NHL Expansion

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from jaymiller. Show jaymiller's posts

    NHL Expansion

    I suspect Las Vegas, and Seattle will be awarded franchises in the (not too) distant future.

    http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/craig-custance/post?id=747

     

    for those thinking Vegas ??? ~ here's a link

    http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/05/business/la-fi-mo-las-vegas-arena-20131105

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    In response to jaymiller's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I suspect Las Vegas, and Seattle will be awarded franchises in the (not too) distant future.

    http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/craig-custance/post?id=747

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think Seattle is a foregone conclusion, they are building a new rink i believe,have an owner in place and are in a perfect place geographically to form rivalry's with the Nucks,Kings,Sharks,Ducks.Maybe Vegas, another reason to go there! 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    Thomas and Mack nor Orleans Arena would be a place Bettman could put an NHL franchise. Photos of "Jimmy the Fixer" with the 91' Running Rebels, before the NCAA basketball Final Four, probably still a fixture in any NBA or NHL Executives mind.

    At least Seattle has a temporary arena to house a team until a new one is built and Washington state is having great success with it's WHL teams.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from wallydouglas. Show wallydouglas's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion


    I think they need to consider quebec back in.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sobchack. Show Sobchack's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    Seattle is a no brainer.  Vegas?  I'd be real curious to see what the analytics say.

    Still, I agree that the folks in Quebec have suffered too long.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    Seattle, sure. Makes perfect sense.

    Quebec. Yep.

    Las Vegas? That makes less sense than Tampa and Miami. Or Phoenix of course. Just because you can make ice at the equator doesn't mean there should be a hockey team there. sheeesh!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jaymiller. Show jaymiller's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    imo. Quebec or the GTA facility may still get in, but they've got a better shot through relocation vs expansion.

    As you know the western conference is short two teams, so i'd be easier to expand there first, vs moving teams from one  conference to another.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    Jacksonville could use a team.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    In response to jaymiller's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    imo. Quebec or the GTA facility may still get in, but they've got a better shot through relocation vs expansion.

    As you know the western conference is short two teams, so i'd be easier to expand there first, vs moving teams from one  conference to another.

    [/QUOTE]

    Unless Florida ends up in Quebec, it could be awhile before there is a team there. I personally think they should get a team but it doesn't look like its in the cards. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Jacksonville could use a team.

    [/QUOTE]

    Nice.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    For whatever reason, red always seems to know every detail about this, so I will be interested when she chimes in.

    I say Seattle and then whichever Canadian city can get their act together first.

    Despite all of the carping about water-ed down talent, I don't think it will be such a bad thing.  These unbalanced conferences are silly.  It shouldn't be harder for eastern teams to make the playoffs than western teams.  32 seems like the magic number.  Top half makes the playoffs. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hanrahan1. Show Hanrahan1's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    Seattle and either Quebec City or Hamilton. Vegas? Stupidest thing I've ever heard.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    I know absolutley nothing about Seattle, other than the football fans are loud, it rains alot the Sonics had to move and Bill Gates is there or was there. I don't hold that against them that the Sonics moved, tells me their smart as I can't stand the NBA. I also hate the fact they have flourescent colors in their uniform.

    I thought I read here once that minor league hockey is popular there.

    Sooner or later theres going to be a pro franchise in Las Vegas, NHL might as well be the first. If they aren't, then don't go there.

    I'd love a team in Quebec. I hope they have blue paint on the bottom of the boards so it reminds me of growing up watching the B's at the Le Collisse.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/Which+cities+best+Gary+Bettmans+criteria+expansion/9278760/story.html

    "Colisee Pepsi is an outdated facility, but a new arena that will seat 18,482 is under construction and is set to open in 2015. That would be right in line with NHL expansion in the not-too-distant future.

    Finding an owner wouldn't be an issue with Quebec City. Quebecor, the owner of TVA, which will have French-language NHL rights beginning next season, could be in the discussion, as could its former CEO, Pierre Karl Peladeau, who chairs the board of Hydro-Quebec."

    2015 not that far away...

     

    "Las Vegas remains the most intriguing option for every North American professional sports league because it's an untapped market but has questions as far as season-ticket-holders and gambling. Assuming the NHL would be taken off sports books with a team there, the biggest question would be if the area could support a team for the long term."

     

    Ain't gonna happen.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    I think Quebec is a strong relocation possibility - keep them in the league's back pocket so when an issue arises they have a go to spot, similar to how they worked with Winnipeg. Also, since the most likely candidates for relocation are in the East, that would solve any realignment headaches.

