How would've you handled Expansion and Relocation if you were in Bettman's position?

TequilaBay

Registered User
May 30, 2019
108
153
Thought this would make for a fun topic. :)
As we all know, Gary Bettman is most definitely the most disliked person in the hockey world. Of course, when you're a commissioner, you're not there to win any popularity contests, quite the opposite actually. But one aspect about Bettman that tends to get the most flack is how he handled Expansion and Relocation, more specifically about his so called "Southern Strategy". Therefore, I decided to make this thread to ask y'all what you would've done if you were in Bettman's position, looking at it retrospectively from the perspective of someone in the 1990s, while ignoring the knowledge we have in 2019.

In this alternate timeline, you would've became commissioner in February 1993. Now, in any of these scenarios, the foundation of the Florida Panthers and Mighty Ducks of Anaheim would've still happened, as they were awarded by the NHL before Bettman took over. The Minnesota North Stars moving to Dallas and becoming the Dallas Stars would've still happened, as owner Norm Green had already chosen to relocate the team before Bettman took over (although he didn't announce it until after).
Now here comes the fun part, where we change history, or in the case of this first post, how I would change history. Let me know how you would've changed history in this regard in the comment section below. :)

To save time, skip to the next bolded statement to get to a quick recap of how things would play out in this alternate timeline.

Instead of focusing on a "Southern Strategy", I would be focusing on a "Western Strategy", by that I mean I would be looking at 4-season markets west of the Mississippi River that would support an NHL team. I would still be looking at US markets instead of Canadian ones, because US markets are more profitable, that's just the truth.

First, let's start with relocation.
One thing to know about relocation is that the decision is made by the owners, not the commissioner. The commissioner can certainly influence the matter, but the decision ultimately belongs to the owners.
Sorry to say, but in this alternate scenario with me as commissioner, the Nordiques, original Jets, and Whalers would have still left QC, Winnipeg, and Hartford respectively, as it would've been the owners who would've decided to move those teams out. The only difference here is in this scenario, only one of these teams would've gone to the same market as it did in the real events.
The Quebec Nordiques moving to Denver and becoming the Colorado Avalanche would've been a move I would've approved of, and still would've happened in this alternate scenario. Colorado is a 4-season market that is a hot spot for winter sports, it is a natural hockey market. Sure, the original Colorado Rockies may have failed, but that's because they were an abysmal team.

Now, here's where the timeline starts to change, and that's with the original Winnipeg Jets.
As commissioner, after having the North Stars relocate to Dallas, one of my top priorities would be trying to get a team back in Minneapolis/St. Paul. Minnesota is hockey's hotbed in the US, there's no reason to not have an NHL team there. The original Winnipeg Jets were supposed to relocate to Minnesota, the problem was that negotiations for a lease failed with the landlords of Target Center. I would've stepped in, and done what I could to influence the landlords to allow the team to stay at Target Center for a short time before a new stadium in St. Paul would be completed.
So, here's the first change in the timeline. Instead of relocating to Phoenix and becoming the Phoenix Coyotes, the original Winnipeg Jets would instead relocate to Minneapolis (eventually St. Paul) and become the Minnesota Wild. Minnesota's hockey drought would end in 1996 instead of 2000.

Next, we have the Hartford Whalers. It's worth noting that not only is North Carolina not a natural market for hockey, but also after relocating in the real events, the Carolina Hurricanes had to play in Greensboro while waiting for an arena to be built in Raleigh. Their arena wasn't ready yet.
Not only that, but during the Whaler's last season in Hartford, another arena was being built in West Valley City, Utah that would be finished by September 1997, right before the start of the 1997-98 regular season, that arena was the E Center (now the Maverik Center). Knowing about the Whalers' woes, I would've swayed Karmanos to relocate the team to Utah instead of North Carolina if relocation was absolutely necessary. Utah is a natural 4-season market where hockey would work, and it would make for a natural rivalry with the Colorado Avalanche, plus they already had an arena that would be ready in time. So in this scenario, the Hartford Whalers would relocate to West Valley City and become the Utah Grizzlies.

