Expansion Teams

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
I love it. Here's a potential logo for his team:

blue-screen-of-death_1152.jpg


Their forwards could post up in the offensive slot and create a patented Blue Screen of Death to help the perimeter shooters get one by the goalie.
 

Blackhawkswincup

RIP Fugu
Jun 24, 2007
186,837
20,294
Chicagoland
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.

The city also doesn't have an arena. There current one is a dump and thats why the Sonics are probably leaving the city. The state wont build a new one.
 

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
25,438
19,571
Waterloo Ontario
Very very well said! Unfortunately, it can't be said enough around here, because it still doesn't sink in with some people.

My statement about your comment above being directed at least in part at me seems to have been confirmed below so I do not see the need to 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.

Without pulling one line out of my post out of context can you tell me what
I said that that is something we see all too often around here. In particular,
what needs to sink in with me.

For the record, I also thought MayDay's original post was fine. He did show frustration about what he sees as a double standard that I don't believe
was part of my post, though I do believe it exists. To his credit at least he was willing to directly address what I said.
 

Fugu

Guest
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.

-snip-


I don't disagree with your post, but this isn't related to my point about NHL talent. I don't make a distinction as to where specifically talent is coming from, but meant how many NHL level positions are open. An expansion creates more NHL jobs. With two teams added, that is approximately 50+ NHL roster spots that did not exist previously. Where do you get the players to fill those spots? Are there hundreds of players who could play in the NHL but there aren't enough openings, or it the converse true.
 

hockydude5000

Registered User
Jan 2, 2006
457
0
The city also doesn't have an arena. There current one is a dump and thats why the Sonics are probably leaving the city. The state wont build a new one.

But also if the Sonics leave Seattle, they'll quickly become #1 on the list for the next 2 NBA expansion teams, along w/ Las Vegas.

Speaking of NHL expansion, its bound to happen in the next few years or so, and KC and Hamilton are definitely #1 and 2 on the list, respectively. IMO, it's not a matter of if, but rather when. I think around 2010 for KC, 2011 for Hamilton.
 
Last edited:

Fugu

Guest
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.
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
But also if the Sonics leave Seattle, they'll quickly become #1 on the list for the next 2 NBA expansion teams, along w/ Las Vegas.

Speaking of NHL expansion, its bound to happen in the next few years or so, and KC and Hamilton are definitely #1 and 2 on the list, respectively. IMO, it's not a matter of if, but rather when. I think around 2010 for KC, 2011 for Hamilton.

Las Vegas and Seattle for NBA, I thought the majority or a small percentage want Seattle to be a part of the NHL LANDSCAPE:huh:

I don't concur w/ the suggestion that Hamilton will be moving to the NHL in 2011 if they do at all nor is Hamilton going that route if Nashville remains where they are.

That's why Leipold backed off the deal that got Hamilton mentioned after the turmoil w/ the Penguins; Nashville became the next target.

Should the local owners in Nashville buy the Predators; there is no longer a need to mention Hamilton as an expansion or relocation market if expansion is NOT happening.

Seattle, if they leave, is looking @ Oklahoma City, among others, that just had the Hornets call home due to the unfortunate natural disaster that struck New Orleans. The CHL Blazers aren't interested in switching leagues because the AHL asked and was denied.
 

Pigsofa

Registered User
Jul 11, 2007
133
0
I was under the impression that Seattle had an arena deal in the works. I imagine that the powers that be need a good reason to spend the money on a new center. Theres gotta be tons of money out there that could go to it. I know that the Sonics would stay with a better arena, and I know that the NLL has been even knocking on thier doors. 3 leagues could keep that place busy.

I wish I knew more about thier situation, but it seems like the type of city that is just getting bigger and better, and it would suit the NHL to get a foot hold there.
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
Let me ask a question relating to the topic: Is it really a good idea to think about expansion when there are teams that are reportedly struggling financially (not that the League has ever cared about this before) and there's a greater possibility than there has been in 20 or so years that talented European players will choose to stay home than come to the NHL? I hope expansion is only in the talking stages right now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fugu

Guest
Let me ask a question relating to the topic: Is it really a good idea to think about expansion when there are teams that are reportedly struggling financially (not that the League has ever cared about this before) and there's a greater possibility than there has been in 20 or so years that talented European players will choose to stay home than come to the NHL? I hope expansion is only in the talking stages right now.


