NHL Realignment 2012-13 – Part III

[danishh]

Given the success the Winnipeg Jets have reaped this year, perhaps the NHL would be prudent to have another long standing AHL franchise make the leap when the Coyotes come up for sale...I have waffled quite a bit on where the Coyotes should move, but I think that Milwaukee would be a safe and profitable location for relocation. [snip]

Milwaukee's nhl hopes died with Lloyd Pettit.


anyways guys, this thread is about 12-13 realignment, not something in the future. Feel free to provide provisions for future adjustments, but proposing immediate contractions, expansions, or relocations to make your alignment work is irrelevant to this thread and offensive to fans of the concerned franchises.

 

[danishh]

That would give the impression that the Eastern GM's run the league. And they don't. They're gonna have to get off their little pedestals and meet in the middle with the West.

this isnt about GM's, it's about owners.

And with teams like toronto, montreal, nyr, and philadelphia (the 4 highest revenue teams in the league), they do run the league.

 

[MoreOrr]

We know the Jets want to get out of the Eastern. That's one.

We know the Panthers are asking for a four-division setup. That's two.

If there were a third team, I'm thinking it's Carolina. The Canes would benefit most from moving to a four-division format; their rivals aren't in the Southeast Division. Why? Washington, although maybe enjoying more games against their former Patrick Division rivals, have sold out for almost three years straight. Tampa Bay is building a contender and may not need any changes. None of "the Ten" want to be bothered.

Winnipeg doesn't need to vote for a 4 Division setup because they know the Jets are going to be out of the East regardless. In fact, I wouldn't be 100% sure that Winnipeg would want the 4-Division setup if it wants to be in a Division with at least either the Alberta teams or the Ontario teams

The 3 teams in the East that probably are in favor of 4 Divisions are almost certainly Washington and the Florida teams.

In the West, I wouldn't be 100% sure that all the California teams would want a 4-Division setup, though perhaps they would. And one never knows about a team like Chicago... Chicago primarily wants to keep Detroit in its Division, I think the main concern is there.

 

[MoreOrr]

They're not moving. Just because a team is in a financial mess doesn't mean they'll relocate, especially with a TV contract and team value in a new, profitable arena. Why can't you folks grasp that?

Also putting Columbus with Pittsburgh in the Atlantic makes no sense.

Columbus and Pittsburgh together, fine, but in a 6 Division setup that means either Northeast or Southeast. My vote would be for the most unlikely to happen, both of them in the Northeast... But again, that almost certainly won't happen.

 

[MoreOrr]

The Star Tribune's, Michael Russo, added his 2 cents.

Michael Russo should realize his own bias and the bias of Minnesota and Leipold. One could also say, if they wished, that Leipold should be ashamed of trying advertise the 4-Division setup as if it was a done deal, simply for his own benefit.

 

[Cynicaps]

We know the Jets want to get out of the Eastern. That's one.

We know the Panthers are asking for a four-division setup. That's two.

If there were a third team, I'm thinking it's Carolina. The Canes would benefit most from moving to a four-division format; their rivals aren't in the Southeast Division. Why? Washington, although maybe enjoying more games against their former Patrick Division rivals, have sold out for almost three years straight. Tampa Bay is building a contender and may not need any changes. None of "the Ten" want to be bothered.

The idea that the Caps would actually like the status quo is a testament to how foolish and short-sighted the franchise is. The only viable reason the Caps should have for being against a 4-team alignment is if not getting the Penguins back would be the consequence. Less travel, reunion with their rivals, more games against their rivals, increased revenue from additional rivalry games, all of this is safe in the long run even if the Caps hit on hard times.

I can think of only one reason why a 6-division setup would benefit the Caps: Easy division titles which means that Leonsis can continue his plan to turn the Caps into Leafs South. Heaven help if they get a 4 or 5 seed and actually win the Cup. Anyone with a brain knows this.

 

[MoreOrr]

The idea that the Caps would actually like the status quo is a testament to how foolish and short-sighted the franchise is. The only viable reason the Caps should have for being against a 4-team alignment is if not getting the Penguins back would be the consequence. Less travel, reunion with their rivals, more games against their rivals, increased revenue from additional rivalry games, all of this is safe in the long run even if the Caps hit on hard times.

I can think of only one reason why a 6-division setup would benefit the Caps: Easy division titles which means that Leonsis can continue his plan to turn the Caps into Leafs South. Heaven help if they get a 4 or 5 seed and actually win the Cup. Anyone with a brain knows this.

You make your view very clear.

 

[Hollywood3]

I have not posted in one of these threads for a while, but ...

