2016 NHL Off-Season Thread

[Cosmic]

6 hours ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

Define soon. I'll admit that I don't see it in the next 5 seasons. In 8 to 10, if both clubs are still languishing in attendance mediocrity and the league has hit 32 teams, you can bet one of those two will become the next "golden opportunity to grow the game." 

 

Bettman gets the most flak for the loss of  Quebec and Winnipeg, but people seem to forget he never said a word against the Minneapolis and Hartford moves. IIRC, the Devils staying, back in the mid nineties, was due to on-ice success forcing people's hands to get a new arena, not the League stepping in, ala Phoenix.

If the league hits 32 teams, I think it makes it less likely the Devils/Islanders move, not more so. That's another potential relocation market off the table. Seattle has no arena, and the market is pretty crowded. Portland has no owner.  Kansas City doesn't want a hockey team squatting on potential concert dates. Houston's arena owner already forced out the AHL IIRC.  Quebec City is in Quebec.  Meanwhile, Arizona is still in trouble, Vegas is unproven, Columbus is cursed, Carolina can't pay back its debts, and Florida perennially begs for more bed tax money than they deserve from Broward county.  The Isles and Devils are, "Well, they could be doing better." The league has bigger fish to fry.

[BeerGuyJordan]

15 hours ago, Cosmic said:

If the league hits 32 teams, I think it makes it less likely the Devils/Islanders move, not more so. That's another potential relocation market off the table. Seattle has no arena, and the market is pretty crowded. Portland has no owner.  Kansas City doesn't want a hockey team squatting on potential concert dates. Houston's arena owner already forced out the AHL IIRC.  Quebec City is in Quebec.  Meanwhile, Arizona is still in trouble, Vegas is unproven, Columbus is cursed, Carolina can't pay back its debts, and Florida perennially begs for more bed tax money than they deserve from Broward county.  The Isles and Devils are, "Well, they could be doing better." The league has bigger fish to fry.

I see the opposite being true. A 32 team league does mean one more market off the table, but situations change. For whatever reasons they aren't pushing for one, now, there are currently 14 markets that could, potentially, have a decent shot at atteacting a team (with a promosing owner and adequate funding):

 

Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Kansas City, San Antonio/Austin, Houston, Milwaukee, Louisville, Indianapolis, Hamilton, Norfolk and Quebec.

 

Naturally, some of those seem like a pipe dream that would thake Gretzky himself, backed by a dream team of investors, to make happen.

 

Thise are the exact words of a friend of mine, used to describe the likelihood of the NHL in Vegas or Omaha, only 5 years ago. I think most of us would have agreed. 

 

In 10 years, one of those markets could be determined enough to attract a failing franchise. The league has proven that they hate the idea of losing one of their southern markets.

 

The bigger fish to fry argument is irrelevant, in regards to how the league does business. Bettman was sll for New Jersey moving over a lack of a new venue, and this was at the height of their on-ice success. A deal was struck that allowed them to stay, and Gary responded by practically apologizing to Nashville and all but guaranteeing them an expansion team.

 

Football, baseball and basketball have better viewing and attendance figures with two teams each in NYC than hockey does. If three teams is such an amazing business move, then why is only the NHL putting three of their 23 US teams there? The NFL has 2 of 32, the NBA and MLB, 2 of 29. Two of the three are struggling to put butts in seats in the league where ticket sales are a bigger chunk of profits than in any of the other Big Four leagues.

 

The league doesn't care about a third team in a single market, not even NYC; not like they care about holding on to the markets they have. Right now, looking for team 32 is more convenient. 

 

[Cosmic]

6 hours ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

Naturally, some of those seem like a pipe dream that would thake Gretzky himself, backed by a dream team of investors, to make happen.

 

Thise are the exact words of a friend of mine, used to describe the likelihood of the NHL in Vegas or Omaha, only 5 years ago. I think most of us would have agreed. 

Vegas has been on the radar for a major league franchise for a while.  The NHL moved their awards show there in 2009.  The NBA played their all-star game there in 2007.  The Kings have played some preseason games there since 1997.

 

That aside, I don't see anywhere in your post how a 32-team league makes relocation MORE likely than in a 31-team league.  I can hardly fathom how it could possibly be true.  It's a simple numbers game.  There are a finite number of markets that can support a team, and more of them are occupied with more teams in the league.  Saying "situations change" is irrelevant.  The league is also less concentrated in NYC with more teams in the league, if that sticks in your craw.

[rams80]

Quote

Seattle,

 

Needs an arena.  The league would also be volunteering to be very low on the local sporting totem pole, which is why Seattle is stupid bordering on insane to pursue.

