from NASHVILLE, 2nd round in last year's draft .... It's been 8 seasons of Preds hockey and already we're seeing benefits. Think 20-30 years down the road and it's pretty awesome.

“I was one of those kids at one time in my life,” he said, “so it’s pretty cool.”
Much has changed for Geoffrion since that time. After working his way up through the Nashville Youth Hockey League system, last year he was selected by the Predators in the second round of the NHL Draft.
And just as he did during his youth in Brentwood, he continues to dream about playing for his hometown hockey team. The problem is he may never get the chance.

http://www.theleafchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070630/SPORTS/706300344
 

tiredman

Registered User
Nov 10, 2003
5,048
74
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.

The Nordiques couldn't last in Quebec because we had no arena and there was no plan a build a new one. Marcel Aubut even said he would have NEVER sold the team if we had a new arena.

Plus, the Citadelles had good attendances in the AHL. But the managment of the team was angry with the habs since they were always losing there best players when they were called up. The habs decided to end that and moved their ahl team. Also, don't forget the habs were the worst ennemies of the nordiques.

It makes no sense to say we couldn't support an ahl team. The nordiques had better attendances than the nhl's league average. But, a few years after the nords moved, you believe we couldn't support an ahl team ? You know dude, ahl tickets are much less expansive than nhl's one. It just shows people were not interested in the AHL.

Also, I've never been to a citadelles game and many people are like me in quebec city. I was simply not interested into a lower calibre after having tasted the nhl. The remparts is another story. The attendances were not that great before Patrick Roy started to coach the team. When he will leave the remparts, the attendances are going to be lower. When it will happen, will you also say quebec city couldn't support an qhjml team?

Plus, even the co-owner of the Remparts is interested into investing for a nhl team in quebec city. He said it himself. You think he would have said that if he knew we couldn't support it ? That would be just stupid.

Remember when the avs went to quebec city to play a pre-season game vs the habs ? All 15000 tickets were sold after only 10 minutes. I know it was only one game, but it shows that Quebec is a city of hocey and will always be.

You know, quebec has advantages on many cities for an expension :
-marcel aubut is very close to bettman and he even works for the nhl
-when aubut wants something, he gets it
-we have a a great fans base and quebec is a proven hockey market
-coorporate support wouldn't be a problem
-tv conctracts too

we can also add the plan to build an arena (from what I've heard, an arena of more than 200 millions).

that's many things we couldn't say about other possible markets.
 
Last edited:

SoCalPredFan

Registered User
Apr 14, 2007
259
0
Portland, OR
we can also add the plan to build an arena (from what I've heard, an arena of more than 200 millions).

that's many things we couldn't say about other possible markets.

Why hasn't QC started building an arena?

In today's sports landscape, the arena needs to be there --- and then the team comes to fill it. That's how Nashville got an expansion team (over Houston, who had no arena at the time) in the first place.

That's how KC has a chance.

Houston now has one, and they've got a shot.

You need the arena in place. If QC really is "viable" --- they need to put their money where their mouth is and build the arena.
 

MayDay

Registered User
Oct 21, 2005
12,661
1,146
Pleasantville, NY
Why hasn't QC started building an arena?

In today's sports landscape, the arena needs to be there --- and then the team comes to fill it. That's how Nashville got an expansion team (over Houston, who had no arena at the time) in the first place.

Except when it happens the other way around. Look at when Karmanos picked up and moved the Whalers out of Hartford, with no building ready to put them in. The Canes had to play in an AHL arena in Greensboro for a couple years while their arena was being built.
 

SoCalPredFan

Registered User
Apr 14, 2007
259
0
Portland, OR
Except when it happens the other way around. Look at when Karmanos picked up and moved the Whalers out of Hartford, with no building ready to put them in. The Canes had to play in an AHL arena in Greensboro for a couple years while their arena was being built.

That's not expansion, though. That was also 15 years ago.

I'm saying, today, 2007, in order to realistically be awarded an expansion team, an NHL-ready arena needs to already be in place.