The possibilities go round and round. The NHL cannot firm up anything with Phoenix (and potentially NYI and NJ) on the move. So if they stick with 6 divisions they will do something which alters as little possible, and which may be undone the following year. That would be Winnipeg to the central and then one of Detroit, Nashville, or Columbus to the southeast, on the understanding they'd return west if Phoenix moves to Quebec or somewhere else in the east.

A four division alignment is much more flexible. There would be two divisions of 8 teams and 2 more with 7 teams. All they have to do is put Phoenix in an 8 team division and leave a space for Quebec in an eastern-based 7 team division.

The question is which two of the six existing divisions will be divided to allow this to happen. IMO the southeast and northwest are the best candidates.

[FONT="Courier New"][SIZE="1"]
Smythe         Norris         Adams         Patrick
Vancouver      Winnipeg       Toronto       Washington
San Jose       Minnesota      Montreal      NY Rangers
Los Angeles    St. Louis      Ottawa        NY Islanders
Anaheim        Dallas         Buffalo       New Jersey
Edmonton       Chicago        Carolina      Philadelphia
Calgary        Detroit        Tampa Bay     Pittsburgh
Colorado       Nashville      Florida       Boston
Phoenix*       Columbus*      Quebec*       Columbus*
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

Winnipeg doesn't need to vote for a 4 Division setup because they know the Jets are going to be out of the East regardless. In fact, I wouldn't be 100% sure that Winnipeg would want the 4-Division setup if it wants to be in a Division with at least either the Alberta teams or the Ontario teams

The 3 teams in the East that probably are in favor of 4 Divisions are almost certainly Washington and the Florida teams.

In the West, I wouldn't be 100% sure that all the California teams would want a 4-Division setup, though perhaps they would. And one never knows about a team like Chicago... Chicago primarily wants to keep Detroit in its Division, I think the main concern is there.

To suggest winnipeg would vote against Bettman's proposal is odd. I think wpg is too new to have a backbone, same goes with TB's owner IMO. Bettman was heavily involved with getting the new owners in to TB and they have an excellent relationship from everything I've read in the past. I'd be surprised if Bettman didn't have those 2 votes.

Edit: Note, this is to say whatever Bettmans final proposal is (6 or 4 divs), I would be surprised if Wpg and TB didn't vote FOR it.

 

[MoreOrr]

To suggest winnipeg would vote against Bettman's proposal is odd. I think wpg is too new to have a backbone, same goes with TB's owner IMO. Bettman was heavily involved with getting the new owners in to TB and they have an excellent relationship from everything I've read in the past. I'd be surprised if Bettman didn't have those 2 votes.

You see, I just don't understand that attitude. This is business, business owners need to look out for what they think is best for them (which includes what they might think is best for the League they're part of) or what they think has the best chance if giving them (and the League) something that's going to be better for them. All those owners need to represent their teams in the best way they can, expressing the opinions that each ones thinks is the best thing to do, and no one should be expecting them to vote otherwise, Bettman included. Bettman shouldn't be saying to anyone... You owe me!

It's because of the kind of reasoning that you're implying that nothing good ever gets done without a cost.

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

You see, I just don't understand that attitude. This is business, business owners need to look out for what they think is best for them (which includes what they might think is best for the League they're part of) or what they think has the best chance if giving them (and the League) something that's going to be better for them. All those owners need to represent their teams in the best way they can, expressing the opinions that each ones thinks is the best thing to do, and no one should be expecting them to vote otherwise, Bettman included. Bettman shouldn't be saying to anyone... You owe me!

It's because of the kind of reasoning that you're implying that nothing good ever gets done without a cost.

Lol, then you know nothing of business. When you're in a league of 30 people, relationships are pretty important. To suggest a teams relationship with head office and other owners is bad business is infact bad business.

Its not about "owing", its perhaps about deferring your decision to someone that has more experience and knowledge then you. Its perhaps learning first.

 

[MoreOrr]

Lol, then you know nothing of business. When you're in a league of 30 people, relationships are pretty important. To suggest a teams relationship with head office and other owners is bad business is infact bad business.

Its not about "owing", its perhaps about deferring your decision to someone that has more experience and knowledge then you. Its perhaps learning first.

Hmmm, and Bettman has more experience than them all, so why vote at all. Gary Knows Best!

What if Winnipeg's opinion and Tampa's opinion is more in accord with Snider's opinion. Should Snider not be considered someone with "more experience"?

In the end, even if you have less experience, you still do have an opinion. And if there are people on opposite sides, both with "experience", then you logically join the side in which your opinion, experienced or not, is leaning. Otherwise, it would be just a case of "I owe him".

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

Hmmm, and Bettman has more experience than them all, so why vote at all. Gary Knows Best!