 

Quote

Portland,

 

The league has begged Paul Allen to pick up a team.  He hasn't.  At this point he probably won't, and no other team would face a favorable lease situation

 

Quote

Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City,

 

Very small markets with NBA teams are non-starters for reasons that  should be obvious to anyone with a calendar and rudimentary math skills.

 

Quote

Omaha,

 

Would be the second-smallest market in the league (Winnipeg). That seems problematical for survivability.  For scoring purposes, the 3 metro areas larger are Worcester (MA), Bridgeport (CT), and Chattanooga (TN), the 3 metros that are smaller are North Port (FL), Columbia (SC), and Little Rock (AR)   I doubt there are many who would claim those towns could support teams.

 

Quote

Kansas City

 

Crunched the numbers.  Doesn't want an NBA or NHL team clogging up weekend dates.

 

Quote

San Antonio

 

See above re: Salt Lake and OKC.  add "must convince people to see hockey in the ing desert"

 

Quote

Austin

 

Let's take the Columbus situation (going toe to toe with a major, major NCAA state school) and move it to a smaller market in Texas.  Oh, and the school in this scenario is Texas.

 

Quote

Houston,

 

Kicked out their hockey team because they want weekend dates for concerts, etc.

 

Quote

Milwaukee,

 

Might work.  On the flip side, asking the 33rd largest metro area in the country to support  4 (yes, 4, the Packers count) major league teams seems like a bit of an ask.  Maybe if the Bucks had left...

 

Quote

Louisville

 

Cares more about basketball.  A lot more. (RIP Blades, Shooting Stars, Rebels, IceHawks, RiverFrogs, Panthers)

 

Quote

Indianapolis,

 

See Louisville, add NBA and NFL team for competition.

 

Quote

Hamilton,

 

Might work, but the Sabres and Maple Leafs are going to fight you to the bitter end if you want to try.

 

Quote

Norfolk

 

The NHL tried.  They need a new arena, owners (?) and a non-DOD-heavy population.  And to probably buy off the Capitols and the Hurricanes

 

Quote

Quebec.

 

Would work, but they speak French and that is apparently the black spot as far as this league is concerned.

[The_Admiral]

Austin has a lot of snotty white kids who need to prove they're more sophisticated than the people around them, which pretty well sums up southern NHL fans. If not for UT, they could give it the old college try.

[BeerGuyJordan]

@rams80 I never argued the suitability or probablility, in fact, I'd hate to see about 2/3 of these cities land a team. These are just markets that, when you crunch the numbers, could get the NHL's attention if they had a suitable potential owner with deep pockets and an arena under construction (like Vegas had). Vegas is a weaker candidate than most of the markets I listed, but it is happening. With the way the league does business, it's not that far-fetched to think they'd pursue one of those.

 

A couple more points on the markets.

 

21 hours ago, rams80 said:

 

Needs an arena.  The league would also be volunteering to be very low on the local sporting totem pole, which is why Seattle is stupid bordering on insane to pursue.

True, but none of this changes the fact that the NHL has made it known that it is just itching to plant a team there.

 

Quote

Would be the second-smallest market in the league (Winnipeg). That seems problematical for survivability.  For scoring purposes, the 3 metro areas larger are Worcester (MA), Bridgeport (CT), and Chattanooga (TN), the 3 metros that are smaller are North Port (FL), Columbia (SC), and Little Rock (AR)   I doubt there are many who would claim those towns could support teams.

I would be shocked if Omaha got a team, but the number of Fortune 500/1000 companies innthe area could up the chances and make the League more likely to consider it.

Quote

The NHL tried.  They need a new arena, owners (?) and a non-DOD-heavy population.  And to probably buy off the Capitols and the Hurricanes

Yes, Norfolk needs Carolina to move before it would happen, but that's starting to look more like if, than when. Bailing out a second team in a market that is considerably smaller than Phoenix isn't something I see the league doing. I'll be shocked if they haven't moved (most likely to Quebec) by 2020. 

 

Again, your arguments are predicated on the League making business decisions that make sense to the average hockey fan, they haven't been doing that for a long time.

 

22 hours ago, Cosmic said:

Vegas has been on the radar for a major league franchise for a while.  The NHL moved their awards show there in 2009.  The NBA played their all-star game there in 2007.  The Kings have played some preseason games there since 1997.

 

That aside, I don't see anywhere in your post how a 32-team league makes relocation MORE likely than in a 31-team league.  I can hardly fathom how it could possibly be true.  It's a simple numbers game.  There are a finite number of markets that can support a team, and more of them are occupied with more teams in the league.  Saying "situations change" is irrelevant.  The league is also less concentrated in NYC with more teams in the league, if that sticks in your craw.

