2016 NHL Off-Season Thread

[kroywen]

I hate the notion of a league expanding when one or more existing franchises are in a difficult financial situation, or are ripe candidates for relocation. The fact that the NHL is expanding in spite of the difficulties in Arizona (and, to a lesser degree, among other Southern franchises), is such a short-sighted and idiotic decision to me. The fact that they're expanding to a Sunbelt market with a struggling tourism-reliant economy, transient population, no sign of interest in hockey, and which is completely unproven at the professional level, is downright infuriating.

 

Get your house in order before doing some grand experiment in Las Vegas. The NHL is willingly creating another Coyotes situation - I'll be shocked if, a decade from now, Vegas isn't in the same situation that Glendale is in today.

[buckeye]

12 hours ago, 2001mark said:

 

Arena is near the strip, where apparently the locals avoid.  Will it be 12,000 road fans & 4,000 home fans every night?  Cuz that will be hilarious.

It will take years for any real fan base to develop in my opinion, which then leads to exactly that. An arena full of tourists, which is what Vegas is obviously known for. You'll have the out of town team's fans coming in so they have even more of an excuse to come to Vegas. I mean I wouldn't mind see the Jackets in Vegas at some point while I'd be out there. But that's besides the point that this is a horrible decision on multiple levels. Glendale 2.0

[kroywen]

35 minutes ago, buckeye said:

It will take years for any real fan base to develop in my opinion, which then leads to exactly that. An arena full of tourists, which is what Vegas is obviously known for. You'll have the out of town team's fans coming in so they have even more of an excuse to come to Vegas. I mean I wouldn't mind see the Jackets in Vegas at some point while I'd be out there. But that's besides the point that this is a horrible decision on multiple levels. Glendale 2.0

Frankly, I'm not even sure how many out of town tourists they'll draw, outside of the first few years while a team in Vegas is still a novelty. They'd be reliant on out of town hockey fans coming in specifically because they're team is playing in Vegas, and those fans want to make a mini-vacation of it and party in Vegas while catching some hockey. But at the end of the day, that's a fairly expensive novelty - you aren't going to have large groups of fans making trips to Vegas every single time their home team is on the road there. It might be something that hardcore fans (who also want to experience Vegas) do a couple times, but that does not lend itself to a sustainable business plan.

 

How many 'regular' tourists in Vegas are going to say "hey, I'm in Vegas - I want to go catch a hockey game"? You could probably count them on one hand - the average tourist is going to stick with the casinos, shows, and buffets on the strip. So you can basically forget about capturing people who happen to be in Vegas for another reason. Try as they might, the NHL will never be on the list of "things you have to do while in Vegas." The competition for the entertainment/tourism dollar is just too strong.

 

And even if Vegas is able to get thousands of out of towners to come to the arena every night on a permanent, ongoing basis (again, not happening), they still have the problem of getting enough people to watch their games on TV. Ultimately, the number of eyeballs watching on TV is probably more important to the financial health of the franchise than the number of asses in the seats at the arena. 

 

My hunch is that Vegas will probably be the absolute worst TV market in the NHL. It's smaller than most other markets population-wise, its population tends not to have any strong or lasting interest in hockey, and Vegas has a higher proportion of people working nights and weekends than your average market. Plus its economy is still reeling from the recession, which would impact both local TV ad revenue and arena ad revenue (not to mention ticket sales and corporate suite sales). This is a disaster waiting to happen.

[Sport]

It's a complete disaster waiting to happen. Las Vegas is Glendale both in terms of weather and hockey interest, but they don't have the potential of a massive metro population sitting right next door, plus they have hundreds of other entertainment options that Glendale doesn't have. Vegas is a transplant city and we've seen in other markets, like Phoenix, like Tampa with the Rays, how transplants support the local team. There's tourists, but the tourists are coming to do a hundred things in Vegas before they go to a hockey game. 

 

Vegas' population is about the size of Columbus, but with fewer large cities within easy driving distance for visiting fans. 

 

The only way I see it working is if they're good out of the gate (and with these expansion draft rules they might be) and if the Vegas population rallies around them because they're their first big league team and this will be the first thing they can own outside of the tourism aspects. That's a long shot, though. Put the team in QC and you have none of these questions. 

[JayMac]

1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

Put the team in QC and you have none of these questions. 

But, the Canadian dollar!!! 

[2001mark]

If the Raiders move there, the hockey team could get buried.

