The Return of the Hartford Whalers

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
there is nothing unrealistic about hartford being able to support an nhl team with a modern "revenue-generating" arena, like the one karmanos would have received had he not moved the team.

just my opinion.
 

Hasbro

Family Friend
Sponsor
Apr 1, 2004
52,529
16,551
South Rectangle
hawker14 said:
there is nothing unrealistic about hartford being able to support an nhl team with a modern "revenue-generating" arena, like the one karmanos would have received had he not moved the team.

just my opinion.
Yeah the obstacle remains getting that team.
 

Squiddy*

Registered User
Oct 24, 2005
816
0
Houston, Texas
Troy McClure said:
Yet, you expect us to care about your unrealistic fantasies about what cities "deserve" a hockey team.

Exactly! Could anyone care less about the whale ever comming back? I doubt anyone even cared when the left.
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
Squiddy said:
Exactly! Could anyone care less about the whale ever comming back? I doubt anyone even cared when the left.

alot of people did, and still do.

oops, i forgot that you state (in a much higher than normal percentage of your posts) that you're canadian and this somehow validates your opinions, whatever they may be, because you now live in houston.

:shakehead
 

Squiddy*

Registered User
Oct 24, 2005
816
0
Houston, Texas
hawker14 said:
alot of people did, and still do.

oops, i forgot that you state (in a much higher than normal percentage of your posts) that you're canadian and this somehow validates your opinions, whatever they may be, because you now live in houston.

:shakehead

:dunno:

Don't start to get all emotional.
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
Squiddy said:
:dunno:

Don't start to get all emotional.

alberta has lower overall taxes than texas, why did you move a couple thousand miles away when you could've drove six hours.

i presume it was for your career, and you're not a kid following mom and dad.

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:
 

Squiddy*

Registered User
Oct 24, 2005
816
0
Houston, Texas
hawker14 said:
alberta has lower overall taxes than texas, why did you move a couple thousand miles away when you could've drove six hours.

i presume it was for your career, and you're not a kid following mom and dad.

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

Why would I want to live in Alberta? :dunno:
 

GWhale*

Guest
Troy McClure said:
Yet, you expect us to care about your unrealistic fantasies about what cities "deserve" a hockey team.

Um, I posted a news story, and attempted to summarize a bunch of news stories that occured over the last week. It's you and squiddy that are ranting like idiots about nothing.
 

GWhale*

Guest
hawker14 said:
alberta has lower overall taxes than texas, why did you move a couple thousand miles away when you could've drove six hours.

i presume it was for your career, and you're not a kid following mom and dad.

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

I believe this guy is just making sure everyone knows he's spent some time in Canada to somehow validate his rants about how the NHL needs more southern teams. And doing it by hijacking threads.
 

puckhead103*

Guest
ej_pens said:
And then he went to San Francisco where he tried to buy an expansion team. Of course, as with anything that Baldwin does, he doesn't have enough money to actually buy the expansion team. So what happens? He completes a deal with George Gund, which would have completely ***** the North Stars just so he could buy another team. Even then, he still gets his hands on the North Stars until he doesn't have enough cash to hold his interest in the team and sells them.

And then we come to the Penguins. He doesn't actually have enough money to buy the Pens (are we seeing a pattern here?), so he basically leverages every good deal the Penguins have to get the money to buy the team, killing their future revenues for a short term money grab. Along the way, he continues to leverage any deal he can for short term money to continues running the team into the red. In the end, there was nothing left to leverage and they go into bankruptcy and it was completely his fault.

Of course, he blames his problems on the fact that he didn't have a new arena. What he doesn't tell anyone is that the reason the Pens don't have a new arena already his mostly his fault. When the city built 2 new parks for the Pirates and Steelers, Baldwin made an agreement with the city to forgo plans for a new Pens arena in return for "improvements" to the Civic Arena. Once again, he needed money right then and sold the Pens down the river.

So yeah, he's hated here. And for very good reason. But quite frankly, his history suggests that the NHL would be nuts to ever let him own another NHL franchise.
sounds like john spano to me...
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
GWhale said:
Are you a hockey fan or just a fan of how to make money for the NHL? I think you're stuck in the philosophy of 1992, because the way you're presenting things is what the NHL thought back then and why it screwed itself up. Putting hockey teams in markets that don't care about hockey to make the sport grow didn't work, the league just lost fans it already had.

Also, Kansas City? I wasn't even aware Kansas City was larger than Hartford. I could be wrong but you're making it sound like some metropolis.

Hey, if you want to argue who deserves a team more based on sentimentality, I definitely would put Hartford ahead of Houston or KC. Though quite frankly, I'd then put Winnipeg, Hamilton and Quebec City ahead of Hartford, so you are still stuck. Afterall, if you want to argue putting teams in markets that already love hockey, Canadian cities come first. This argument is a non-starter for you.

As far as the "stuck in the philosophy of 1992" argument goes, it remains a fact of NHL life. I don't argue on sentimentality. I argue on reality. And the reality is that the pursuit of money continues to drive the buisness of hockey, and with a CBA deeply linked to the economics of the game, the league will be looking at the markets that make the most sense economically.