Next we get into expansion.
Two expansion teams would join the NHL, both starting in the 1998-99 season as they would already have NHL-ready arenas by then.
One of these teams would be in Kansas City, they would be the new Kansas City Scouts, they would play at Kemper Arena, where the previous Kansas City Scouts played. By this point in time, the Colorado Avalanche have already proven a market that failed previously could still be successful. Plus it would make for a great natural rivalry with the St. Louis Blues.
The other team would be in Portland, Oregon, they'd be the Portland Buckaroos, they would play at Moda Center. I would pick Portland over Seattle since a team in Seattle would be too close to Vancouver and would have to compete with the Canucks for market share, and it would also have to compete with the Seahawks, SuperSonics, and Mariners. A team in Portland on the other hand would only have to compete with the Trail Blazers, and that's it. Plenty of hockey fans in Seattle suburbs would drive down to Portland to watch the Buckaroos, as would hockey fans in Salem and Eugene that would drive north.

Another two expansion teams would be added to start in the 2000-01 season. By this point, I would decide to add a couple of teams east of the Mississippi, as I've already planted plenty of teams west of it. These two teams would be the Nashville Predators and Columbus Blue Jackets.
I would approve of both these markets joining the NHL. Even though Nashville is a southern market, it's a market that in retrospect I feel would work, as it's close to cities like St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, and Pittsburgh, it doesn't have that much to compete with besides the Tennessee Titans, and with the gimmick of live country music being played during the intermissions, it's definitely a market I would see working if I were commissioner. The reason why I would've waited a bit later than in the real events is because I would've wanted to focus on 4-season markets I know would work before gambling with a southern market.
The next would be Columbus. Not only is it a big 4-season city, but it also lacks an NFL, NBA, or MLB team, so it wouldn't have to compete with anybody.
Also, by this season, the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul would be finished, so the Minnesota Wild would start playing there this season, instead of at the Target Center.

As for anything after 2001, anything can happen from that point, which is why I'm stopping here. We would already have a 30 team league we would want to stick with for a while. Perhaps down the line, the Florida Panthers would run into financial trouble and get relocated to Winnipeg or Quebec City, maybe the league would expand to 32 teams, who knows?

Skip here if you want a quick recap.

1993-94
: No change from real events.
Divisions change names from Adams, Patrick, Norris, and Smythe to Atlantic, Northeast, Central, and Pacific respectively.
Florida Panthers join league as an expansion team, join Atlantic Division.
Mighty Ducks of Anaheim join league as an expansion team, join Pacific Division.
Minnesota North Stars relocate to Dallas and become the Dallas Stars, stay in Central Division.

1994-95: No change from real events.

1995-96: No change from real events.
Quebec Nordiques relocate to Denver and become the Colorado Avalanche, switch conferences and join Pacific Division.

1996-97: Winnipeg Jets relocate to Minneapolis and become the Minnesota Wild, stay in Central Division.

1997-98: Hartford Whalers relocate to West Valley City and become the Utah Grizzlies, switch conferences and join Pacific Division.
Colorado Avalanche join Central Division.
Toronto Maple Leafs switch conferences and join Northeast Division.

1998-99: Kansas City Scouts join league as an expansion team, join Central Division.
Portland Buckaroos join the league as an expansion team, join Pacific Division.
Utah Grizzlies join Central Division.
Detroit Red Wings switch conferences and join Northeast Division.

1999-00: No changes from previous season.

2000-01: Nashville Predators join league as an expansion team.
Columbus Blue Jackets join league as an expansion team.
Minnesota Wild make minor move from Minneapolis to St. Paul.
Division Realignment;
EAST
Atlantic
: Florida Panthers, New Jersey Devils, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Tampa Bay Lightning
Metro: Columbus Blue Jackets, Detroit Red Wings, Philadelphia Flyers, Pittsburgh Penguins, Washington Capitals
Northeast: Boston Bruins, Buffalo Sabres, Montreal Canadiens, Ottawa Senators, Toronto Maple Leafs
WEST
Pacific
: Anaheim Ducks, Los Angeles Kings, Portland Buckaroos, San Jose Sharks, Vancouver Canucks
Mountain: Calgary Flames, Colorado Avalanche, Edmonton Oilers, Minnesota Wild, Utah Grizzlies
Central: Chicago Blackhawks, Dallas Stars, Kansas City Scouts, Nashville Predators, St. Louis Blues
 
Last edited:

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,340
6,506
South Korea
I always thought Phoenix was a stupid decision to allow.

But then Vegas got a team and i changed my mind.