For whatever reason, Winnipeg built an arena that only seats 15k for hockey. Thus, come next expansion, Winnipeg will likely again be shut out.

Houston and KC have arenas, just waiting for an anchor tenant.

If you build it, they will come.

-t
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
The Nordiques couldn't last in Quebec because we had no arena and there was no plan a build a new one. Marcel Aubut even said he would have NEVER sold the team if we had a new arena.

Plus, the Citadelles had good attendances in the AHL. But the managment of the team was angry with the habs since they were always losing there best players when they were called up. The habs decided to end that and moved their ahl team. Also, don't forget the habs were the worst ennemies of the nordiques.

It makes no sense to say we couldn't support an ahl team. The nordiques had better attendances than the nhl's league average. But, a few years after the nords moved, you believe we couldn't support an ahl team ? You know dude, ahl tickets are much less expansive than nhl's one. It just shows people were not interested in the AHL.

Also, I've never been to a citadelles game and many people are like me in quebec city. I was simply not interested into a lower calibre after having tasted the nhl. The remparts is another story. The attendances were not that great before Patrick Roy started to coach the team. When he will leave the remparts, the attendances are going to be lower. When it will happen, will you also say quebec city couldn't support an qhjml team?

Plus, even the co-owner of the Remparts is interested into investing for a nhl team in quebec city. He said it himself. You think he would have said that if he knew we couldn't support it ? That would be just stupid.

Remember when the avs went to quebec city to play a pre-season game vs the habs ? All 15000 tickets were sold after only 10 minutes. I know it was only one game, but it shows that Quebec is a city of hocey and will always be.

You know, quebec has advantages on many cities for an expension :
-marcel aubut is very close to bettman and he even works for the nhl
-when aubut wants something, he gets it
-we have a a great fans base and quebec is a proven hockey market
-coorporate support wouldn't be a problem
-tv conctracts too

we can also add the plan to build an arena (from what I've heard, an arena of more than 200 millions).

that's many things we couldn't say about other possible markets.

Then why did the QMJHL move in to former AHL CITIES then Habs then rather support the Citadelles in Quebec whether or not Montreal was the parent team; part of the reason Montreal left is financial and every hockey fan is aware of that fact that's why Calgary left Saint John after spending a decade in that market(including a championship); then shutting down their affiliate before the aborted two year experiment in Omaha and the recent move of said affiliate to Quad City for the upcoming season, that and the popularity of the Remparts makes it virtually impossible for pro hockey to return to Quebec since they are the organization of record in Quebec's Colisee. Also why we don't see another franchise challenging the Canadiens in Montreal as some have stated in a similar thread.
 

shatner_rules

You're in Trouba
Nov 22, 2004
229
0
Manitoba
That's not expansion, though. That was also 15 years ago.

I'm saying, today, 2007, in order to realistically be awarded an expansion team, an NHL-ready arena needs to already be in place.

For whatever reason, Winnipeg built an arena that only seats 15k for hockey. Thus, come next expansion, Winnipeg will likely again be shut out.

Houston and KC have arenas, just waiting for an anchor tenant.

If you build it, they will come.

-t

The owner of the Manitoba Moose doesn't seem to think so:

"Is our building too small? No, for a few reasons," said Chipman "First, it would allow us to draw a paid capacity that would be equal to what clearly would be in the bottom half of the league but wouldn't necessarily be in the bottom third of the league, at 15,000. In other words, there are a number of teams in the league that are currently drawing less than 15,000 paid per game, their greater capacity notwithstanding."

For the rest of the article:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/hockey/story/3998743p-4613630c.htmlWell
 

Bear of Bad News

Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
Sep 27, 2005
13,361
26,529
The owner of the Manitoba Moose doesn't seem to think so:

"Is our building too small? No, for a few reasons," said Chipman "First, it would allow us to draw a paid capacity that would be equal to what clearly would be in the bottom half of the league but wouldn't necessarily be in the bottom third of the league, at 15,000. In other words, there are a number of teams in the league that are currently drawing less than 15,000 paid per game, their greater capacity notwithstanding."