    So if you're looking at filling the West spots through expansion, and taking Quebec off the table, then Seattle seems like a lock and I can think of 7 other candidates for the other slot in the West.

     

    PORTLAND

    A city with a reasonable hockey history (Winterhawks) and an extremely deep-pocketed potential owner. Not that long ago a spokesperson for Allen said he was "intrigued" by the idea of bringing the NHL to Portland, so that is a possibility. Geographically it's a fit, but assuming Seattle gets a franchise, it would force a team to move to the Central. Not one of the Pacific teams would move over to play CT teams, so that leaves one of the 3 MT teams to join Colorado in the Central. There would be riots if they split up Calgary and Edmonton, so Phoenix would be the one going to the Central.

    MILWAUKEE


    This is the one that makes the most sense demographically and has by far the largest existing hockey fanbase and the strongest ties to the sport. They also have a potential owner in Turer, the current owner of the Admirals. That gives him a leg-up similar to Mark Chipman in that he's proven he can be successful in the business of hockey. But the mark against them, and it's a big one, is the Bradley Centre. It's simply not suitable for NHL hockey. Until they get a replacement building, or at least concrete plans for one, it won't happen.

    HOUSTON


    Little existing hockey culture, and Dallas's finacial situation over recent years should be a bit of a red flag for expansion to Texas. But the appeal of going to Houston is obvious - it's the largest population centre and media market in North America without an NHL team, which could get Bettman drooling.

    LAS VEGAS


    Lots and lots of money flows through the town in pockets of toruists, and it would be the only major sports team in the city. But the arguments for Vegas seem to rely on out-of-towners, and I think there may be significant issues in regards to building a local fanbase. Also, there are 50 million options in Vegas for spending your entertainment budget. Would a hockey team be able to effectively compete for those dollars?

    KANASAS CITY


    They have the building, but nothing else. I simply don't think it's viable.

    SASKATOON

    In another 20 years given its population growth, it's a good bet. But the population base just isn't there yet.

    TORONTO


    Despite its Eastern Time Zone location, this is still an option and could aleviate some competitive concerns with the Maple Leafs. Remember, a Toronto team has played in the West before. Eric Duhatshek had a good article on this option a few days ago in the Globe and Mail. Here's an excerpt.

    "Think about it. Once upon a time, the Maple Leafs played in the Western Conference, so there is a precedent for Toronto playing in the same division as the Chicago Blackhawks, Winnipeg Jets and St. Louis Blues.

    If somebody has to go west, it should be the newest addition, not a venerable franchise such as Detroit that dealt with the travel and time zone issues for years, or even Columbus, which doesn’t have the history, but also had to deal with bad starting times for TV contracts and excessive travel.

    That would be part of the price – and the penance – for getting a second team in Toronto. And it doesn’t mean the second GTA team wouldn’t play the Leafs or Montreal Canadiens or Ottawa Senators. It just wouldn’t play them as much.

    There is also some question as to whether the NHL needs to satisfy the Leafs financially if it invades their so-called “territorial” rights.

    Well, the Leafs probably wouldn’t want to compete head-to-head with a second Toronto team, but if that team were in the other conference, it might make it more palatable. They would never square off in the playoffs – unless both were in the Stanley Cup final – so they could keep the new kids on the block relatively at arm’s length."

     

    I think Duhatschek makes a good argument. But it hurts Colorado too, having to play division games two time zones away like Dallas used to do. There'd be some screaming from Denver over this move.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think Quebec is a strong relocation possibility - keep them in the league's back pocket so when an issue arises they have a go to spot, similar to how they worked with Winnipeg. Also, since the most likely candidates for relocation are in the East, that would solve any realignment headaches.

    So if you're looking at filling the West spots through expansion, and taking Quebec off the table, then Seattle seems like a lock and I can think of 7 other candidates for the other slot in the West.

     

    PORTLAND

    A city with a reasonable hockey history (Winterhawks) and an extremely deep-pocketed potential owner. Not that long ago a spokesperson for Allen said he was "intrigued" by the idea of bringing the NHL to Portland, so that is a possibility. Geographically it's a fit, but assuming Seattle gets a franchise, it would force a team to move to the Central. Not of the Pacific teams would move over to play CT teams, so that leaves one of the 3 MT teams to join Colorado in the Central. Tehere would be riots if the split up Calgary and Edmonton, so Phoenix would be the one going to the Central.

    MILWAUKEE


    This is the one that makes the most sense demographically and has by far the largest existing hockey fanbase and the strongest ties to the sport. They also have a potential owner in Turer, the current owner of the Admirals. That gives him a leg-up similar to Mark Chipman in that he's proven he can be successful in the business of hockey. But the mark against them, and it's a big one, is the Bradley Centre. It's simply not suitable for NHL hockey. Until the get a replacement building, or at least concrete plans for one, it won't happen.

    HOUSTON


    Little existing hockey culture, and Dallas's finacial situation over recent years should be a bit of a red flag for expansion to Texas. But the appeal of going to Houston is obvious - it's the largest population centre and media market in North America without an NHL team, which could get Bettman drooling.

    LAS VEGAS


    Lots and lots of money flows through the town in pockets of toruists, and it would be the only major sports team in the city. But the arguments for Vegas seem to rely on out-of-towners, and I think there may be significant issues in regards to building a local fanbase. Also, there are 50 million options in Vegas for spending your entertainment budget. Would hockey team be able to effectively compete for those dollars?

    KANASAS CITY


    They have the building, but nothing else. I simply don't think it's viable.

    SASKATOON

    In another 20 years given its population growth, it's a good bet. But the population base just isn't there yet.

    TORONTO


    Despite it's Eastern Time Zone location, this is still an option and could aleviate some competitive concerns with the Maple Leafs. Remember, a Tornot team has played in the West before. Eric Duhatshek had a good article on this option a few days ago in the Globe and Mail. Here's an excerpt.

    "Think about it. Once upon a time, the Maple Leafs played in the Western Conference, so there is a precedent for Toronto playing in the same division as the Chicago Blackhawks, Winnipeg Jets and St. Louis Blues.

    If somebody has to go west, it should be the newest addition, not a venerable franchise such as Detroit that dealt with the travel and time zone issues for years, or even Columbus, which doesn’t have the history, but also had to deal with bad starting times for TV contracts and excessive travel.

    That would be part of the price – and the penance – for getting a second team in Toronto. And it doesn’t mean the second GTA team wouldn’t play the Leafs or Montreal Canadiens or Ottawa Senators. It just wouldn’t play them as much.

    There is also some question as to whether the NHL needs to satisfy the Leafs financially if it invades their so-called “territorial” rights.

    Well, the Leafs probably wouldn’t want to compete head-to-head with a second Toronto team, but if that team were in the other conference, it might make it more palatable. They would never square off in the playoffs – unless both were in the Stanley Cup final – so they could keep the new kids on the block relatively at arm’s length."

     

    I think Duhatschek makes a good argument. But it hurts Colorado too, having to play division games to time zone away like Dallas used to do. There'd be some screaming from Denver over this move.

    [/QUOTE]

    Good write up Red, just about covers it.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion


    Nice job Red! Milwakee would be perfect geographically but, you are right, no viable building. Las Vegas and Kansas City are jokes.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Jacksonville could use a team.

    [/QUOTE]


    Mississippi? :p

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    Very nice as usual Red!!!!

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dave24. Show Dave24's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    I think Seattle and Toronto 2 would be good bets for expansion, and would give bandwagon-inclined fans in TO a team in each conference. Other places try to slip Hartford on these list of destinations, but that isn't going to happen.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    In response to Dave24's comment:

    I think Seattle and Toronto 2 would be good bets for expansion, and would give bandwagon-inclined fans in TO a team in each conference. Other places try to slip Hartford on these list of destinations, but that isn't going to happen.




    Too bad. The Whale ruled!!!

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from billge. Show billge's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    You are not supposed to publish our nuclear go code no matter how much you've had to drink!  Give one to Quebec City, cause they have nothing else to do there.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    Thanks guys :)

    BTW, Hanrahan mentioned Hamilton. I think it is no longer an option and quite possibly will never again have an NHL team. The appeal of a return to Hamilton always hinged on tapping into the underserved Southern Ontario market. Its greatest stumbling block was always the Sabres, and to a lesser degree the Leafs. Markham has now taken Hamilton out of favour as it presents an opportunity to tap further into the GTA market but takes the Sabres out of the equation. It also would likely demand a higher expansion fee than Hamilton would.

    Hamilton has simply missed the boat, and it will likely never come to port again.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    In response to 50belowzero's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Unless Florida ends up in Quebec, it could be awhile before there is a team there. I personally think they should get a team but it doesn't look like its in the cards. 

    [/QUOTE]

    There is a better possibility of the actual State of Florida ended up in Quebec than the Florida Panthers.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: NHL Expansion

    Absolutely!  Should be on Red's list.

     

    In response to jmwalters' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Dave24's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I think Seattle and Toronto 2 would be good bets for expansion, and would give bandwagon-inclined fans in TO a team in each conference. Other places try to slip Hartford on these list of destinations, but that isn't going to happen.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Too bad. The Whale ruled!!!

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share