• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

2013-2014 Miscellaneous League News and Discussions

32 I can see... solves the East/West imbalance, but 34? Ugh. But given that the very-Eastern Quebec City probably should get the next one, unless Florida moves 34 is probably inevitable.

Brings up the old joke, if you give Seattle an NHL team, then Toronto will want one.
 
Last edited:
jeffbear said:
Over a billion dollars in franchise fees ... that's the why.

The how is more of an issue. As in how the bloody hell are you going to find enough players to fill the rosters of FOUR more teams?
Click to expand...

that's a damn good question but I think the pool of talent in the US has ramped up over the past ten or so years. Hell we have kids from Raleigh in the mix now....
 
There was a reason they put the 2 Florida teams in the "Atlantic" Division. They will eventually end up in Canada. I don't buy the 34 team league. I think they'll stick with 32 for a good while with teams in bad locations moving to "greener" pastures.
 
There is enough 'talent' to field 4 more teams. Usually these new teams will have to start out with fringe NHLers and aging vets until they can get themselves through some drafts, but there are enough players floating around to fill 4 more teams. If you just look at the Canes, players like Boychuk and probably Chris Terry would be good enough to play at the NHL level for a new team starting out, at least in the early years. Certainly the NHLPA would support expansion even without getting any of the expansion team fees...more revenue, more NHL jobs, all good.

If there is money to be made I'm fine with adding 2 teams to start. I'll leave it to the experts and league and owners to figure out where 2 new teams should go and what should happen after that (ie adding even more teams). Moving teams is a sore spot for me as an ex-Whalers fan, so I don't like that as an option unless there is no alternative. Quebec, Markham/Toronto, Seattle, Las Vegas, whatever makes the most sense for new teams I would be ok with.

I don't think it would dilute the overall talent base enough to make a difference to be a concern. Did anyone really watch the NHL after expansion teams were added each time and think 'the level of play across the league sucks now?' Who wouldn't love to watch Zack Boychuk score 30 goals and be -50 for the 15-60-7 Las Vegas team that first year? I fondly remember the first year Ottawa was back in the league and all of the ex-Whalers on that team.....Peter Sidorkiewicz, Jody Hull, Sly Turgeon, Norm MacIver, Brad Shaw, Jody Hull, Steve Weekes... Man was that a BAD team. But it gets better after a half dozen years....
 
Last edited:
jeffbear said:
Over a billion dollars in franchise fees ... that's the why.

The how is more of an issue. As in how the bloody hell are you going to find enough players to fill the rosters of FOUR more teams?
Click to expand...

Or referees, for that matter. Right now there aren't enough to competently call a four-team league.

I don't get the allure of Las Vegas. People go there, and live there, for the experience of something different. There will be 31 other cities with the same product, more or less.
 
andyt said:
Which doesn't help the geography problem at all. That will leave an 18 team Eastern Conference and a 16 team Western Conference.
Click to expand...

Yeah that occurred to me as well reading the article on TSN. My only explanation is that as it leaves things unbalanced, it's unofficially leaving room for more expansion, under the added justification of 'balancing out' the number of teams per conference.

Otherwise, if this happens - IMO as already stated, it's about the expansion money the league will make. Over 1.5 Billion. At that added revenue, I'm sure we'll see bob, his uncle, and anything in between playing for those expansions. Sorry, I think the overall level of talent in the NHL has been diluted - it's not just better coaching, better conditioning and/or parity.
 
HNIM said:
Or referees, for that matter. Right now there aren't enough to competently call a four-team league.

I don't get the allure of Las Vegas. People go there, and live there, for the experience of something different. There will be 31 other cities with the same product, more or less.
Click to expand...

Amen on the referees...any chance Bill McCreary has 12 grandsons? That's the NHL's only hope on the zebra front.

Vegas to me has never had a major pro sports team for a reason, it's a terrible sports town outside of major boxing events. It's transient, a tourist and convention mecca...but how does any of that translate into a steady fanbase? Radek Bonk and the Las Vegas Thunder was the last hockey headline in Vegas outside of the Awards Shows held there every year...
 
CanadaCanes said:
Amen on the referees...any chance Bill McCreary has 12 grandsons? That's the NHL's only hope on the zebra front.

Vegas to me has never had a major pro sports team for a reason, it's a terrible sports town outside of major boxing events. It's transient, a tourist and convention mecca...but how does any of that translate into a steady fanbase? Radek Bonk and the Las Vegas Thunder was the last hockey headline in Vegas outside of the Awards Shows held there every year...
Click to expand...

The Las Vegas Wranglers have been in the ECHL since the 03-04 season. Their attendance has been middle of the pack, settling into the 3,900-4,500 average range.
 
andyt said:
The Las Vegas Wranglers have been in the ECHL since the 03-04 season. Their attendance has been middle of the pack, settling into the 3,900-4,500 average range.
Click to expand...