Vegas has been appealing for event scheduling for a long time. A franchise destination? Not so much. 

 

In short, expansion to 32 teams limits the likelihood of relocation, for about 5, maybe 10 years. Take Nashville, for instance, during the early 90's expansion process, they weren't even asking for a seat at the table. The league expanded by 5 teams and had just announced their 3rd relocation when Music City started aggressively trying to attract a relocated team to their new Nashville Arena. They came surprisingly close, with New Jersey. And this was only six years later. Stating that situations change is not irrelevant. If anything, it is the most relevant factor. 

 

If the league hasn't announced team 32 by the time the New Bucks arena is completed in 2018 (which is being built for hockey use, not just an afterthought), you can bet that someone will at leat try to get an expansion bid off the ground (successful or not). If they do, the League will probably listen, because profits apparently inhibit common sense.

 

What makes it more likely is the fact that expansion beyond 32 teams is not feasible. Not for a long time and, even then, only as part of a push to take the league to a balanced 36 teams. This means that relocation will be the only way to get a team and "grow the game." Which is more likely, that the league will pull a struggling team out of Phoenix and lose the market, which detracts from their bargaining with TV networks?(The fact that NBC only shows one Coyotes game is on them, the League still gets to "sell" them the entire hockey market) Or will the league move a struggling third team from a market dominated by the Rangers (in terms of following), thereby gaining a market without losing one?

 

I'm not advocating moving the Devils to Houston (the only place I'd like to move NYC's third team is to become Toronto's second), but it's precisely the type of business call the League has made, time and time again.

 

For good or for bad, this is the reality we are faced with.

[rams80]

The NBC contract's up in spring of 2021.   I think the changes in TV viewing practices will make pursuing new markets that will struggle less lucrative than you think.  Particularly since this is still a gate-driven league.

 

Are the Devils, Islanders, and Rangers individually going to do extremely well?  No.

Are they going to be a fiscal catastrophe like certain nameless Sun Belt organizations?  Also, no.

[mcj882000]

Back to actual news, Patrick Roy has quit as Avs coach.

[Still MIGHTY]

Quit as coach and VP of hockey ops. ESPN blurb on my phone said "cites lack of input on team's decision-making." I thought he was in on most of the decision making?

 

Strange. Especially just a month out from the season. Avs are in a tough spot there.

[TBGKon]

As VP of hockey ops, is that role higher or lower than Joe Sakic as "Executive Vice President/General Manager/Alternate Governor"?  Maybe a clash there?

 

Or it's a clash from Sakic/Roy vs. our old buddy Kroenke who may be running cheap.

[BeerGuyJordan]

31 minutes ago, mcj882000 said:

Back to actual news, Patrick Roy has quit as Avs coach.

That's a tough break for them. I wasn't under the impression that he was being cut out of the general decision-making. I wonder if it was just kept quiet, or if it was over a single or few instances?

 

Grabbing another coach, this close to the season, might be tough. I see them having to dip down into college or the minors to get someone suitable. 

[The_Admiral]

59 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

As VP of hockey ops, is that role higher or lower than Joe Sakic as "Executive Vice President/General Manager/Alternate Governor"?  Maybe a clash there?

 

Above, but he was also below Sakic as coach. It didn't make a great deal of sense. Nor does his claim that he didn't have enough input into hockey operations.

 

Well, let's just hope the coach they get isn't any better than Roy.

[Kramerica Industries]

To find coaches below Roy's bar, you basically just have to throw a dart at a list of Oilers coaches in the past decade or so. Otherwise, that might be tough. Patrick Roy played on some outstanding hockey teams but, as a coach, seemed to completely detest the highest skilled players for...reasons, anyway.

[FGM13]

I hope someone hires Roy just for more of his goalie-pulling antics.

 

"Down by two with ten minutes left in the 3rd? Let's get the extra man out there!

[BeerGuyJordan]

4 hours ago, rams80 said:

The NBC contract's up in spring of 2021.   I think the changes in TV viewing practices will make pursuing new markets that will struggle less lucrative than you think.  Particularly since this is still a gate-driven league.

 

Are the Devils, Islanders, and Rangers individually going to do extremely well?  No.

Are they going to be a fiscal catastrophe like certain nameless Sun Belt organizations?  Also, no.

When blackout areas no longer exist, you are absolutely right, we will see a change in how they sell themselves. I still think we'll see one more deal at the status quo, unless the MLB (who they are piggybacking their media off of) pioneers some breakthrough.