And quite frankly, the league isnt going to simply assume that Houston and KC will fail just because you do.
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
Squiddy said:
Calgary is a growing city. Forbes (I think it was Forbes) indicated that by 2012 it could be bigger than vancouver (I know it's weird that an american magazine is talking about the state of a canadian city). Whats going on with winnipeg? Nothing... it's freezing in winnipeg. If someone on this message board directs you to that jetsowner site as a showing of hardcore fan support just laugh them off. There are like the same few people who post on it (USApegger etc) and other sympathizers from other cities who have now defunct teams saying "Winnipeg deserves a team yeah!"

Ofcourse they will ban you if you tell em that things aren't going to work out because they are very dilusional.

Forbes is not a good source for anything...

FWIW, the City of Calgary is already nearly twice the size of the City of Vancouver. However, the Vancouver CMA is nearly twice the size of the Calgary CMA, and Calgary isnt going to pick up 1 million more people in the next six years.
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,509
4,305
Auburn, Maine
Resolute said:
Forbes is not a good source for anything...

FWIW, the City of Calgary is already nearly twice the size of the City of Vancouver. However, the Vancouver CMA is nearly twice the size of the Calgary CMA, and Calgary isnt going to pick up 1 million more people in the next six years.

Why did the NHL allow the Flames to be transferred from Atlanta to Calgary 25 years ago, then Resolute?????
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
Would you care to rephrase that question into a meaningful context so I can properly answer it for you?

Or would you prefer the simple answer of "because Atlanta is a terrible sports market, and a Calgary based person bought the team"?
 

Squiddy*

Registered User
Oct 24, 2005
816
0
Houston, Texas
Resolute said:
Would you care to rephrase that question into a meaningful context so I can properly answer it for you?

Or would you prefer the simple answer of "because Atlanta is a terrible sports market, and a Calgary based person bought the team"?

Atlanta is not that bad of a market for hockey. I mean they average 15,000 + for the thrashers and some games are like 17,000 and 16,500+. It is really weird because they outdraw the Hawks in atlanta. Also the thrashers aren't that good, but they are getting better.
 

AdmiralPred

Registered User
Jun 9, 2005
1,923
0
Resolute said:
Would you care to rephrase that question into a meaningful context so I can properly answer it for you?

Or would you prefer the simple answer of "because Atlanta is a terrible sports market, and a Calgary based person bought the team"?
The door has been opened for an AHL history lesson.
 

GWhale*

Guest
Resolute said:
Hey, if you want to argue who deserves a team more based on sentimentality, I definitely would put Hartford ahead of Houston or KC. Though quite frankly, I'd then put Winnipeg, Hamilton and Quebec City ahead of Hartford, so you are still stuck. Afterall, if you want to argue putting teams in markets that already love hockey, Canadian cities come first. This argument is a non-starter for you.

As far as the "stuck in the philosophy of 1992" argument goes, it remains a fact of NHL life. I don't argue on sentimentality. I argue on reality. And the reality is that the pursuit of money continues to drive the buisness of hockey, and with a CBA deeply linked to the economics of the game, the league will be looking at the markets that make the most sense economically.

And quite frankly, the league isnt going to simply assume that Houston and KC will fail just because you do.

Are you unaware how meaningless your opinion is? Because, it's almost as if you expect that I'd care. As for the Canadian cities, I'd agree. Give all three of them teams.
 

garnetpalmetto

Jerkministrator
Jul 12, 2004
12,476
11,841
Durham, NC
Squiddy said:
Atlanta is not that bad of a market for hockey. I mean they average 15,000 + for the thrashers and some games are like 17,000 and 16,500+. It is really weird because they outdraw the Hawks in atlanta. Also the thrashers aren't that good, but they are getting better.

The same goes historically too. The Atlanta Flames regularly outdrew both the Hawks and the Braves. The Calgary-based ownership group just outbid the Atlanta based one when the Flames went up for sale.
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,509
4,305
Auburn, Maine
Squiddy said:
Atlanta is not that bad of a market for hockey. I mean they average 15,000 + for the thrashers and some games are like 17,000 and 16,500+. It is really weird because they outdraw the Hawks in atlanta. Also the thrashers aren't that good, but they are getting better.

ya but aren't both ATL franchises owned by 1 group, then why did it take the Atlanta Knights be set up in between the Flames'exit and the Thrashers' arrival :confused:
 

Squiddy*

Registered User
Oct 24, 2005
816
0
Houston, Texas
CHRDANHUTCH said:
ya but aren't both ATL franchises owned by 1 group, then why did it take the Atlanta Knights be set up in between the Flames'exit and the Thrashers' arrival :confused:
:dunno:

The Knights? Who the heck were they?
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
186,859
38,944
Here is how Hartford gets an NHL team within at least the next 10 years (as much as I would like to see Hartford get a team back):




The Devils move there.







Which is not going to happen.
 

Squiddy*

Registered User
Oct 24, 2005
816
0
Houston, Texas
go kim johnsson 514 said:
Here is how Hartford gets an NHL team within at least the next 10 years (as much as I would like to see Hartford get a team back):




The Devils move there.







Which is not going to happen.

The devils should really move. They are overshadowed by Flyers, Rangers and to some extent Islanders fans. They can't even grow a fanbase down there no matter what they do.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad