Penguins Get Arena Deal Done

[HedleyLamarr]

Why do people consider the Atlanta Flames as a failure?

They drew well, and the team made the playoffs six out of eight seasons. The main reason why the Flames moved to Calgary was because Atlanta's owner's real-estate empire collapsed, so he had to sell the team to save his rear. Naturally, you sell to the highest bidder, and a Calgary businessman stepped up.

[rams80]

Why do people consider the Atlanta Flames as a failure?

They drew well, and the team made the playoffs six out of eight seasons. The main reason why the Flames moved to Calgary was because Atlanta's owner's real-estate empire collapsed, so he had to sell the team to save his rear. Naturally, you sell to the highest bidder, and a Calgary businessman stepped up.

To add my 2 cents on the matter, I think the NHL expansion teams in the 70s might have fared much better if there hadn't been a WHA. That way the salaries wouldn't have risen so drastically and the NHL might not have felt this compulsion to rush expansion. BTW...Atlanta didn't fail so much as the local housing market went in the toilet forcing the now bankrupt owner to sell the team to anyone who would buy. That anyone happened to hail from Calgary.

[HedleyLamarr]

Why do people consider the Atlanta Flames as a failure?

They drew well, and the team made the playoffs six out of eight seasons. The main reason why the Flames moved to Calgary was because Atlanta's owner's real-estate empire collapsed, so he had to sell the team to save his rear. Naturally, you sell to the highest bidder, and a Calgary businessman stepped up.

To add my 2 cents on the matter, I think the NHL expansion teams in the 70s might have fared much better if there hadn't been a WHA. That way the salaries wouldn't have risen so drastically and the NHL might not have felt this compulsion to rush expansion. BTW...Atlanta didn't fail so much as the local housing market went in the toilet forcing the now bankrupt owner to sell the team to anyone who would buy. That anyone happened to hail from Calgary.

That'll learn me to use "Fast Reply" on the preceding page.

Well, probably not....

[jkrdevil]

That's a bad argument when you consider the main reason the sport grew in the 70's was because of rapid expansion in the 70's.

The bulk of the expansion in the 70's, didn't work. Atlanta, KC, Cleveland, Colorado among others were busts. What did work were WHA teams who survived long enough to make the merger.

What made the 70's and 80's a good era for hockey was the franchises that did come aboard, stayed and learned to take good seasons with the bad. I have no facts on this, but if memory serves after the Devils put an end to the wandering minstrel acts in KC and Colorado (82/83 I believe), I think the league suffered no movement at all until the mid-90's.

That is arguably the longest period of stability in the modern era, and not suprisingly, an era where the league enjoyed much better success than they do now.

It's the 90's that start the haywire era, where you have both expansion and relocation going on in large quantity. Expansion to new markets en-masse.

None of the teams in the moved in the 90's had steep tradition or history as far as winning goes.

Minnesota is arguably the state that loves and supports hockey the most - I am not talking NHL, I am talking the sport as a whole. Michigan and New York might disagree with that statement, but Minnesota is easily in the top three.

Quebec and Winnipeg don't have hockey traditions? Did I miss something? I thought Quebec and Manitoba have produced some of the finest hockey players ever known - oh that's right they have. Minnesota has produced some of the best American players to ever play the game.

So no, I don't agree, losing those three cities was a big blow to the NHL. It looked good on paper, but it removed the league from regions where the sport is supported not only at the ticket gate, but culturally as well. That's my point, that a sports league needs this connection to succeed.

Wow, way to mistake what I said. I said winning tradition, emphasis was in winning. That means the teams for the most part weren't any good in the NHL. When I talked about tradition I meant the franchise themselves. Like I said 3 of them were WHA teams that had been in the league 15 years or so. They were perennially losers in the NHL and the teams themselves had little tradition. They were also also probably the 3 worst markets business wise in the league.

[Snazel]

Wow, way to mistake what I said. I said winning tradition, emphasis was in winning.

Well the Jets featured the greatest team the WHA ever saw and won that AVCO Cup three times. They also beat the Soviet National Team, the first pro-franchise to do so.

Even if you discount that, as not "winning", then you can look at the fact that the Jets made the playoffs 65% of the time, lost tight series to some of the greatest teams the league has ever known, and produced Dale Hawerchuk one of the top players of his era.

To say Quebec, isn't steeped in tradition is laughable, my apologies but it just is. Let's put aside the fact that the game has its origins and roots tied to the region. Let's put aside the fact this the capital of a region that produced some greatest players the game - ever.

