NHL to expand?

[Webhamster]

Comps does nothing for the game. If (and when) people don't show up, you get a team playing to an empty arena and announcing near sellouts. The NHL already has a severe problem with this.

Example (announced attendance was more than 15,000):

Totally off-topic... but this a logo board after all...

That "Westgate City Center" logo is exactly the same as the one used by the "Westgate Shopping Centre" here in Ottawa. It really made me do a double take because I was saying to myself "...that doesn't look at all like Scotiabank Place..."

[IceCap]

Take it from this former Las Vegas resident, but this is a terribly bad idea. Simply put, Vegas just isn't a major league market yet, for the NHL or any sport. It's a town that doesn't draw anyone for their wide variery of sports, whether it be the 51s, the Gladiators, or even UNLV at times. Any time there is a major event here, (Mountain West Tournament comes to mind) it struggles to fill out all the seats. Imagine trying to fill a venue 40+ times a year at 18,000 a night! Vegas residents love sports, they just love other cities' teams: Lakers, Dodgers, Padres, D'Backs, Raiders, etc.

In addition, hockey barely registers a blip out there. As someone who worked in one of the busiest sports books in town, there's about as much interest in the NHL as the WNBA. Trust me, that's one of the surest ways to gauge interest out there. The population doesn't have a whole lot of cash to throw around that doesn't wind up in the hands of MGM, Station, Boyd, and Harrah's, much less give to an NHL team. The majority of the people are in the gaming business which pay little and are heavily reliant on tips. The area itself is still quite small, registering slightly more than a million in the metro with nothing else substantial for more than three hours in every direction. Good luck trying to sell that to network executives.

The arena issue alone would also derail this. Thomas and Mack is barely adequate for a one time event (NBA All-Star) which leaves doubts about it even as a temporary venue. MGM Grand Garden is not going to work, becuase assuming all seats can be used, it seats only about 15,000 with no luxury suites or club seats of any kind. It wasn't designed for a team, it was designed for concerts and boxing where the best and worst seats are in the hundreds all the same. There is no public support to build a new arena; they can barely muster enough support to build highways. Add in issues with the gaming industry showing anything that keeps people from the machines or tables the cold shoulder, and you have next to no corporate support.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a team there eventually, just not yet. The town just isn't ready yet. If someone is going to be first out there, it's probably going to have to be an NBA team because at least they have some cache out there. The NHL will get swallowed out there and then we'll all be writing in a few years about what a horrific idea it was to put a team there.

Interesting perspective. As far as arena issues, I think Las Vegas could build one quite quickly... it seems everything gets built there in no time and there seems to be alot of private funds to throw around for projects like this one.

As far as demographics and interest in hockey, I would tend to agree. Hockey might just get drowned out by everything else going on in LV. I have a feeling the NHL is going to try to put a team there despite this (possible) inevitability.

A team in LV could go one of two ways. They would either be a huge success, due to them being the city's first pro team, or they would get drowned out by the rest of the city. There wouldn't be an in-between. They'd either end up as a huge success or a huge failure.

Given the NHL's current state, they can't afford the risk. A team in KC is the best choice for the first expansion team, and Portland or Houston would be sound second choices.

If the NHL was in better shape I would be all for a LV team. In its current state though, the failure of a LV team would kill the league.

[McCall]

Take it from this former Las Vegas resident, but this is a terribly bad idea. Simply put, Vegas just isn't a major league market yet, for the NHL or any sport. It's a town that doesn't draw anyone for their wide variery of sports, whether it be the 51s, the Gladiators, or even UNLV at times. Any time there is a major event here, (Mountain West Tournament comes to mind) it struggles to fill out all the seats. Imagine trying to fill a venue 40+ times a year at 18,000 a night! Vegas residents love sports, they just love other cities' teams: Lakers, Dodgers, Padres, D'Backs, Raiders, etc.

In addition, hockey barely registers a blip out there. As someone who worked in one of the busiest sports books in town, there's about as much interest in the NHL as the WNBA. Trust me, that's one of the surest ways to gauge interest out there. The population doesn't have a whole lot of cash to throw around that doesn't wind up in the hands of MGM, Station, Boyd, and Harrah's, much less give to an NHL team. The majority of the people are in the gaming business which pay little and are heavily reliant on tips. The area itself is still quite small, registering slightly more than a million in the metro with nothing else substantial for more than three hours in every direction. Good luck trying to sell that to network executives.