 

When that happens, I'll likely change my opinion, but bigger TV deals create more fans and up merchandise sales. This is the first TV deal the league has had, in the US, that comes close to basketball or baseball, I doubt they'll focus on some new way for people to watch their games when they can focus on getting an even bigger TV deal.

[BeerGuyJordan]

1 hour ago, Kramerica Industries said:

To find coaches below Roy's bar, you basically just have to throw a dart at a list of Oilers coaches in the past decade or so. Otherwise, that might be tough. Patrick Roy played on some outstanding hockey teams but, as a coach, seemed to completely detest the highest skilled players for...reasons, anyway.

I didn't mean to imply that Roy is an elite coach, rather that attracting an established NHL coach seems improbable.

[worcat]

I think Roy would be a fantastic assistant coach. Someone opposite lets say, Ken Hitchcock. Hitch doesn't express any emotion while Roy would/could stab a player in the neck,

[rams80]

27 minutes ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

When blackout areas no longer exist, you are absolutely right, we will see a change in how they sell themselves. I still think we'll see one more deal at the status quo, unless the MLB (who they are piggybacking their media off of) pioneers some breakthrough.

 

When that happens, I'll likely change my opinion, but bigger TV deals create more fans and up merchandise sales. This is the first TV deal the league has had, in the US, that comes close to basketball or baseball, I doubt they'll focus on some new way for people to watch their games when they can focus on getting an even bigger TV deal.

 

The league may demand, but the TV partners have to agree to give.  There are already signs that tv is getting a little more stingy.

[Cosmic]

5 hours ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

Vegas has been appealing for event scheduling for a long time. A franchise destination? Not so much. 

 

In short, expansion to 32 teams limits the likelihood of relocation, for about 5, maybe 10 years. Take Nashville, for instance, during the early 90's expansion process, they weren't even asking for a seat at the table. The league expanded by 5 teams and had just announced their 3rd relocation when Music City started aggressively trying to attract a relocated team to their new Nashville Arena. They came surprisingly close, with New Jersey. And this was only six years later. Stating that situations change is not irrelevant. If anything, it is the most relevant factor. 

 

If the league hasn't announced team 32 by the time the New Bucks arena is completed in 2018 (which is being built for hockey use, not just an afterthought), you can bet that someone will at leat try to get an expansion bid off the ground (successful or not). If they do, the League will probably listen, because profits apparently inhibit common sense.

 

What makes it more likely is the fact that expansion beyond 32 teams is not feasible. Not for a long time and, even then, only as part of a push to take the league to a balanced 36 teams. This means that relocation will be the only way to get a team and "grow the game." Which is more likely, that the league will pull a struggling team out of Phoenix and lose the market, which detracts from their bargaining with TV networks?(The fact that NBC only shows one Coyotes game is on them, the League still gets to "sell" them the entire hockey market) Or will the league move a struggling third team from a market dominated by the Rangers (in terms of following), thereby gaining a market without losing one?

 

I'm not advocating moving the Devils to Houston (the only place I'd like to move NYC's third team is to become Toronto's second), but it's precisely the type of business call the League has made, time and time again.

 

For good or for bad, this is the reality we are faced with.

I will contradict myself: I can see how expanding to new markets might heat up the relocation market.  I can see it being plausible that whoever was pushing for relocation in Nashville not thinking about hockey until they saw success* in Tampa, Anaheim, and Miami.  The difference is that hockey has a national footprint now.  There is nobody in the US or Canada that is waiting for someone else's expansion franchise to show them that hockey can work in their corner of the continent.  To get the same effect, you'd have to expand to Mexico or Europe or something else equally crazy.  "Hey, this Mexico City expansion team is doing gangbusters!  I need to put my blood avocado money into pulling the Canes into Guadalajara!"

 

Barring that, I see nothing in your argument that means more teams = more relocation.

 

* at the time

[chcarlson23]

49 minutes ago, FGM13 said:

I hope someone hires Roy just for more of his goalie-pulling antics.

 

"Down by two with ten minutes left in the 3rd? Let's get the extra man out there!

I hope this goes away with Roy stepping down... I mean pulling a little bit earlier makes sense, but 10 minutes??? Or when you're down by 4 or 5 already? ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL THE TEAM'S MORALE???? You obviously don't trust that your players have a chance of scoring with half a period left... 

 

I mean as a player and fan, I don't feel worried until the goalie is pulled. Having ten minutes of an empty net screaming at you to score is a lot more nerve racking than 90 seconds...