If you still argue they don't have a "winning" tradition in hockey, well you'd have to completely discount the QMJHL, which produced some of the finest talent the game has ever known, and the greatest junior hockey teams ever known. If you insist on discounting that as somehow not being related to "winning hockey", we can point to the fact the Nordiques were division winners and finalists in the WHA, and placed consistently in the top 5 of that lague.

If you insist on narrowing anything hockey related in Quebec to just the years the Nordiques were in the NHL, well you missed some of the finest teams the Adams division ever produced. Including an 85 team that went head to head with a great Habs team, that produced the greatest seven game playoff series I have ever witnessed.

They went on to become the best team in the East, before faltering for a period where they rebuilt on youth, its in this era they drafted Joe Sakic, arguably the best player the 1990's ever produced.

After being snubbed by an Ontario bonehead who slapped women around on the dance floor, they brilliantly held out for a trade that landed them a foundation of a team that would go on to win the Stanley Cup in the very first year they left town. They landed Forsberg, Thibault, Ricchi and Duchesne in that trade as well as a first round pick.

Respectfully, hockey has been a tradition in Winnipeg and Quebec for a century and to suggest that neither area was "steeped in tradition", and never won much, is simply not correct.

Losing both franchises was a huge loss and politics and greedy short-sighted profit was the catalyst. Well, I think Colorado has adopted hockey beyond just going to NHL games, I am not sure hockey will work in Arizona. Regardless, the league walked away from two cities that are steeped in hockey tradition. I argue this weakens the league in the long run.

[Lee.]

Wow, way to mistake what I said. I said winning tradition, emphasis was in winning.

Well the Jets featured the greatest team the WHA ever saw and won that AVCO Cup three times. They also beat the Soviet National Team, the first pro-franchise to do so.Respectfully, hockey has been a tradition in Winnipeg and Quebec for a century and to suggest that neither area was "steeped in tradition", and never won much, is simply not correct.

I have to agree with the newb, jkr. Learn the history before you choose which parts you want to rewrite.

[rams80]

Wow, way to mistake what I said. I said winning tradition, emphasis was in winning.

Well the Jets featured the greatest team the WHA ever saw and won that AVCO Cup three times. They also beat the Soviet National Team, the first pro-franchise to do so.

Even if you discount that, as not "winning", then you can look at the fact that the Jets made the playoffs 65% of the time, lost tight series to some of the greatest teams the league has ever known, and produced Dale Hawerchuk one of the top players of his era.

To say Quebec, isn't steeped in tradition is laughable, my apologies but it just is. Let's put aside the fact that the game has its origins and roots tied to the region. Let's put aside the fact this the capital of a region that produced some greatest players the game - ever.

If you still argue they don't have a "winning" tradition in hockey, well you'd have to completely discount the QMJHL, which produced some of the finest talent the game has ever known, and the greatest junior hockey teams ever known. If you insist on discounting that as somehow not being related to "winning hockey", we can point to the fact the Nordiques were division winners and finalists in the WHA, and placed consistently in the top 5 of that lague.

If you insist on narrowing anything hockey related in Quebec to just the years the Nordiques were in the NHL, well you missed some of the finest teams the Adams division ever produced. Including an 85 team that went head to head with a great Habs team, that produced the greatest seven game playoff series I have ever witnessed.

They went on to become the best team in the East, before faltering for a period where they rebuilt on youth, its in this era they drafted Joe Sakic, arguably the best player the 1990's ever produced.

After being snubbed by an Ontario bonehead who slapped women around on the dance floor, they brilliantly held out for a trade that landed them a foundation of a team that would go on to win the Stanley Cup in the very first year they left town. They landed Forsberg, Thibault, Ricchi and Duchesne in that trade as well as a first round pick.

Respectfully, hockey has been a tradition in Winnipeg and Quebec for a century and to suggest that neither area was "steeped in tradition", and never won much, is simply not correct.

Losing both franchises was a huge loss and politics and greedy short-sighted profit was the catalyst. Well, I think Colorado has adopted hockey beyond just going to NHL games, I am not sure hockey will work in Arizona. Regardless, the league walked away from two cities that are steeped in hockey tradition. I argue this weakens the league in the long run.

You do realize that they have had professional hockey in some form or another in Phoenix for decades before the Jets came to town.

Same with Denver

Less so with Raleigh, although they did have an ECHL team.