The arena issue alone would also derail this. Thomas and Mack is barely adequate for a one time event (NBA All-Star) which leaves doubts about it even as a temporary venue. MGM Grand Garden is not going to work, becuase assuming all seats can be used, it seats only about 15,000 with no luxury suites or club seats of any kind. It wasn't designed for a team, it was designed for concerts and boxing where the best and worst seats are in the hundreds all the same. There is no public support to build a new arena; they can barely muster enough support to build highways. Add in issues with the gaming industry showing anything that keeps people from the machines or tables the cold shoulder, and you have next to no corporate support.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a team there eventually, just not yet. The town just isn't ready yet. If someone is going to be first out there, it's probably going to have to be an NBA team because at least they have some cache out there. The NHL will get swallowed out there and then we'll all be writing in a few years about what a horrific idea it was to put a team there.

Interesting perspective. As far as arena issues, I think Las Vegas could build one quite quickly... it seems everything gets built there in no time and there seems to be alot of private funds to throw around for projects like this one.

As far as demographics and interest in hockey, I would tend to agree. Hockey might just get drowned out by everything else going on in LV. I have a feeling the NHL is going to try to put a team there despite this (possible) inevitability.

A team in LV could go one of two ways. They would either be a huge success, due to them being the city's first pro team, or they would get drowned out by the rest of the city. There wouldn't be an in-between. They'd either end up as a huge success or a huge failure.

Given the NHL's current state, they can't afford the risk. A team in KC is the best choice for the first expansion team, and Portland or Houston would be sound second choices.

If the NHL was in better shape I would be all for a LV team. In its current state though, the failure of a LV team would kill the league.

I'd have to agree. And nothing against the NHL or anything, but as far as the "first team in Vegas will do better" argument, doesn't necessarily apply to hockey. NBA, NFL, and MLB would do better as the first team. Again, nothing against the NHL, but I just don't think it has the popularity like those other leagues to be the top sport in Las Vegas. If it was the first and only team, then yeah, of course, because it's the first and only. But as soon as one of those other sports come in, which once the professional sports levy is broken, it's gonna flood in Vegas (bad metaphor, I know), the hockey team is just gonna be ignored.

[The_Admiral]

I don't understand how dropping an ice hockey team in the middle of a god-damned desert--and an expansion team at that!--is supposed to be this big can't-miss. If Milwaukee can lend its support to NHL hockey as well as it does for the college game, then that would be a great choice, but I digress.

While we're talking about the history of the Senators, here's a related query to Sharks fans: do you consider the team to have the lineage of the old Oakland Seals of the Expansion Six? The team was bought by the Gunds, moved to Cleveland, merged with the North Stars, but then the Gunds split off from the North Stars, taking half the roster, so it's really more of a continuation of A Well-Traveled Team That Came About In 1967 than an expansion team like the Nashville Predators who paid the expansion fee, did the expansion draft, and all that. (Oh, and IMO, the current Sens are an expansion team too, and their claim to the lineage of the Senators Mark 1 is like the Washington Nationals claiming they were established in 1905.)

[IceCap]

While we're talking about the history of the Senators, here's a related query to Sharks fans: do you consider the team to have the lineage of the old Oakland Seals of the Expansion Six? The team was bought by the Gunds, moved to Cleveland, merged with the North Stars, but then the Gunds split off from the North Stars, taking half the roster, so it's really more of a continuation of A Well-Traveled Team That Came About In 1967 than an expansion team like the Nashville Predators who paid the expansion fee, did the expansion draft, and all that. (Oh, and IMO, the current Sens are an expansion team too, and their claim to the lineage of the Senators Mark 1 is like the Washington Nationals claiming they were established in 1905.)

Yes, personally I consider the Sharks a continuation of the Oakland/California Seals/Golden Seals franchise. IMO it's a shame neither the team or the league acknowledges it though.

As for the Sens, it wasn't a Cleveland-deal thing, the league made no statement linking the 90's expansion team with the original Senators. So it would seem like the case is open and shut, the current Sens have no claim to the the lineage of the original team.

However, the team has taken it upon themselves to try and connect the two teams, using the same name and colour scheme, and raising banners in their arena to commemorate famous players from the original Sens team, as well as 10 Stanley Cup Champions banners using the current team's logo.

Personally I don't feel that strongly one way or an other. As a history buff it's cool to see the team link itself to a rich lineage, and as a Leafs fan it makes the rivalry just that much special by giving it a true NHL founders old-time feel (the original NHL franchises were the Montréal Canadiens, the Montréal Wanderers, the Ottawa Senators, the Toronto Maple Leafs, then named the Arenas, and the Québec Bulldogs).