And, to follow up on CanadaCanes, the ECHL crowd isn't all that different from the boxing crowd. Just sayin'.
 
Story is that the leagues are afraid a Las Vegas team makes it too easy for games to be fixed by gamblers. They don't allow betting on UNLV games for that reason . (unless they changed that policy)
 
I am personally against expansion and would rather favor moving certain teams if a move really needs to be made. I think 30 teams is more than enough for the league and 34 sounds crazy to me. I could possibly be swayed to 32 teams under the right situation but I still think markets need to mature first before handing out more teams. Speaking from a Canes perspective I think expansion would hurt them. At the end of the day expansion is just about more money and more revenues (or else why do it?) which should lead to increased salary caps. The farther the Canes 'self imposed' cap gets away from the real salary cap will only hurt the Canes competitively. Limited supply of 'true' NHL superstars combined with a higher demand for their services will further drive up top end player contracts.....and also push borderline star players into All-NHL level contracts. Sure there will be some better bargains in the mid level type players the Canes could benefit from, but recruiting players has not been an organizational strong point to date without overpaying. None of that is good for the Canes.

I also question if the level of talent is really there to fill 4 more teams? Look at who has been playing on the Canes 3rd/4th lines the past couple of years and tell me the league is overflowing with talent. I have a hard time accepting that. The only way to get acceptable talent is to recruit more overseas players but I don't think the NHL officiating is ready for that either. There aren't enough good refs to go around as is and adding more teams and games is only going to further highlight horrible officiating. The game is already too familiar to clutch and grab days of past and I would rather see the NHL stabilize and maximize current markets and officials before further diluting. There will come a day to expand, I just don't see it yet.
 
Pen, you're looking at it upside down. The more the league is watered down, the more chance the canes have at wining a few more games.
 
Paulie Walnuts said:
Story is that the leagues are afraid a Las Vegas team makes it too easy for games to be fixed by gamblers. They don't allow betting on UNLV games for that reason . (unless they changed that policy)
Click to expand...

I think one of the real issues with moving a team to Las Vegas would be the ability to contend with all of the other entertainment options available in a city open 24 hours a day. How does a team offer 41 home games and still compete with concerts, comedians, stage shows and performances?
 
I've never understood that either SlapShots. But as of last year Clark County had a population of 2 million which makes it the 15th most populated county in the country (right behind King County (Seattle)). So there are people who actually live there, but will there be enough corporate support and hockey fan support to fill the arena every night, even through the 'really bad team' early years? Certainly there is enough money and corporate sponsorship opportunities there, they shouldn't have any issues with advertising and there are plenty of casino and non-casino businesses to buy up luxury suites. But is there a steady pool of 100k+ hockey fans to fill the rest of the seats?
 
Last edited:
OK ... after a few minutes of quiet contemplation, here's what I think is going on expansion wise:

- The league built in conditions for expansion in the last CBA that pretty much made some kind of expansion inevitable. The stupid players union let the league put in an expansion model that excludes expansion fees from the defined revenues that they have to split with the players. Yup. And they agreed to a threshold for an initial fee for the "next round" so long as it occurs in a given time frame. That's free money right there, and when is the last time and NHL owner turned that down?

- So despite the fact that we've already got a watered down product and that we've got more than one existing franchise that has issues with their survival in the current markets, we're going to get NEW franchises ... because free money in the form of franchise fees. Remember that the league basically financed their entire operation for almost a decade on franchise fees back in the last expansion phase in the 90s.

- So that leaves the issue of new markets. Las Vegas is apparently an easy landing place due to ownership and facility readiness. The MGM Grand and AEG are building a suitable barn right now. And finding an owner for that market shouldn't be that big a stretch either. Is it a good hockey market? Hey this is the NHL so what the heck do we care? Seriously. This league is that stupid. Personally, I think dumber stuff seems to draw crowd in Vegas. I submit Carrot Top as exhibit A, but keep digging and you'll find that Penn and Teller (who I actually like) make more money in Vegas than a corrupt US Senator. The Amazing Freaking Jonathan had a huge act there for nearly a decade. How many times can you watch a guy pretend to cut off his own arm? Point being, Vegas is all about fresh meat so the tourism turnover means there's always fresh eyeballs to watch the same old crap over and over. Is that good for a home crowd? No. Not even a little. But you'll sell tickets and the press clowns will be happy that they get to go to Vegas baby, so what does the NHL care.

- The other markets floated all have issues ... getting territorial rights sorted for a second Toronto team, Seattle's lack of pedigree as a hockey market and the seeming lack of any kind of local interest, the fact that Quebec City is roughly the size of Mayberry ... I exaggerate to make the point, but you get it.

Bottom line - teams in Vegas and Seattle would level out the conferences and generate a boat load of franchise fees for a league that seemingly has zero new ideas when it comes to generating revenue. The other two? Who knows? Will any of it work? Let's just say I have serious reservations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top