I don't know about the corporate greed. Everything I've seen indicates that Winnipeg Arena and Le Colisee were legitimate dumps on a "Mellon Arena circa 2007" level, so they needed replacement, only the money wasn't there to be had.

(Debates hauling out "NHL made some of those mid-90s moves to punish/kill the IHL" conspiracy theory as well.)

WHA success is kind of moot, sees as the NHL took almost everyone who could skate from those teams in the merger.

When the Jets were in the NHL, a little over 76% of the teams made the playoffs. They also failed to make it past the 2nd round in their trips to the playoffs. (damn that Gretzky! never forgot what happened in the last WHA final did he?) Money and a new arena would have gone a long way.

Les Nordiques at least made a Conference final or two, but then I can assume that the financial bottom fell out of the team and it took them right up to the move to build up the youth movement. (And even if they stayed, they might not have won a cup; finances are a problem, and I find it hard to believe that Montreal would trade Roy to one of their division rivals.

Whalers looked good; no denying that; only they played like crap with the exception of the 86 playoffs and the 86-87 season. Maybe it was money and market size...

[rams80]

double post

[IceCap]

I don't think you can count the Avalanche as an example of sun belt/non traditional market success. Denver, in terms of climate, is IMO more of a traditional market then a non traditional market. The Nordiques moved from one traditional market to an other.

Kansas City is sort of on the "border" of traditional and non traditional markets. St. Louis' success, however, has shown that hockey can work in that region. Given that the city wants a team, I think the Penguins, or any other team that relocated there, could find success. Honestly, part of that would be due to the Blues. When you put a team in a market that hasn't had a team from that league before (or in KC's case, not having one for 30+ years) a regional rivalry always improves your chances. On top of that a StL/KC rivalry will not only benefit the KC team, but would benefit the Blues, as well as provide VS/TSN/NBC/etc... an other chance to promote a rivalry on their programing.

As for the non traditional markets vs traditional markets, it's not black and white. Expansion has generally beneficial for the NHL. There's no way the NHL could exist today with only six teams. Of the '67 expansion teams, only one failed, that being the Oakland/California/Cleveland Seals/Golden Seals/Barons. As ICS pointed out (in possibly an other thread) that franchise was re-activated as the San Jose Sharks (personally I would love to see the Sharks honour that part of their history).

The Sharks, along with the Tampa Bay Lightning, Atlanta Thrashers, Dallas Stars, and Carolina Hurricanes have all been able to establish solid fan bases. Those are cases of non-traditional market success.

The Nashville Predators, Phoenix Coyotes, and Florida Panthers, however, are not successes. They have been the non traditional market failures (the jury's still out for Anaheim). It would benefit the teams in question as well as the NHL to relocate. I'm not necessarily saying they have to move to a traditional market. If the Pens stay put KC's always an option. Houston has a lot of potential. Add that to the number of existing traditional markets, and the NHL can do a lot to improve in regards to those three (possibly four) clubs.

[leedsunited]

You can't blame the NHL for wanting to go the bay area in the 60's, however you CAN blame them for choosing Oakland as that host city.

The only reason why Oakland was chosen was because at the time, they had the modern venue, the Oakland Coliseum Arena. San Francisco has had WHL teams in the past that have been very sucessful both on the ice and at the gate, and would have by far been the more logical choice for a bay area NHL team to call home. However, San Francisco's venue was the small, not to mention inaccessible Cow Palace down on Geneva Street just across the San Francisco-Daly City city limit, which is by no means a hospitable neighborhood. At the time the newer, larger, more accessible venue was in Oakland, in a complex surrounded by freeway off ramps, lots of parking, and a BART station that almost drops you off at the doorstep. Therefore, that was where the Oakland Seals/California Golden Seals set up shop.

Of course, eventually, they moved to Cleveland and became the Barons, whom then were soon merged with the exsisting Minnesota North Stars, with the latter absorbing the rights to all the players within the system once belonging to the Seals/Barons franchise.

So in the late 80's, with Wayne Gretzky putting the Los Angeles Kings and the league as a whole on the national radar in the US about as much as it has ever been, the NHL decided to give a second run at putting a club in the bay area. May I add that this occured before Gary Bettman came into power as commisioner. Originaly the league wanted the club to be in San Francisco, a city that has had its share of recent sports sucesses with the Giants going to the World Series in 89 and the 49ers coming off back to back Super Bowl titles. However, the city, as was much of the bay area, was still somewhat recovering from the Loma Prieta Quake and in San Francisco understandably the more immediate need was to rebuild and repair damaged infrastructure rather than spend that money on a new sports arena. Oakland was not an option, as the now 20 plus year old facility there was undergoing a massive renovation with the specific needs of basketball in mind and not hockey.