BTW, the tail doesn't wag the dog: the team owners have the strong opinions and lawyer-trained Bettman has at most wiggle room. He is more of a spokesperson for the corporation or front man for the syndicate, than he is the decision maker.
 

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,359
13,090
Toronto, Ontario
The premise of this thread is based on a fallacy.

Gary Bettman doesn't decide where Expansion teams are going to go nor does he decide where team's relocate. Those decisions - and many other things that fans often blame on Gary Bettman - are made by the Board of Directors. Bettman doesn't even get a vote.

What Bettman does - at the direction of the Board of Directors - is research markets and do the all the due diligence of vetting potential donors and potential cities.

Bettman may very well have come up with the "Southern Strategy" but it would have been a strategy that was then presented to the Board of Directors and the decision to go forward was made by them, not Gary Bettman.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,266
15,861
Tokyo, Japan
So, this is basically to discuss our fantasy NHL, right?

My ideal NHL would be about 20 teams, 10 in Canada and 10 in the USA.

The Final would be a US franchise vs. Canadian franchise every year.
 

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
9,606
5,223
So, this is basically to discuss our fantasy NHL, right?

My ideal NHL would be about 20 teams, 10 in Canada and 10 in the USA.

The Final would be a US franchise vs. Canadian franchise every year.

Oh my can you imagine Québec, Hamilton, Saskatoon or some other variance and the playoff format final being US team vs Can team (so I imagine the whole playoff division would be something like the 4 or 5 with one pass best team by country fighting it out ?)
 

tony d

New poll series coming from me on June 3
Jun 23, 2007
76,597
4,556
Behind A Tree
For me the NHL should be 32 teams, with franchises in the following cities (Team names). Also I apologize to any fans who would be left out with this list:

Boston
Buffalo
Detroit
Montreal
Ottawa
Quebec City
Tampa Bay
Toronto

Cincinatti
Nashville
New Jersey
New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington

Chicago
Dallas
Houston
Kansas City
Milwaukee
Minnesota
Saskatoon
St.Louis

Calgary
Colorado
Edmonton
Los Angeles
San Diego
San Jose
Seattle
Vancouver
Winnipeg
 

TequilaBay

Registered User
May 30, 2019
108
153
@The Panther

This thread isn't intended to give a Fantasy League, but rather how I would've tried to sway where the teams would relocate and expand to had I had influence in the NHL during the early years of Bettman's tenure in the '90s and early '00s.
If I were to organize a fantasy league, I'd do it for both the NHL and AHL. The AHL would have more teams in big markets that just missed the cut for NHL teams, so they're there to fill the void.
Also, the boundary between the East and West conferences would be the Mississippi River, and not the Eastern Time Zone.
There would be 30 teams in both the NHL and the AHL. Two conferences, and six divisions, three divisions per conference.
The cities with an NHL team are in normal text, while the cities with an AHL team are in italics. Here's how it would go;

EASTERN CONFERENCE

AtlanticBrooklyn
Norfolk
Miami
Tampa
Philadelphia
Charlotte
Pittsburgh
Nashville
Washington
Atlanta
BasinChicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus
Detroit
Grand Rapids
Milwaukee
Indianapolis
Toronto
Hamilton
NortheastBoston
Providence
Manhattan
Newark
Montreal
Sherbrooke
Ottawa
Buffalo
Quebec City
Halifax
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
WESTERN CONFERENCE

CentralDallas
Houston
Kansas City
Wichita
Minneapolis
Omaha
St. Louis
Oklahoma City
Winnipeg
Des Moines
MountainCalgary
Regina
Denver
Billings
Edmonton
Saskatoon
Salt Lake City
Boise
Vancouver
Victoria
PacificLos Angeles
Las Vegas
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
Phoenix
San Francisco
Fresno
Seattle
Spokane
[TBODY] [/TBODY]




 
Last edited:

HisIceness

This is Hurricanes Hockey
Sep 16, 2010
40,497
71,309
Charlotte
If I had been on an expansion and/or relocation committee back then, or even now for that matter, I would have suggested Austin and/or Houston rather than Salt Lake City or Portland. I'm not sure why Salt Lake City gets mentioned with some regularity in these potential expansion-type threads. They already have an NBA franchise and they are the smallest market in that league, ahead of Memphis. There is a reason markets of that size has one of the NBA/NHL but not both, thats 82 home games between the two of them and thats really stretching the sports dollar among the population to the last potential customer. Ditto Portland too.