I'm the wrong person to ask. I'm actually a contractionist (the truth is out) but not for the obvious or usual reasons. It's a personal preference about league size and the level of intimacy a fan can feel by following the sport. I can't follow 30 teams and that bothers me. I like to know about all the teams' rosters, options, histories, etc. I like having all the teams play each other so that I have what I feel is an accurate comparison of how all teams stack up against each other. There are logistical and economic issues that then get factored in as secondary or tertiary points, but at least for me, these aren't the primary reasons. I can accept that others may feel 30 teams isn't enough. They are welcome to build their case as to why this would be their preference.

To try to answer your question....

I do believe that talk of expansion with several teams claiming unacceptable losses is premature. The key word here is 'unacceptable losses.' Someone like Wirtz seems fine with the losses he's incurred on hockey operations. Someone like Leipold is saying he won't continue. If indeed teams are faltering, then expansion takes away the best relocation options should that become necessary.
 

Fugu

Guest
You're turning blue!

The gods must be crazy.


Ha! I almost edited this because I now have the edit button where the quote button used to be!

I've always been blue, just took some time for the powers to fully develop. Timmy's life will only get better and better here. Tee hee.
 

bleed_oil

Registered User
Aug 16, 2005
3,898
40
Expansion is a bad, bad idea. The last thing this league needs is expansion....
The least followed, most ignored and ridiculed professional league in North America doesnt need to increase in size, if anything - yes they should contract (will never happen)
The NHL needs to concentrate on core markets that have been popular in the past: Boston, Chicago,,,,
Forget trying to grow when you have'nt even consolidated in existing markets. The ridicule hockey gets from its irrelevance in Southern Markets makes the image\PR issue in older markets less likely to create a resurgance in popularity.
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
Ha! I almost edited this because I now have the edit button where the quote button used to be!

I've always been blue, just took some time for the powers to fully develop. Timmy's life will only get better and better here. Tee hee.

Ha, yourself.

Whenever you say something contentious, I shall invoke the :shakehead emotican and say, "And you call yourself a moderator".



For the record, at this point in time I believe that expansion is a bad idea.


I am, however, against contraction and team movement as well.



I'm actually a contractionist


And you call yourself a moderator. :shakehead
 

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
25,438
19,571
Waterloo Ontario
By the way, congrats on becoming a moderator, or should I say
condolences. Either way Carpenter will have to watch himself or you
can shut him down. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
25,438
19,571
Waterloo Ontario
Forgive me for applauding mayday's post, didn't realize it was a problem to do so and the person he'd quoted would take it so personally. :shakehead

Let me ask a question relating to the topic: Is it really a good idea to think about expansion when there are teams that are reportedly struggling financially (not that the League has ever cared about this before) and there's a greater possibility than there has been in 20 or so years that talented European players will choose to stay home than come to the NHL? I hope expansion is only in the talking stages right now.

To be honest Sotnos, I do not take it personally, I don't konw you and you don't know me. This is after all just a forum about hockey and I am here because there are some bright people with interesting things to say. However, this us vs them stuff is a personal pet peeve. I jumped on you because you have been around here for quite some time and having read quite a few of your posts I know you carry weight.
That said, time to get back to the topic at hand.
 

SoCalPredFan

Registered User
Apr 14, 2007
259
0
Portland, OR
Expansion is a bad, bad idea. The last thing this league needs is expansion....
The least followed, most ignored and ridiculed professional league in North America doesnt need to increase in size, if anything - yes they should contract (will never happen)
The NHL needs to concentrate on core markets that have been popular in the past: Boston, Chicago,,,,
Forget trying to grow when you have'nt even consolidated in existing markets. The ridicule hockey gets from its irrelevance in Southern Markets makes the image\PR issue in older markets less likely to create a resurgance in popularity.

What people consistently seem to forget is this sobering FACT:

Bottom 6 teams in attendance in 06/07:
25 Boston
26 New Jersey
27 Washington
28 NY Islanders
29 Chicago
30 St. Louis

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2007

FACT:
No "Southern Team" was in the bottom 6

FACT:
2 "Original 6" were in the bottom 6

FACT:
Teams in New York (x2), Chicago, and Boston --- 3 of the largest American markets --- were in the bottom 6.

Reasons, excuses, and the like can be thrown out left and right --- but the facts seem to show that people seem to bark up the wrong tree. Major, traditional, large, historic, previously successful markets should not be in the bottom 6 while the teams that consistently get ridiculed (Nsh, Phx, Car, Atl) out draw them.