San Jose however, had the land and money to provide the venue. As a result, San Jose got the chance to host the bay area's representative NHL club, one that has had substanible sucess at the gate and is now beginning to translate that to sucess on the ice.

It is often mentioned by many hockey historians that, since the original San Jose Sharks roster was compiled through a dispersal draft that took place in the de-merging of the North Stars and Barons franchises that the San Jose Sharks are not really an expansion team, but the re-incarnation of the old California Golden Seals. In theory it makes sense, although it was never made official.

Well the NHL kinda lucked out because now San Jose is the better of all the cities by the bay thanks to the Computer Chips I know Shark you don't want them and the Giants are trying to block it but the best thing for all Bay Area Teams would be if the A's move down to San Jose, and perhaps the Warriors too.

There was never serious push to get an arena in San Francisco, regardless of earthquake. Hell, the Giants tried for YEARS (even before the 89 earthquake) to get a damn baseball field built and they were defeated every time. It wasn't until the team was actually sold to Naimoli's group and relocation was the endgame that Magowan ponied up with his investor group and bought the team AND privately financed PacBell. It would have never been built otherwise, just like there won't be a new Niners stadium within city limits, ever. Land is at a premium in the city, and the general populace and local government are largely against any public funding for sports-related endeavors. Frankly, it's not that great of a sports town. The Niners and Giants both draw largely from the suburbs anyway.

[Guest]

I sort of wish they had been the San Francisco Sharks (which I suppose they sort of were for a year or two), just because I like the sound of it more, and San Francisco is more readily identifiable than San Jose, thought it has been on the rise.

Aside: even as a traditionalist, I think a S. F. Bay team is necessary for the league. They're natural rivals for Los Angeles and Vancouver. I think even the purest of the purists acknowledge this. Raleigh-Durham is where we start to object.

[leedsunited]

I sort of wish they had been the San Francisco Sharks (which I suppose they sort of were for a year or two), just because I like the sound of it more, and San Francisco is more readily identifiable than San Jose, thought it has been on the rise.

Aside: even as a traditionalist, I think a S. F. Bay team is necessary for the league. They're natural rivals for Los Angeles and Vancouver. I think even the purest of the purists acknowledge this. Raleigh-Durham is where we start to object.

God yes, I wish they were the SF Sharks instead. However, this city just didn't want it badly enough. I did have season tickets to the shortlived San Francisco Spiders IHL hockey team (one season wonders, probably circa 1995 or so)...

[Guest]

Speaking of teams with bad arenas, what's the latest with the New York Islanders?

[IceCap]

Speaking of teams with bad arenas, what's the latest with the New York Islanders?

Not sure, but I bet that new Brooklyn arena will be hockey-compatible....

[nyk]

Speaking of teams with bad arenas, what's the latest with the New York Islanders?

Not sure, but I bet that new Brooklyn arena will be hockey-compatible....

Oh u know the Brooklyn Arena will be ready for the Isles as a "just in case" situation. It would be "just in case" the Islanders dont get their lighthouse arena. That how the Devils' Newark Arena was for the Nets, a "just in case" they dont move to Bklyn and they dont wanna go back to the Meadowlands. I hope the Isles do move to Brooklyn...I know Long Islanders won't like that

[leedsunited]

Speaking of teams with bad arenas, what's the latest with the New York Islanders?

Not sure, but I bet that new Brooklyn arena will be hockey-compatible....

Oh u know the Brooklyn Arena will be ready for the Isles as a "just in case" situation. It would be "just in case" the Islanders dont get their lighthouse arena. That how the Devils' Newark Arena was for the Nets, a "just in case" they dont move to Bklyn and they dont wanna go back to the Meadowlands. I hope the Isles do move to Brooklyn...I know Long Islanders won't like that

Is there a market for hockey in Brooklyn? Will the Long Island folks actually venture into Brooklyn for games?

[Lee.]

Add "Brooklyn Islanders" to the long list of inappropriate sporting nicknames, alongside "LA Lakers" and "Utah Jazz."

I for one hope they would go with "Sweathogs" if it did happen, but hopefully, it won't come to that.

[-Helix-]

Wow, way to mistake what I said. I said winning tradition, emphasis was in winning.

Well the Jets featured the greatest team the WHA ever saw and won that AVCO Cup three times. They also beat the Soviet National Team, the first pro-franchise to do so.