Houston is a much better option than SLC or Portland. Houston as a city is bigger than SLC is as a metro, and is not far behind Portland as a metro as well. No reason to further explain this.

As far as Austin goes, it's similar to other non-traditional markets like Raleigh, Nashville, Columbus, and San Jose. It's highly educated, lots of young people and retirees who love sports, population boom, lots of white-collar employees, etc. All things the NHL likes in a market. Austin also has no other major-league competition (insert UT Longhorn Football joke here) and certainly wouldn't have to compete with another league playing the exact same number of home games while overlapping seasons.

By the way, no chance the folks in Houston will/would support a Dallas-based team, no matter NBA, NHL, AHL etc. Thats just not happening.

Also would like to point out that while I was skeptical of Las Vegas at first, I can admit I've been more than impressed with their support of the Knights thus far and I'm happy to have the city be a part of the league, and I'm certain the higher-ups in the league share that sentiment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nerowoy nora tolad

TequilaBay

Registered User
May 30, 2019
108
153
If I had been on an expansion and/or relocation committee back then, or even now for that matter, I would have suggested Austin and/or Houston rather than Salt Lake City or Portland. I'm not sure why Salt Lake City gets mentioned with some regularity in these potential expansion-type threads. They already have an NBA franchise and they are the smallest market in that league, ahead of Memphis. There is a reason markets of that size has one of the NBA/NHL but not both, thats 82 home games between the two of them and thats really stretching the sports dollar among the population to the last potential customer. Ditto Portland too.

Houston is a much better option than SLC or Portland. Houston as a city is bigger than SLC is as a metro, and is not far behind Portland as a metro as well. No reason to further explain this.

As far as Austin goes, it's similar to other non-traditional markets like Raleigh, Nashville, Columbus, and San Jose. It's highly educated, lots of young people and retirees who love sports, population boom, lots of white-collar employees, etc. All things the NHL likes in a market. Austin also has no other major-league competition (insert UT Longhorn Football joke here) and certainly wouldn't have to compete with another league playing the exact same number of home games while overlapping seasons.

By the way, no chance the folks in Houston will/would support a Dallas-based team, no matter NBA, NHL, AHL etc. Thats just not happening.

Also would like to point out that while I was skeptical of Las Vegas at first, I can admit I've been more than impressed with their support of the Knights thus far and I'm happy to have the city be a part of the league, and I'm certain the higher-ups in the league share that sentiment.

Portland and Salt Lake City are natural, 4-season markets for hockey. Austin and Houston are not, as they are sunbelt cities.
You mention the NBA, but Houston has an NBA team as well. Not only that, but they also have an NFL and MLB team on top of that. An NHL team in Houston would have to compete with the NBA, NFL, and MLB, all together. Portland and Salt Lake City would only need to compete with one.
Portland has a metro population of about 2.5 million people, which is not that much less than Denver, which is a stacked sports market. Utah is a hot spot for winter sports, and Salt Lake City has even hosted the Winter Olympics before. Both markets can definitely support an NHL team.
 

HisIceness

This is Hurricanes Hockey
Sep 16, 2010
40,497
71,309
Charlotte
Portland and Salt Lake City are natural, 4-season markets for hockey. Austin and Houston are not, as they are sunbelt cities

So what? Nashville, Raleigh, Dallas, Vegas, LA, Anaheim, Miami, Phoenix, and Tampa are also sunbelt cities with NHL teams.

You mention the NBA, but Houston has an NBA team as well. Not only that, but they also have an NFL and MLB team on top of that. An NHL team in Houston would have to compete with the NBA, NFL, and MLB, all together.

Right, and Houston being home to around 7 million people can much better bear having an NHL team to compete against the other teams. It's the 5th most populated metro in the states. Portland and SLC are 25th and 47th respectively.

Portland and Salt Lake City would only need to compete with one.

And again, that one just so happens to play in a league with the same number of home games as the other, and the seasons overlap. Thats really stretching the sports dollar in both towns thin, both cities also have the MLS which creates an even bigger bind.

Portland has a metro population of about 2.5 million people, which is not that much less than Denver, which is a stacked sports market

And Denver is the smallest market with all 4 big-leagues, and they have the Rocky Mountain region to draw from. Portland is not far from Seattle which is much larger and is already getting an expansion team.

Utah is a hot spot for winter sports, and Salt Lake City has even hosted the Winter Olympics before. Both markets can definitely support an NHL team.