What if Winnipeg's opinion and Tampa's opinion is more in accord with Snider's opinion. Should Snider not be considered someone with "more experience"?

In the end, even if you have less experience, you still do have an opinion. And if there are people on opposite sides, both with "experience", then you logically join the side in which your opinion, experienced or not, is leaning. Otherwise, it would be just a case of "I owe him".

If what you thought was business was all there was to business Jim Basille would be an owner.

 

[MoreOrr]

If what you thought was business was all there was to business Jim Basille would be an owner.

It's not all that I think is business, and it's certainly not how the world works. But people don't always simply do what's "expected of them"... Thank the ****!

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

It's not all that I think is business, and it's certainly not how the world works. But people don't always simply do what's "expected of them"... Thank the ****!

Well there's you're problem, I never said that (so don't know why "expected of them" is in quotes), and you're over simplifying.

IS it unreasonable to say that if Gary Bettman, the man the owners hired to run the league, came to the Wpg owners and said "I believe the best option for the league is X divisions with Y breakdown and I would like you to vote for it" and assuming that it is in fact reasonable, that the wpg owners would not vote for it, despite what Philadelphias owner is saying?

I don't think that is unreasonable, and in fact I think its more than likely.

 

[MoreOrr]

Well there's you're problem, I never said that (so don't know why "expected of them" is in quotes), and you're over simplifying.

IS it unreasonable to say that if Gary Bettman, the man the owners hired to run the league, came to the Wpg owners and said "I believe the best option for the league is X divisions with Y breakdown and I would like you to vote for it" and assuming that it is in fact reasonable, that the wpg owners would not vote for it, despite what Philadelphias owner is saying?

I don't think that is unreasonable, and in fact I think its more than likely.

But that logic defeats the whole purpose of a 30 team vote. Certain votes would already then be pocketed just simply based on some sense of obligation to someone a junior member sees as being in charge. And on the other hand, you're suggesting that those voting against Bettman's proposal just believe that their status is great enough that it permits them to stand up against the leader if they don't agree with him.

If junior members don't have the experience to make their own decisions, then they shouldn't be part of the decision-making process at all.
How long should an owner be in the League before he has the right to vote his opinion without being expected to tow the line of whoever is in charge, IYO?

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

But that logic defeats the whole purpose of a 30 team vote. Certain votes would already then be pocketed just simply based on some sense of obligation to someone a junior member sees as being in charge. And on the other hand, you're suggesting that those voting against Bettman's proposal just believe that their status is great enough that it permits them to stand up against the leader if they don't agree with him.

If junior members don't have the experience to make their own decisions, then they shouldn't be part of the decision-making process at all.
How long should an owner be in the League before he has the right to vote his opinion without being expected to tow the line of whoever is in charge, IYO?

I didn't say anything that you just stated in your post.

So, I'll ask again, is the scenario I outlined unreasonable? Is it not more than likely?

Do you think Wpg will vote against whichever proposal Bettman puts to vote in december?

PS: it's toe the line.

 

[MoreOrr]

I didn't say anything that you just stated in your post.

So, I'll ask again, is the scenario I outlined unreasonable? Is it not more than likely?

Do you think Wpg will vote against whichever proposal Bettman puts to vote in december?

PS: it's toe the line.

Thanks for the vocab lesson, not being sarcastic.

It's not "unreasonable", but I don't see it as being Winnipeg's obligation to vote in favor of Bettman's opinion. If that's the option that Winnipeg thinks is best, then fine, but not simply because the Winnipeg owners think they're inexperienced so therefore they should follow the "leader"... there are other "leaders" in the NHL and Winnipeg has the right to think for itself and side with the "leaders" it more agrees with.

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

Thanks for the vocab lesson, not being sarcastic.

It's not "unreasonable", but I don't see it as being Winnipeg's obligation to vote in favor of Bettman's opinion. If that's the option that Winnipeg thinks is best, then fine, but not simply because the Winnipeg owners think they're inexperienced so therefore they should follow the "leader"... there are other "leaders" in the NHL and Winnipeg has the right to think for itself and side with the "leaders" it more agrees with.

Agreed, its not winnipegs obligation to do as bettman says and agreed, its not unreasonable to assume wpg will vote in favor of whatever Bettman's proposal is. Doing the latter does not imply blindly following "the leader". That is a large leap, IMO.

 

[MoreOrr]

Agreed, its not winnipegs obligation to do as bettman says and agreed, its not unreasonable to assume wpg will vote in favor of whatever Bettman's proposal is. Doing the later does not imply blindly following "the leader". That is a large leap, IMO.