[Luigi74]

1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

It's a complete disaster waiting to happen. Las Vegas is Glendale both in terms of weather and hockey interest, but they don't have the potential of a massive metro population sitting right next door, plus they have hundreds of other entertainment options that Glendale doesn't have. Vegas is a transplant city and we've seen in other markets, like Phoenix, like Tampa with the Rays, how transplants support the local team. There's tourists, but the tourists are coming to do a hundred things in Vegas before they go to a hockey game. 

 

Vegas' population is about the size of Columbus, but with fewer large cities within easy driving distance for visiting fans. 

 

The only way I see it working is if they're good out of the gate (and with these expansion draft rules they might be) and if the Vegas population rallies around them because they're their first big league team and this will be the first thing they can own outside of the tourism aspects. That's a long shot, though. Put the team in QC and you have none of these questions. 

The hundreds of other entertainment options in Las Vegas argument needs to stop. Locals rarely go to the in-house shows at the strip casinos and big boxing and UFC events, the shows and concerts they hit up are the same ones that make stops in all of the other NHL markets. Being the first major league team in the market is going to give them a better starting point compared to teams like the Coyotes, Thrashers and Panthers and even if the Raiders come to town that's only 8 games they have to compete with.

[OnWis97]

1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

It's a complete disaster waiting to happen. Las Vegas is Glendale both in terms of weather and hockey interest, but they don't have the potential of a massive metro population sitting right next door, plus they have hundreds of other entertainment options that Glendale doesn't have. Vegas is a transplant city and we've seen in other markets, like Phoenix, like Tampa with the Rays, how transplants support the local team. There's tourists, but the tourists are coming to do a hundred things in Vegas before they go to a hockey game. 

 

Vegas' population is about the size of Columbus, but with fewer large cities within easy driving distance for visiting fans. 

 

The only way I see it working is if they're good out of the gate (and with these expansion draft rules they might be) and if the Vegas population rallies around them because they're their first big league team and this will be the first thing they can own outside of the tourism aspects. That's a long shot, though. Put the team in QC and you have none of these questions. 

I did not realize that...I had to take to the internet to check it out and the Vegas Metro Area is 30th in the US.  I honestly thought it was much higher; probably because of how I always hear about how fast it's growing.  But I forget that it started with nothing.  

 

So my skepticism has turned to pessimism. I think for the suburbanites (which includes most of the City population, given how recently the City has developed), the "entertainment options" may not be as great as those in Phoenix.  I doubt those people are hanging out on the Strip too much.  So I am somewhat intrigued by the notion of Vegas having its first big-time sports franchise.  But a smaller population than I realized, a sport that is the absolute antithesis of the desert, transplants who moved there accepting that going to big sporting events was not a part of their futures...I don't feel too excited.  This would probably have been better for ANY other sport.

 

Also, given that Vegas does not have a big-four, you'd think fans would go to UNLV games for low prices in droves.  I don't know that this is still true, but about 10 years ago, I'd heard that UNLV's football team, which plays in a moderately-sized stadium, had sold out four games; all against Wisconsin. So maybe there's not a big appetite for sports there.  In any case, hockey seems like a bigger role of the dice (if you will) than other sports.

 

And if the NHL is thinking about tourists, ugh.  Guys go to Vegas to drink, gamble, commit adultery, and eat at buffets.  Sure, a few hundred fans from Minnesota, Calgary, Colorado, etc. will schedule a Vegas trip around their team's road game.  That'll go on for a few years.  But they better damn well have a better home fan base than some of us suspect.   

 

But maybe Thomas Vanek will be happy to play there.

[CS85]

Blackhawks trade Bryan Bickell AND Teuvo Teravainen to Carolina for second-rounder in 2016 and a third-rounder in 2017.

 

TT is likely going to be a regrettable trade for the BH, but at least he'll go to Carolina where dreams go to die.  At least Bickell is finally gone, too.

[rams80]

35 minutes ago, 2001mark said:

If the Raiders move there, the hockey team could get buried.

 

Could get?  Try will get.

 

Again, only the NFL, with its business model of making every game truly a novelty event, could make a small market that is heavily dependent on tourism, like Vegas, work.

 

And yes, watch the NFL announce a move now that the NHL has been the first to make the move-good job Gary Bettman, the unwitting instigator of this team's doom.  (Speaking of which, if the Chargers do take up Los Angeles, the Raiders' lease in Oakland is year-to-year, so they could actually kick off in Las Vegas before the NHL team's first game.)