I'm aware of SLC hosting the Winter Olympics. As for the bolded I'm going to respectfully disagree. The NHL would be much better off in Houston than they would Portland or SLC.
 

TequilaBay

Registered User
May 30, 2019
108
153
So what? Nashville, Raleigh, Dallas, Vegas, LA, Anaheim, Miami, Phoenix, and Tampa are also sunbelt cities with NHL teams.
True, but Miami, Phoenix, and Raleigh are constantly in the bottom 6 in attendance.
Nashville, Tampa, and especially Vegas draw mostly because their teams are cup contenders. Not only that, but Vegas is an entertainment center, and Nashville has the gimmick of live country music.

Right, and Houston being home to around 7 million people can much better bear having an NHL team to compete against the other teams. It's the 5th most populated metro in the states. Portland and SLC are 25th and 47th respectively.
To be fair, Houston could potentially support an NHL team to the same degree that LA, Dallas, and Tampa do, but keep in mind you're still putting a winter sport team in a market that doesn't get winter, where interest in the sport is going to be way lower. Remember, Atlanta is also a huge market, a huge sports market on top of that, and they failed twice to support an NHL team.

And again, that one just so happens to play in a league with the same number of home games as the other, and the seasons overlap. Thats really stretching the sports dollar in both towns thin, both cities also have the MLS which creates an even bigger bind.
And Denver is the smallest market with all 4 big-leagues, and they have the Rocky Mountain region to draw from. Portland is not far from Seattle which is much larger and is already getting an expansion team.
The NBA and NHL don't draw from the same crowd. In the US, the NBA's audience is mostly urban, while the NHL's is mostly suburban. Also, Denver only draws from the Front Range Urban Corridor, between Cheyenne and Pueblo, which is about 5 million people. The SLC-Provo-Orem statistical area has over 2.6 million people, and the Portland-Vancouver-Salem statistical area has over 3.2 million, both are over half of the Front Range Urban Corridor. If Denver can support 5 sports leagues, then Salt Lake City and especially Portland can support 3.

Portland is not far from Seattle which is much larger and is already getting an expansion team.
Seattle is also close to Vancouver. What's your point there? If you were to put a team in Portland instead of Seattle, you wouldn't have the Canucks intercepting the market share.

I'm aware of SLC hosting the Winter Olympics. As for the bolded I'm going to respectfully disagree. The NHL would be much better off in Houston than they would Portland or SLC.
Can we at least agree that all three can potentially support an NHL team? :)
Honestly though, the reason Houston missed the cut is because I had to separate the teams on each side of the Mississippi River into three divisions each. Portland is a nice fit to be in the same division as Seattle and California's teams, and Utah is a nice fit to be in the same division as Colorado and both of Alberta's teams. With Houston, however, there are other cities that I feel are better fits to be in that Central Division, and you can only fit 5 at a time.
 
Last edited:

DowntownBooster

Registered User
Jun 21, 2011
3,202
2,414
Winnipeg
For me the NHL should be 32 teams, with franchises in the following cities (Team names). Also I apologize to any fans who would be left out with this list:

Boston
Buffalo
Detroit
Montreal
Ottawa
Quebec City
Tampa Bay
Toronto

Cincinatti
Nashville
New Jersey
New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington

Chicago
Dallas
Houston
Kansas City
Milwaukee
Minnesota
Saskatoon
St.Louis

Calgary
Colorado
Edmonton
Los Angeles
San Diego
San Jose
Seattle
Vancouver
Winnipeg

Not a bad setup but I would switch Winnipeg and Saskatoon on your groupings list since Saskatoon is further west than Winnipeg.
 

HisIceness

This is Hurricanes Hockey
Sep 16, 2010
40,497
71,309
Charlotte
To be fair, Houston could potentially support an NHL team to the same degree that LA, Dallas, and Tampa do, but keep in mind you're still putting a winter sport team in a market that doesn't get winter, where interest in the sport is going to be way lower. Remember, Atlanta is also a huge market, a huge sports market on top of that, and they failed twice to support an NHL team.

Houston is the 5th largest metro in the US, there are a lot of hockey fans among the 7 million people who call that area home. I'm confident the NHL would have no issues there. I also want to point out regarding Atlanta that had it not been for the incompetent owners they would have had much better fan support. There's plenty of NHL fans there too. But Houston is the closest thing to a slam-dunk the NHL can ask for right now in regards to untapped US markets.