But come on, you were pretty much implying, when we began this little discussion, that Winnipeg and Tampa Bay would not vote against Bettman because:

To suggest winnipeg would vote against Bettman's proposal is odd. I think wpg is too new to have a backbone, same goes with TB's owner IMO. Bettman was heavily involved with getting the new owners in to TB and they have an excellent relationship from everything I've read in the past. I'd be surprised if Bettman didn't have those 2 votes.

That all sounds fairly clear to me that, regardless of what Winnipeg's and Tampa's opinions are, you believe they wouldn't vote against Bettman.

If you're simply arguing that those two owners will agree with Bettman, then why didn't you just say that. Because that isn't what you said in that first post that I just quoted again.

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

But come on, you were pretty much implying, when we began this little discussion, that Winnipeg and Tampa Bay would not vote against Bettman because:


That all sounds fairly clear to me that, regardless of what Winnipeg's and Tampa's opinions are, you believe they wouldn't vote against Bettman.

If you're simply arguing that those two owners will agree with Bettman, then why didn't you just say that. Because that isn't what you said in that first post that I just quoted again.

That is a fair point, the way that is worded does imply that. (regarding the backbone). I was careless in my description and leaned on exagerating to prove a point which was a mistake on my part.

 

[LeafErikson]

Milwaukee's nhl hopes died with Lloyd Pettit.


anyways guys, this thread is about 12-13 realignment, not something in the future. Feel free to provide provisions for future adjustments, but proposing immediate contractions, expansions, or relocations to make your alignment work is irrelevant to this thread and offensive to fans of the concerned franchises.

Ugh. So concerned w/ stepping on the toes of the fans in Phoenix. W/ the Coyotes not likely to find an owner in time, they very likely will move, and it will affect realignment for next year. So how is it not in line w/ the topic in place? Absolutely stupid to ignore that probability.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Ugh. So concerned w/ stepping on the toes of the fans in Phoenix. W/ the Coyotes not likely to find an owner in time, they very likely will move, and it will affect realignment for next year. So how is it not in line w/ the topic in place? Absolutely stupid to ignore that probability.

I think the bigger issue is that, in the grand scheme of things, the odds of Milwaukee getting an NHL team are lower than the odds of Quebec City or Houston or Kansas City or Portland or maybe even Seattle, even without an arena, so bringing them up is kind of pointless.

I could talk about how the Hampton Roads Rhinos should come to fruition, but given how complete of a mess the local governments are over there, and how disorganized they are, talking about them as a realignment candidate would just be a waste of pixels at this point in time. Same kind of goes for Milwaukee, both long-term and short-term.

And yeah, repeatedly talking about teams that could move as if it's a sure thing (even though I think it almost is for the Yotes, unfortunately) is kind of mean-spirited and off-topic here, especially when there's another topic specifically about Phoenix likely moving.

 

[KingJet*]

Move Nashville to SE, Dallas to the Central, Colorado to Pacific and Winnipeg to the NW, end of story, I don't want the 4 conferences.

 

[Hollywood3]

Let's Get Crazy!

When the NHL first went to four divisions they ignored geography and just seeded four divisions like one would do for a world championship or other tournament. My real idea is Post 908

But what if they did this?

[FONT="Courier New"][SIZE="1"]
WHA            Original       Groovy        Corporate
Winnipeg       Toronto        Philadelphia  Calgary
Edmonton       Montreal       Pittsburgh    NY Islanders
Carolina       Ottawa         St. Louis     Washington
Phoenix/Quebec Boston         Dallas        New Jersey
Colorado       Chicago        Los Angeles   San Jose
Florida        Detroit        Buffalo       Tampa Bay
Columbus       NY Rangers     Vancouver     Anaheim
Minnesota                                   Nashville [/SIZE][/FONT]

Just think of the possibilities!

Each division would have a unique logo to go with their unique history.

The WHA would reek of cool. Florida, Columbus, and Minnesota would get new names and looks to rekindle those frankly boring franchises. Gone would be the Florida Panthers, to be replaced by the Miami Screaming Eagles. The Columbus Blue Jackets would draw fans from Cleveland when they unveil their Columbus Crusaders logo. And the Minnesota Wild would replace years of blah uniforms when they bring back the Minnesota Fighting Saints. If any of those don't want to change their names then they can move to Hartford. I would also be open to the Colorado Avalanche becoming the Denver Spurs. Or the Calgary Flames could move in if they want to be the Calgary Cowboys.

The Original Division combines the Original 6 with Ottawa from the Original 4, The division has a space for the Hamilton Tigers.

The Groovy Division has the teams from the 1967 and 1970 expansions. Their division logo would probably incorporate a peace sign.

The Corporate Division would change names every year because it would be named after a sponsor. It would represent all the crap about pro sports. This division would include all expansion teams from and after the WHA era.