I agree with the above poster --- the NHL needs to fix the marketing and PR of the game in its CORE markets. Furthermore, the Canadian and "anti-Sun Belt" media needs to stop attacking the wrong issue ... and come together to provide positive PR/coverage of the NHL as a whole.

In my opinion, the NHL is the only sport in N. America that cannibalizes itself so much. There seems to be so much divisiveness and hatred towards a faction of its product ---- it amazes me.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
In my opinion, the NHL is the only sport in N. America that cannibalizes itself so much. There seems to be so much divisiveness and hatred towards a faction of its product ---- it amazes me.


:handclap:

Well said. I've never seen another sport where the fans and the covering media do nothing but complain.

At least part of this has to be do to the fact that it is a two-country sport. Canadians resent America, especially the Southern US where hockey is relatively new, for "stealing" their teams. And Americans... well... many tend to not to be so favorable towards things that are "foreign."
 

Fugu

Guest
FACT:
No "Southern Team" was in the bottom 6

FACT:
2 "Original 6" were in the bottom 6

FACT:
Teams in New York (x2), Chicago, and Boston --- 3 of the largest American markets --- were in the bottom 6.

Reasons, excuses, and the like can be thrown out left and right --- but the facts seem to show that people seem to bark up the wrong tree. Major, traditional, large, historic, previously successful markets should not be in the bottom 6 while the teams that consistently get ridiculed (Nsh, Phx, Car, Atl) out draw them.

I agree with the above poster --- the NHL needs to fix the marketing and PR of the game in its CORE markets. Furthermore, the Canadian and "anti-Sun Belt" media needs to stop attacking the wrong issue ... and come together to provide positive PR/coverage of the NHL as a whole.

I think you've touched on a pretty important point here. People do continue to bark up the wrong tree. Boston and Chicago really shouldn't be in the bottom third, give their market size and history. Having said that, do you believe it is just a PR and marketing problem in the core markets? In a way, that seems to imply that perhaps 'effort' is the only missing element.
 

SoCalPredFan

Registered User
Apr 14, 2007
259
0
Portland, OR
I think you've touched on a pretty important point here. People do continue to bark up the wrong tree. Boston and Chicago really shouldn't be in the bottom third, give their market size and history. Having said that, do you believe it is just a PR and marketing problem in the core markets? In a way, that seems to imply that perhaps 'effort' is the only missing element.

I'm not sure. There is probably more to it than just 'effort' --- though the lack of effort several of those teams' owners have put forth seems glaring. Then again, a team like Philly was terrible last year on the ice, but still finished Top 10 in attendance.

Bottom line:
There is a "real" problem --- and it has to do with core American markets finishing in the bottom 6 in attendance. Meanwhile, the media continues to focus on something completely separate (the Sun Belt teams). I'm not sure what the solution is, but it's important to at least identify the real problem at hand.
 

Valhoun*

Guest
I'm not sure. There is probably more to it than just 'effort' --- though the lack of effort several of those teams' owners have put forth seems glaring. Then again, a team like Philly was terrible last year on the ice, but still finished Top 10 in attendance.

Bottom line:
There is a "real" problem --- and it has to do with core American markets finishing in the bottom 6 in attendance. Meanwhile, the media continues to focus on something completely separate (the Sun Belt teams). I'm not sure what the solution is, but it's important to at least identify the real problem at hand.

I think that the issue is this: Sure, there are some large markets with established teams that don't see solid attendance figures. However, a decade or two of mediocrity will do that. The issue with teams like Boston and Chicago is merely that they are horrible. As soon as they put a team on the ice worth watching their numbers would go up really fast... especially in the case of Chicago. New Jersey is just in an area of the country where everyone is either a NYR or Philly fan. It sucks for the Devs but that is how it is.

However, in the South you have teams like the Predators which put forth an amazing lineup and still had a hard time drawing a crowd. If you put the Preds lineup in Chicago or Boston or Long Island you'd sell out every game.
 

SoCalPredFan

Registered User
Apr 14, 2007
259
0
Portland, OR
I think that the issue is this: Sure, there are some large markets with established teams that don't see solid attendance figures. However, a decade or two of mediocrity will do that. The issue with teams like Boston and Chicago is merely that they are horrible. As soon as they put a team on the ice worth watching their numbers would go up really fast... especially in the case of Chicago. New Jersey is just in an area of the country where everyone is either a NYR or Philly fan. It sucks for the Devs but that is how it is.