For the rest of the article:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/hockey/story/3998743p-4613630c.htmlWell

It should be noted that Chipman's comments are obviously worded in such a way as to have us believe that Winnipeg will sell out every game.

I understand the power of soundbytes and all, and what Chipman said is technically correct, but given the history of the NHL in Winnipeg, it's a highly dubious conclusion at which to arrive.
 

shatner_rules

You're in Trouba
Nov 22, 2004
229
0
Manitoba
It should be noted that Chipman's comments are obviously worded in such a way as to have us believe that Winnipeg will sell out every game.

I understand the power of soundbytes and all, and what Chipman said is technically correct, but given the history of the NHL in Winnipeg, it's a highly dubious conclusion at which to arrive.

True enough, Doctor. I'd like to think that if(a huge if) a team was to return that we could do better attendance-wise in comparison to the past.
 

Bear of Bad News

Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
Sep 27, 2005
13,361
26,529
True enough, Doctor. I'd like to think that if(a huge if) a team was to return that we could do better attendance-wise in comparison to the past.

I'd like to think that, too.

Studies on attendance in cities who have had two distinct National Hockey League franchises would suffer from sample size and way too many confounding factors, but it could be argued that it would.
 

SoCalPredFan

Registered User
Apr 14, 2007
259
0
Portland, OR
Regardless of selling it out or not, Winnipeg still only built an arena with a 15k capacity. What on earth were they thinking ?!?!?!

There are unavoidable comps EVERY game (players, coaches, refs tickets, etc). It's impossible for Winnipeg to have 15k PAID every night.

The minimum paid for rev sharing is 14k ... only 1k less than Winnipeg can even fit.

Just don't see how it could logically work.

-t
 

tiredman

Registered User
Nov 10, 2003
5,048
74
Then why did the QMJHL move in to former AHL CITIES then Habs then rather support the Citadelles in Quebec whether or not Montreal was the parent team; part of the reason Montreal left is financial and every hockey fan is aware of that fact that's why Calgary left Saint John after spending a decade in that market(including a championship); then shutting down their affiliate before the aborted two year experiment in Omaha and the recent move of said affiliate to Quad City for the upcoming season, that and the popularity of the Remparts makes it virtually impossible for pro hockey to return to Quebec since they are the organization of record in Quebec's Colisee. Also why we don't see another franchise challenging the Canadiens in Montreal as some have stated in a similar thread.

"whether or not Montreal was the parent team"

how can you ignore this fact ? if the bruins moved and the habs decided to move their farm team to Boston, would the people from boston go to the games ? nobody would show up for the games.

maybe financial problem is the main reason why the citadelles left. However, I and many people I know didn't care of this team. It was far from the calibre of the nhl. Nobody was interested in that.

Also, it makes ZERO sense to say we can't support an ahl team. If we could support an nhl team we can support anything. Don't forget the nords were not losing cash. Aubut decided to sell the team because he would now start to lose cash without an arena.

"popularity of the Remparts makes it virtually impossible for pro hockey to return to Quebec since they are the organization of record in Quebec's Colisee."

??? The remparts are a successful team but it would not compete at all with an nhl team. Plus, if a team comes to quebec city, Patrick Roy would be working for sure for this nhl team. You would see the popularity of the remparts falling since he wouldn't be their head coach anymore.

"Also why we don't see another franchise challenging the Canadiens in Montreal as some have stated in a similar thread."

and what does it have to do with qc city ?
 

tiredman

Registered User
Nov 10, 2003
5,048
74
Why hasn't QC started building an arena?

You know... it's the thing that disappoint me the most about my city.

People would LOVE to have a nhl team back. Most dream about it. But in these people, how many do want to see their taxes being spent to build a new arena ? Not a lot.

"I would love it but I don't want to pay for this arena" is the mentality here.

with that logic, you go nowehere.

The politicians do not even think of investing for a nhl arena since a bunch of whiners from everywhere in the province would say things like "with the cash you would spend for an arena, you could save life by investing in the health system".

Building an arena is at least 200 millions and there's also a need of another 200 millions for a team. There are some people who could buy both... but very few... and that's what I am hoping for (actually the plan for a new arena is from this kind of group).

But who knows, maybe the politicians will change their mind. I think the arena in winnipeg was paid by the federal and provincal governments. right ?. So why not quebec city ? I could see it happening after the world championship of hockey next year in quebec city.
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
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?
Very very well said! Unfortunately, it can't be said enough around here, because it still doesn't sink in with some people.
 

Pigsofa

Registered User
Jul 11, 2007
133
0
I've been really thinking seattle. They help out geographically for the western teams, by shortening the western flight times. It helps expand the league coast to coast. The city has hockey roots, 3 WHL teams call washington state home, and have good attendance. Also growing up watching the fox affiliate in washington, the WHL seemed to get decent air time on the news.

There's tons of money. Great Rivalries with Canadian teams. Hell the Vancouver/Washington games would be great, specially with the fact that you can take the train city to city for like 20 bucks.

The biggest weakness is the lack of an owner looking for a team there. Just seems like a big mistake not considering it.
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
The biggest weakness is the lack of an owner looking for a team there. Just seems like a big mistake not considering it.


Bill Gates could buy a team.

The only problem is, his team would horde the puck for the first two periods, and then keep giving it away throughout the third.
 

The Korean*

Guest
Bill Gates could buy a team.

The only problem is, his team would horde the puck for the first two periods, and then keep giving it away throughout the third.
:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh: Forget it. Bill Gate is too busy giving away his money. Great guy he is (I once met him). His buddy Paul Allen can do it. He owns Seahawks. Or Nintendo, who actually owns Mariners.
 

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
25,445
19,581
Waterloo Ontario
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?

If you read my post you will see that there was no double standard. I did not claim
that southern fans were bad fans. What I said was that in nontraditional markets
poor attendence often goes along with franchises in financial difficulty. I also indicated
that this was true of Edmonton circa 1996. Edmonton is not a southern
franchise by my definition. Chicago and Boston have an advantage in that the
markets generate sufficient revenue, despite poor attendence, that the viability
of the franchise is not in debate, or at least it has not been in any recent times.
NHL games are expensive. If the fan base is ignored, people have a right to
protest by staying away. However, in a new market or in some of the
smaller markets this could be fatal to the franchise and as such people
must face this potential consequences of their decisions.

Very very well said! Unfortunately, it can't be said enough around here, because it still doesn't sink in with some people.

Since Mayday's response was directed at my comments, I will conclude that at least
in part your comments were also directed at me. If I am wrong,
then I apologize. If not, then I will say again that while I understand your frustration,
the elitism that you are experiencing may be directed more recently at southern franchises (or
more generally at US based teams like Pittsburgh) but you are only seeing the flavour of the day.
Even during the Gretzky years there were many people on both sides
of the border that claimed that small markets such as Edmonton did not
deserve a franchise. The term Deadmonton appeared regularly in newspaper
articles questioning the decision to allow a location on the edge of nowhere
to have an NHL team. When Winnipeg and Quebec lost their teams
and when the Oilers were on the edge there were continual comments about
how this was for the good of the game and how for the NHL to be big league
these cities needed to be purged. You are hearing a variant of the same
kind of crap that many of us also found so frustrating.

We had a thread titled "Why are all Canadians celebrating" that almost turned
into a war. The reality is that most Canadians (read 99.9999%) don't care at all,
one way or the other, if hockey stays in Nashville/Pheonix/etc..but
most people in the US don't really care if hockey survives in Edmonton
or returns to Winnipeg. A very small number of people will use these forums
to pull your chain. That's life!!!
 
Last edited:

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
25,445
19,581
Waterloo Ontario
You know... it's the thing that disappoint me the most about my city.

People would LOVE to have a nhl team back. Most dream about it. But in these people, how many do want to see their taxes being spent to build a new arena ? Not a lot.

"I would love it but I don't want to pay for this arena" is the mentality here.

with that logic, you go nowehere.

The politicians do not even think of investing for a nhl arena since a bunch of whiners from everywhere in the province would say things like "with the cash you would spend for an arena, you could save life by investing in the health system".

Building an arena is at least 200 millions and there's also a need of another 200 millions for a team. There are some people who could buy both... but very few... and that's what I am hoping for (actually the plan for a new arena is from this kind of group).

But who knows, maybe the politicians will change their mind. I think the arena in winnipeg was paid by the federal and provincal governments. right ?. So why not quebec city ? I could see it happening after the world championship of hockey next year in quebec city.

I appreciate your passion but your post reinforces my belief that Quebec is
not ready for a new NHL franchise. I spoke to two locals about this when
I was there last week and despite both saying how sad it was when the
Nordiques left, both also sounded exactly like what you have described above.
They also indicated that the team would only be for the rich and remarked that
with tickets to the Remparts at about $15 they were satisfied with what they had.
This is obviously too small a sample to draw a definitive conclussion but I am afraid that they may be more the rule than the exception. As such unless private money foots the bill for both the franchise and a new arena I am afraid Quebec will be out of luck.
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
Since Mayday's response was directed at my comments, I will conclude that at least in part your comments were also directed at me. If I am wrong, then I apologize.
Good, start apologizing. ;) I was just applauding him for a good post, and he wasn't directing his comments only at you, just using what you said as an example of something we see all too often around here.
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
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?

I believe you are reading a little too deeply into my comments. My initial, flippant remark was a direct response to the tired line of "the talent pool is diluted" argument that was brought up, yet again. typically, that argument is based on the assumption that offense dried up in the mid to late 1990s because of the dilution of talent caused by expansion. Given the NHL is still not averaging 8+ goals a game yet, the assumption is further that adding more teams will only make the "problem" worse.

The statement "the talent pool is not diluted" is meant as a relative argument, not an absolute one. Naturally, deleting a few teams will deepen the talent pool. Would it draw salaries downward? I doubt it. Elite talent will still be highly sought after, and everyone else will slot in accordingly.

Consider that in 1974-75, there were thirty-two major league hockey teams in North America. Two more than exist today. In 1974-75, the talent pool was almost exclusively Canada. Today it is about 30-40x larger with the growth of the game in the US, and the opening of the European market.

The implied argument made by the comment that started this sidebar is patently ridiculous. There is far, far more talent overall today than there was 30 years ago, despite the fact that the NHL is 12 teams larger. If you want to look at a period of extreme dilution, look to the late 70s through to the late 80s. Not coincidentally, that was the highest scoring era in modern NHL history.

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...

Relative worth. The best player available will always command the highest price because it is perceived by many teams that that player will be best able to improve the team, therefore is worth more. It happens every year: Everyone wants the best player. When he signs, they fight over second best, third, fourth, etc. It is the relative value of players that keeps the top players at the top salaries, regardless of the talent pool.
 
Last edited:

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
The biggest weakness is the lack of an owner looking for a team there. Just seems like a big mistake not considering it.

Seattle as the same problem Winnipeg and Quebec City do:

They not only lack a potential owner, they lack an arena altogether.
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,742
18,871
Sin City
http://www.globesports.com/servlet/...ockey/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20070718.wstpnhlpa18

Article discussions a potential schism in the "partnership" of the NHL and NHLPA, and has possible franchise expansion prices for KC ($175m) and LV ($325m)

The NHLPA seems to support a potential franchise in Hamilton, ON and look favorably on Balsille as a potential owner. The league, however, is not intersted in "more income" into the pot that would increase the salary cap, especially as the 23 (remaining) US franchises may not see much income gain for their franchise.

And with rumored expansions to Kansas City and Las Vegas -- the players would see none of that $$s as it's not considered "hockey" income.
 

EventHorizon

Bring Back Ties!
Bill Gates could buy a team.

I love it. Here's a potential logo for his team:

blue-screen-of-death_1152.jpg
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->