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I'll also add that Clark County's (metro Vegas) population growth has basically stagnated since the 2010 census, and that in turn probably dates back to 2008.  Vegas hasn't been one of the fastest growing urban areas in the country for years.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

I'm sure this has been said numerous times in this thread, but LAS VEGAS? It's completely mind-boggling that they're expanding to not only another sun belt city, but a completely unproven market. Was Phoenix not enough of a lesson? And the problem's still ongoing, as well as less severe problems in Carolina and Florida. 

 

WTF.

[Sport]

14 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I did not realize that...I had to take to the internet to check it out and the Vegas Metro Area is 30th in the US.  I honestly thought it was much higher; probably because of how I always hear about how fast it's growing.  But I forget that it started with nothing.  

 

So my skepticism has turned to pessimism. I think for the suburbanites (which includes most of the City population, given how recently the City has developed), the "entertainment options" may not be as great as those in Phoenix.  I doubt those people are hanging out on the Strip too much.  So I am somewhat intrigued by the notion of Vegas having its first big-time sports franchise.  But a smaller population than I realized, a sport that is the absolute antithesis of the desert, transplants who moved there accepting that going to big sporting events was not a part of their futures...I don't feel too excited.  This would probably have been better for ANY other sport.

 

I always assumed it would be the NBA. That's the most "glamorous" of the 4 major sports and really feels like the best fit for Las Vegas. The NBA seems to be the most elastic in terms of fandom in that tourists might go to a game even if they don't care about the teams. If someone finds oneself in Vegas for work or play and the Las Vegas Basketballs happen to be playing the Oklahoma City Thunder that night I could see a tourist taking advantage of the opportunity to see Durant/Westbrook as a more likely scenario than the same guy taking the opportunity to see Joe Pavelski play the Black Knights. Us hockey fans love our sport, but we're a loyal minority. Non-hockey fans don't really know it exists. 

 

Plus the NBA likes to be the one major sport in town if they can help it (OKC, Utah, Portland) They had the All-Star game there, but then I googled NBA all star game NBA and found lots of articles like this: http://espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2859699. I guess the Vegas all-star game was not a rousing success and sort of soured things on NBA basketball in vegas. 

 

14 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Also, given that Vegas does not have a big-four, you'd think fans would go to UNLV games for low prices in droves.  I don't know that this is still true, but about 10 years ago, I'd heard that UNLV's football team, which plays in a moderately-sized stadium, had sold out four games; all against Wisconsin. So maybe there's not a big appetite for sports there.  In any case, hockey seems like a bigger role of the dice (if you will) than other sports.

I think this is more evidence that it's a large transplant city. Not a lot of lifelong residents and/or UNLV alums, stick around after college. Or maybe just UNLV football isn't a big draw because they're usually not very good? IDK, but of the 1.9 million full-time residents I don't get the sense that a lot of them are big sports fans because either they weren't raised with it or they're from somewhere else and we've seen that transplants don't really turn out unless the Coyotes play the Red Wings or Blackhawks. 

 

14 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

 

And if the NHL is thinking about tourists, ugh.  Guys go to Vegas to drink, gamble, commit adultery, and eat at buffets.  Sure, a few hundred fans from Minnesota, Calgary, Colorado, etc. will schedule a Vegas trip around their team's road game.  That'll go on for a few years.  But they better damn well have a better home fan base than some of us suspect.   

I spent a weekend in Nashville in 2014 specifically for a Blue Jackets game on Saturday night. I spent Friday night on Broadway and I was there before the game on Saturday as well. Nashville provided a solid home crowd, which made things fun, but I did that trip once. Now that I've done it I might go back, but probably not. That's most likely how it'll work for Vegas out of town fans as well. One visit and done

[Sport]

1 hour ago, ltp74 said:

The hundreds of other entertainment options in Las Vegas argument needs to stop. Locals rarely go to the in-house shows at the strip casinos and big boxing and UFC events, the shows and concerts they hit up are the same ones that make stops in all of the other NHL markets. Being the first major league team in the market is going to give them a better starting point compared to teams like the Coyotes, Thrashers and Panthers and even if the Raiders come to town that's only 8 games they have to compete with.

Only 8 games to compete with, but season tickets cost the same and more people/businesses will choose to spend their sports dollars on the NFL than on the NHL. This is true in every city that has both. 