However, in the South you have teams like the Predators which put forth an amazing lineup and still had a hard time drawing a crowd. If you put the Preds lineup in Chicago or Boston or Long Island you'd sell out every game.

I don't buy it.

You're telling me that a city like Chicago, with upwards of 9.5 million people can only draw 12,727 fans per game?

Or Boston, one of the best sports towns in the country, rich with hockey history, with it's 4.4 million people, gets outdrawn by Phoenix?

Or Long Island, with a ton of Cups, in the biggest city on the continent (outside of Mexico City), only draws 12,886 per game.

Leave Nashville and the other picked on teams out of this. Let's focus on the teams at the BOTTOM of the list for once.

-t

PS By the way, Los Angeles was just as bad on the ice as any of the teams you mentioned (and have been for years now), yet they still drew close to 17k per game and finished 16th in the league in attendance.
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,284
12,583
South Mountain
I think you've touched on a pretty important point here. People do continue to bark up the wrong tree. Boston and Chicago really shouldn't be in the bottom third, give their market size and history. Having said that, do you believe it is just a PR and marketing problem in the core markets? In a way, that seems to imply that perhaps 'effort' is the only missing element.

In fairness, Boston's ticket prices are in the upper third and they appear to give away fewer complimentary tickets than any of the other bottom 10 teams in attendance. Overall that translates into Boston gate receipts of about average for the NHL. (Citing the Globe/Mail document)

Chicago I can't defend.
 

SoCalPredFan

Registered User
Apr 14, 2007
259
0
Portland, OR
In fairness, Boston's ticket prices are in the upper third and they appear to give away fewer complimentary tickets than any of the other bottom 10 teams in attendance. Overall that translates into Boston gate receipts of about average for the NHL. (Citing the Globe/Mail document)

Chicago I can't defend.

Here's the thing. You can "defend" any team. Nashville has PLENTY of valid reasons that seem to get trampled on. As previously stated by a poster, there's a double-standard.

Pick on a Sun Belt team and it's because "they don't have fans" and it's a "failing market". However, pick on an established market and the excuses and reasons pour out left and right.

A team like Nashville has had the privilege of playing 8 seasons. EIGHT! A ninth season was a lock-out, that happened to put a pretty huge damper on what had been some real positive momentum.

Ticket sales have increased in excess of 20% a year there in recent years and the team is trending positive.

It's a market that went from literal ground zero in terms of a hockey base to an NHL town. In that time, high school teams have formed (from 0 to 21 in 9 years), the second generation of fans has started to grow up, and the team has really started to take root.

A general lack of corporate support seems to be the only thing holding the team back --- which, thanks to ourteamnashville.com and a potential local ownership with local ties, could be rectified.

However, the Preds and the city of Nashvill has been torn apart and ripped to shreds by the media. It's been gruesome, and as a Preds fan it's been a real wake up call to the amount of hatred and disdain the rest of the league seems to have for us.

I'll I'm saying is that while we get torched, there are 6 teams sitting at the bottom of the attendance chart who get very little backlash.

I believe it's time the NHL embraces it's Sun Belt teams and works to positively promote the great sport of hockey. I'm tired of reading 1200 negative comments on pretty much any hockey blog that even mentions Nashville (one of the better examples is here: http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=86540)

My team is hated by the majority of the league and its fanbase. It simply amazes me.

-t
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
FACT:
No "Southern Team" was in the bottom 6

FACT:
2 "Original 6" were in the bottom 6

FACT:
Teams in New York (x2), Chicago, and Boston --- 3 of the largest American markets --- were in the bottom 6.

Reasons, excuses, and the like can be thrown out left and right --- but the facts seem to show that people seem to bark up the wrong tree. Major, traditional, large, historic, previously successful markets should not be in the bottom 6 while the teams that consistently get ridiculed (Nsh, Phx, Car, Atl) out draw them.

FACT:
A sample size of one is worthless.

Marginally less worthless is a sample size of six - as far back as ESPN goes.

Teams who have finished in the bottom six of attendance since 2001, and number of times.

5 - Islanders
4 - Nashville
3 - Chicago
3 - Washington
3 - Phoenix
3 - Anaheim
2 - St. Louis
2 - New Jersey
2 - Boston
2 - Pittsburgh
2 - Carolina
2 - Atlanta
1 - Buffalo
1 - Tampa Bay
1 - Florida

The Islanders, Penguins and Sabres have all had their futures in serious question as a result. Much like certain Southern markets that often appear on this list...
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->