The NBA and NHL don't draw from the same crowd. In the US, the NBA's audience is mostly urban, while the NHL's is mostly suburban. Also, Denver only draws from the Front Range Urban Corridor, between Cheyenne and Pueblo, which is about 5 million people. The SLC-Provo-Orem statistical area has over 2.6 million people, and the Portland-Vancouver-Salem statistical area has over 3.2 million, both are over half of the Front Range Urban Corridor. If Denver can support 5 sports leagues, then Salt Lake City and especially Portland can support 3.

The bolded is not entirely accurate. While the NBA does draw from a more urban audience than the NHL, the NBA season-ticket holder and luxury box demographic is largely cut from the same cloth as NHL season-ticket holders. I am a former Bobcats/Hornets season-ticket holder and many of my fellow season-ticket holders are/were similar to me, suburban white-collar employees in the 18-49 age range. Family in Dallas are Mavericks season-ticket holders and most of them come from the wealthy Northern Dallas suburbs, where a lot of the Stars fan base comes from. Cousin in Memphis who sells tickets for the Grizzlies says the same thing, mostly suburban white-collar folks buying the season-tickets and suites while the urban crowd usually buys single-game tickets.

Again, there is a reason why markets of Portlands size and smaller have one of the NBA/NHL but not the other. Franchises would rather sell season-tickets, suites, etc. than just single-game tickets. Those season-tickets, suites, etc. are not cheap, and thus the ones most likely to buy them are going to be the corporate types. Having two franchises that play a combined 82 games at the same time, is really stretching the sports dollar thin. And that is why markets like Houston, regardless of "winter market" or not, can much better bear that burden of finding folks to buy those tickets as they have a much larger and wealthier audience to draw from.

I live in Charlotte and I see a lot of comments regarding the Hurricanes should be here and not Raleigh because Charlotte is bigger. What they fail to realize is that Charlotte (which by the way is about the size of Portland) is already maxed out when it comes to major-league sports. The Panthers play in a league that has 8 home games, most of which are on Sunday afternoons, so people can better plan coming to the game, and those that are traveling from other cities can make the trip and go home after the game and get ready for work Monday morning. The Hornets meanwhile play 41 games stretched out over weekends and weeknights, and most folks that go to the games already live in town. And again, most of those folks who buy up the season-tickets and luxury boxes are going to be the same people that the Hurricanes would solicit if they were to play here, and between the Panthers, Hornets, and Hurricanes, thats going to bleed the sports dollar dry. In other words, Charlotte is in the same situation as other two-sport towns like Buffalo, Nashville, and Indianapolis. It's just big enough to support the NFL and one of the winter sports but not both of the winter sports.

Another thing to mention, both NBA teams that play in Portland and SLC are successful and have great fan bases. Sure you can convince some to convert to the NHL, but most are going to stick with the NBA and only go to the NHL when given free tickets. It's not going to be easy for the NHL to compete in NBA markets like SLC and Portland, "winter market" or not, and they're better off in the long-run trying elsewhere.

Seattle is also close to Vancouver. What's your point there? If you were to put a team in Portland instead of Seattle, you wouldn't have the Canucks intercepting the market share.

Well Vancouver already happens to be a hockey-crazed city in a country where the NHL is the NFL to Americans. Vancouver also no longer has the NBA to contend with, not that the Grizzlies were successful in their time there but the point is that the Canucks have no other major-league winter sports competition. Also, the Canucks have a strong fan base and won't be hurt from Seattle "intercepting the market share", sure they'll lose some fans to the Seattle team, but it won't create an impact that hurts both franchises.

Can we at least agree that all three can potentially support an NHL team? :)

Again, I'm going to respectfully disagree on SLC and Portland. Obviously things can change over time and yes, potentially both could, but as it sits right now and at least for the next 5 years or so, the NHL is better off either going to a big market like Houston or tapping into a market with no major-league competition like Austin, or even taking the Canadian route and going back to Quebec City, rather than invading small-market NBA territory.
 
Last edited:

Just Linda

Registered User
Feb 24, 2018
6,656
6,591
I would have 4 at this time. Things likely would have played out exactly the same since I would have been a puppet figure just like Bettman.

Also, assuming time machines, I probably would have done a far worse job.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad