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.
Cause and effect. If the weakest teams are removed, you are also removing those least able to pay elite level talent. These guys always get paid. However there would be a squeeze at other levels as the competition amongst players this time, not teams, for the remaining spots would be much greater-- at least in the initial phase. Edmonton might actually have more than a few dregs from which to choose.
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.
Actually having that many teams is what forced everyone to start looking for talent outside of Canada. Borje Salming was the exception in those days. Furthermore, using this time period to draw conclusions about player salaries in a hyperexpanded market is a bit misleading. The NHL still had the reserve clause in place, never mind that ol' Eagleson was around too. The WHA had to offer ludicrous salaries to the biggest stars, like Bobby Hull, since they had to convince these guys to leave a "sure thing" to help start up new league. I'm sure Hull had to know he wouldn't be welcomed back with open arms by Wirtz if the upstart league failed.
Now consider this... there are 30 NHL teams today, actually fewer professional (WHA + NHL) than the time period you note. However the number of NHL-ready players in those days vs. today must have improved, correct, with most of them coming from places other than Canada. (Is Canada maxed out?) That only took about 30 years, btw.... [
qualifier: from 6 teams to 32 and everything in between up to 30]
I think my take home point is that expansion does create a dilution of talent. How long it takes to
restock is the other question no one seems to be answering.
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.
See above. Further expansion should create a dilution of talent for a time period of X. Also, 6 teams to your referenced 32 to settle now at 30. In fact, there are two fewer teams in this case.
However I agree that huge scoring disparities were a result severe talent imbalance (a lack thereof for many teams).
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.
I'll just reiterate that the total amount of money available per team probably increases if you siphon off the weakest teams. The biggest revenue generators will still earn a similar amount per game. However there would be a commensurate drop in total revenue as the total number of games played would (hypothetically) decline-- maybe not? The best players, yes, still get the most money but during the period immediately following contraction, it should become a buyer's market.