 

Also, I know not everyone in the city works in the entertainment sector, but you can't not include it because it's part of the city and employs a lot of people. Maybe locals aren't going to the strip for their own fun times, but a larger percentage of Vegas residents work nights and weekends to support the entertainment sector than other cities. Nights and weekends are when hockey games are played. 

[FiddySicks]

Lol, well at least Quebec will have a relocation option in four or five years. The Quebec Black Knights has a decent ring to it. 

[OnWis97]

12 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

I spent a weekend in Nashville in 2014 specifically for a Blue Jackets game on Saturday night. I spent Friday night on Broadway and I was there before the game on Saturday as well. Nashville provided a solid home crowd, which made things fun, but I did that trip once. Now that I've done it I might go back, but probably not. That's most likely how it'll work for Vegas out of town fans as well. One visit and done

That's what my wife and I did for Wisconsin football. Neither of us had been to Vegas, so we went to a game, spent about three nights in Vegas and tied in Bryce Canyon and Zion National Parks in Utah.  I have no intent on going back to Vegas. If I was an NHL traveler (I'm not), Vegas would also suit me for one game only.  In fairness, I am not a gambler or adulterer and I can eat or drink anywhere.  I am not a "Vegas Guy" but even "Vegas Guys" are unlikely to do tons of this.  And your point of Kevin Durant vs. Joe Pavelski is spot on. That's gotta be a big factor in neutral fan attendance for two sports that, outside of the first 10 or so rows for the NBA, cost about the same.  Generally speaking, it's probably not a good idea to rely on road fans and tourists.  

 

Would other sports work?

• MLB: Obviously would need a dome (and maybe not even both with retractable).  Seems like it would cost a fortune to cool it.  The tourist factor would be minimal given the summer heat.  I tend to doubt a modest population with a so-so interest in sports would keep in going for 81 days.  But it's the most affordable of the "big 4" so that may pull in a few tourists and locals. Still more viable than the NHL.
• NBA: As you point out, the superstar factor would give it a boost.  But what happens when the Bucks come to town?  The team would need a superstar of its own, though given the lack of winter and the glitz of the City that may happen.  Still more viable than the NHL.
• NFL:  Probably the most viable because of its enormous popularity, the ease of going to eight games, and the "event" nature of the games (i.e., some people will come from Salt Lake City several times a year).  Would obviously need a dome; or a way to play all Sept (and OCT?) games at night.  Definitely more viable than the NHL.

[2001mark]

1 hour ago, rams80 said:

 

Could get?  Try will get.

 

I was being PC.  

Living near Buffalo, even with their deep hockey history, the Bills remain #1 12 months a year.  LV NHLers would have a very steep hill to climb behind the Raiders.

[kroywen]

17 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

That's what my wife and I did for Wisconsin football. Neither of us had been to Vegas, so we went to a game, spent about three nights in Vegas and tied in Bryce Canyon and Zion National Parks in Utah.  I have no intent on going back to Vegas. If I was an NHL traveler (I'm not), Vegas would also suit me for one game only.  In fairness, I am not a gambler or adulterer and I can eat or drink anywhere.  I am not a "Vegas Guy" but even "Vegas Guys" are unlikely to do tons of this.  And your point of Kevin Durant vs. Joe Pavelski is spot on. That's gotta be a big factor in neutral fan attendance for two sports that, outside of the first 10 or so rows for the NBA, cost about the same.  Generally speaking, it's probably not a good idea to rely on road fans and tourists.  

 

Would other sports work?

• MLB: Obviously would need a dome (and maybe not even both with retractable).  Seems like it would cost a fortune to cool it.  The tourist factor would be minimal given the summer heat.  I tend to doubt a modest population with a so-so interest in sports would keep in going for 81 days.  But it's the most affordable of the "big 4" so that may pull in a few tourists and locals. Still more viable than the NHL.
• NBA: As you point out, the superstar factor would give it a boost.  But what happens when the Bucks come to town?  The team would need a superstar of its own, though given the lack of winter and the glitz of the City that may happen.  Still more viable than the NHL.
• NFL:  Probably the most viable because of its enormous popularity, the ease of going to eight games, and the "event" nature of the games (i.e., some people will come from Salt Lake City several times a year).  Would obviously need a dome; or a way to play all Sept (and OCT?) games at night.  Definitely more viable than the NHL.

MLB would be an unmitigated disaster in Vegas. You need a big metro population and a strong corporate base to sustain a baseball team, given that you're trying to attract viewers almost every single day/night for 6 straight months, and have ~40,000 seats being sold for 81 games a year.