Even if you discount that, as not "winning", then you can look at the fact that the Jets made the playoffs 65% of the time, lost tight series to some of the greatest teams the league has ever known, and produced Dale Hawerchuk one of the top players of his era.

To say Quebec, isn't steeped in tradition is laughable, my apologies but it just is. Let's put aside the fact that the game has its origins and roots tied to the region. Let's put aside the fact this the capital of a region that produced some greatest players the game - ever.

If you still argue they don't have a "winning" tradition in hockey, well you'd have to completely discount the QMJHL, which produced some of the finest talent the game has ever known, and the greatest junior hockey teams ever known. If you insist on discounting that as somehow not being related to "winning hockey", we can point to the fact the Nordiques were division winners and finalists in the WHA, and placed consistently in the top 5 of that lague.

If you insist on narrowing anything hockey related in Quebec to just the years the Nordiques were in the NHL, well you missed some of the finest teams the Adams division ever produced. Including an 85 team that went head to head with a great Habs team, that produced the greatest seven game playoff series I have ever witnessed.

They went on to become the best team in the East, before faltering for a period where they rebuilt on youth, its in this era they drafted Joe Sakic, arguably the best player the 1990's ever produced.

After being snubbed by an Ontario bonehead who slapped women around on the dance floor, they brilliantly held out for a trade that landed them a foundation of a team that would go on to win the Stanley Cup in the very first year they left town. They landed Forsberg, Thibault, Ricchi and Duchesne in that trade as well as a first round pick.

Respectfully, hockey has been a tradition in Winnipeg and Quebec for a century and to suggest that neither area was "steeped in tradition", and never won much, is simply not correct.

Losing both franchises was a huge loss and politics and greedy short-sighted profit was the catalyst. Well, I think Colorado has adopted hockey beyond just going to NHL games, I am not sure hockey will work in Arizona. Regardless, the league walked away from two cities that are steeped in hockey tradition. I argue this weakens the league in the long run.

You do realize that they have had professional hockey in some form or another in Phoenix for decades before the Jets came to town.

Same with Denver

Less so with Raleigh, although they did have an ECHL team.

A bit of different situations between Denver and Phoenix. Denver has had long traditions of grassroots hockey including high school and college hockey which dates far back.

Phoenix's hockey history consists of a couple cult-following minor league teams. Hardly a great basis of building a hockey tradition. Same could be said for Raleigh. (And it's Greensboro that had the ECHL team.)

Problem with the way the NHL and hockey in general has expanded, is that the grassroots level of the game has been completely ignored and franchises looked for the quick money instead of building a solid tradition. Take the Panthers for example. They were having great success in downtown Miami and the whole city rallied behind them. Even urban minority youths who don't usually acknowledge hockey were getting interested. How does the franchise reward the growing fanbase that would have been seen as a huge breakthrough for the sport? They move the team to a mostly white and wealthy suburb far out of town just because that's where the money and the snowbirds are.

Of course the fact that hockey is such an expensive sport to play doesn't help this. High schools and colleges can't afford to ice teams. The average middle class kid can't get the money to play youth - and even if they did they can't play in the really expensive high talent leagues.

Unfortunately for hockey, it's pretty much doomed to be a wealthy class sport forever. The NHL used to be blue collar. But that was back when all people did was watch the sport to see people beat eachother up and be entertained after a hard days work. People actually want to PLAY IT nowadays. Yet it's hard for kids to get involved or even discover a sport when high schools and colleges don't even have teams and it's impossible to afford travel programs.

Roller hockey helped the sport grow back in the 90's because it was cheaper and easier to play, but the NHL can't rely on other organizations/sports to do it's work. The NHL needs to drastically grow the sport from a grassroots perspective.

The future is bright though if technology allows. (http://www.kwikrink.com/) If synthetic ice is cheaper by the time I have my own property - I'll definitely have my own rink the backyard. Year long too.

[rams80]

Phoenix's hockey history consists of a couple cult-following minor league teams. Hardly a great basis of building a hockey tradition. Same could be said for Raleigh. (And it's Greensboro that had the ECHL team.)

Raleigh had the ECHL Icecaps from 1991-1998 (they are now the Augusta Lynx).

[NJTank]

Add "Brooklyn Islanders" to the long list of inappropriate sporting nicknames, alongside "LA Lakers" and "Utah Jazz."

I for one hope they would go with "Sweathogs" if it did happen, but hopefully, it won't come to that.

Well Brooklyn is actually on Long Island