 

I can see the NFL working in Vegas, in part because I can see the NFL working almost anywhere in the country. They'd be able to sell 60,000 seats for 8 games a year probably, and local TV revenue is not a major concern.

[BeerGuyJordan]

23 hours ago, jmac11281 said:

We will be here in 10 years and Quebec will still not have a team. This is an absolute joke. I don't want to hear the Canadian dollar BS excuse.

People who are making it their only reason need to wake up. The imbalance, for me, is the stronger argument. 

 

I also think that part of the equation is the head offices realize that 3 of their 4 struggling franchises are in the east, and want to keep a viable option for quick relocation. *shrugs* Maybe I'm giving the owners too much credit. Carolina looks like a solid possibility, with the "Daddy took my money for his hockey team" lawsuit.

 

21 hours ago, 2001mark said:

 

Quebec City will be the relocation winner.  Though with the Florida Panthers settling in with a new foundation, maybe it'll be the Hurricanes.

Almost certainly the 'Canes, IMO

 

20 hours ago, worcat said:

Maybe I'm the only one that thinks Vegas will be a good location for a team. Whatever.

I think that it could be a good location. There are a lot of variables, and it's both a gamble and an uphill battle. Foley at least appears to have done about as much as could be expected from a prospective owner.

 

19 hours ago, Lycan38 said:

Not shocked that Vegas got approved. At this point Atlanta is getting another NHL franchise before Quebec does (feels to me like that).

I don't know that Atlanta will see another team in our lifetimes. I think Quebec will have a team within a decade.

 

2 hours ago, 2001mark said:

If the Raiders move there, the hockey team could get buried.

Maybe not totally buried, but it'll hurt them, a lot. In cities where there's an NFL team, interest in the NHL sees a bump when the football season ends for that city. Sure, it's negligible in Boston, but I could physically see the difference at games in Nashville. Vegas will, certainly, feel it.

 

1 hour ago, rams80 said:

 

Could get?  Try will get.

 

Again, only the NFL, with its business model of making every game truly a novelty event, could make a small market that is heavily dependent on tourism, like Vegas, work.

 

And yes, watch the NFL announce a move now that the NHL has been the first to make the move-good job Gary Bettman, the unwitting instigator of this team's doom.  (Speaking of which, if the Chargers do take up Los Angeles, the Raiders' lease in Oakland is year-to-year, so they could actually kick off in Las Vegas before the NHL team's first game.

 

Probably not. The NFL talks seem to have been fairly clear that a new stadium is needed, with the MLS also saying "If you build it...eh...we'll consider it."

 

Unless they lease from UNLV, which is pretty small for NFL purposes.

[dfwabel]

From the website to make your season ticket deposit:

 

 

And the ToS for the deposit has these caveats:
 

Quote

 

4. If the NHL does not award us a Team to play starting with the 2016-17 NHL season I have a choice of receiving my deposit back or having us hold it if the NHL awards is a Team to play starting with the 2017-18 NHL season. I will not earn any interest on my deposit. I am not entitled to any damages if the team is not awarded for any reason. Also, we have no obligation to attempt to secure a team although we are working very hard to do so.

 

6. If we are awarded a Team, I will be asked to pick a seat or seats in the Category I selected and my priority will be based upon the length of the term I selected and the time I made my deposit. If the seats in the Category I selected are sold-out based on these criteria before I am entitled to make a selection, I will be given an opportunity to purchase season tickets in another category, if such category is available. When I pick my seats I may be asked to sign a Seat Purchase Agreement. If I chose not to purchase seats in the Category and for the Term I selected and with respect to which I am making this deposit, we may keep your deposit. However, we will give you 30 days notice before we sell to others the seats you have chosen.

 

 

I wonder what the retention rate is going to be since folks are able to get a refund since the team won't be there until 2017-18. And deposits were only approximately 10% of the full season ticket cost (with a 3 year commitment minimum).  There will be a fair amount of upper bowl folks who will balk as soon as they see the final price. 

 

Then, there is the paltry future of their impending small cable TV deal.  Unless they start their own cable network, who will they be carried by? FSN West? Root Sports Rocky Mountain? TimeWarner Sportsnet?

 

[The_Admiral]

No matter who picks them up, they'll reach fewer eyeballs than CSN New England, TVA Sport, and possibly even TSN3.