So if they want to claim the original Senators' history I say go for it. I'm just pointing out that if they do they have to accept an 80 year Cup drought. They can't pick and choose which parts of original Sens history they want to keep and which parts to ignore. Either all or nothing.

Also, I wouldn't say the current Sens adopting the lineage of the original Sens is like the Washington Nationals claiming to have been founded in 1905.

With the Sens they were a 90's expansion team with no prior history, essentially a blank slate. They decided to fill that blank in with the lineage of the original Ottawa Senators.

With the Washington Nations that blank slate doesn't exist. Prior to the 2005-2006 season the team existed as the Montréal Expos. They already had a history, the 1905 patch was a blatant attempt to hijack an other team's lineage and insult our intelligence.

The Sens, they fall more into a grey area, and IMO can get away with adopting the lineage of the previous team (provided they take the good and the bad ).

[zer0dotcom]

^ If thats the case, would this season have ended the longest stretch between Stanley Cup finals appearences in history (if not for a team, then for a City?), and knock off Toronto and Chicago for the longest Cup drought?

[IceCap]

^ If thats the case, would this season have ended the longest stretch between Stanley Cup finals appearences in history (if not for a team, then for a City?), and knock off Toronto and Chicago for the longest Cup drought?

Yes, it ended the Cup Finals appearance drought. Still, if the current Sens want to connect themselves to the original Sens, the actual Cup drought is still strong at 80 years.

[Fred T. Jane]

^ If thats the case, would this season have ended the longest stretch between Stanley Cup finals appearences in history (if not for a team, then for a City?), and knock off Toronto and Chicago for the longest Cup drought?

Well, it depends on the definition of the streak.

Year-wise, it's an 80 year drought (and counting), from 1927-2007

Season-wise, it's an 18 season drought (and counting), from 1927-1935, 1992-2007, if you follow the line of thinking like how the NFL does with the Browns (years without the team don't count toward "droughts" and the like).

But all of this is academic, as the NHL refuses to revive the franchise and formally grant the team's records and heritage to Ottawa. It was tried in the expansion process and, IIRC, it was one of the first things Melnyk tried to do after taking over the team in 2003, to no avail. Frankly I support the move, as well as the restoration of the Oakland Seals/Cleveland Barons records and heritage to the San Jose Sharks. Heck, the Sharks were the result of the legal undoing of the Barons/North Stars merger, which makes the refusal to grant the heritage all the more silly.

[NorthStar74]

If you had to consider adding the stats and history for the San Jose Sharks and Ottawa Senators, keep that separate.. there's no point in adding the California Seals/Cleveland Barons history and stats to the current San Jose Sharks stats and history as well as the orginial Ottawa Senators/St.Louis Eagles history and stats to the modern Senators as well.. keep that separate but I do like how the Senators have honoured the old Senators and the Stanley Cup banners... just my opinion on that somehow...

[The_Admiral]

I don't get how the Sharks aren't the Seals. Gordon Gund said he wanted to move his hockey team back to the San Francisco Bay area, and he did. The merger was dissolved, and now the team is back where it started. The modern Senators should honor the original Senators, by all means, but trying to forge a connection between a long-dead club and this one by retroactively slapping the current crest on the old Stanley Cup banners is disingenuous. They could use the old barberpole stuff, sure, but there needs to be a distinction made between the two teams.

[BB61]

The answer to "Why?" is simple.

This is the same regime that put the league on Versus.

Think about it.

[NorthStar74]

Has there been any mentoin abuot the Barons/North Stars merger work all dissolved to allow the old Barons to come back in form as the Sharks?? Nope I doubt it... unless there is solid proof of this, leave the Seals/Barons stats and etc separate from the Sharks stats and histoy, period...

[The_Admiral]

Gordon Gund owned the Barons. Gordon Gund merged them with the North Stars and kept them in Bloomington as the North Stars. Gund decided to move the North Stars back to Oakland, but the NHL said no, rather, they dissolved the Barons-Stars merger and let Gund take half the '90-'91 North Stars to San Jose, where they would become the Sharks. That was the course of events. The California Seals and Cleveland Barons are in no way part of the Dallas Stars.

[Ez Street]

Everyone knows the NHL should contract down to six teams.

The Unorigional Six:

Carolina

Atlanta

Tampa Bay

Nashville

Anahiem

San Jose

That would please everyone.

[IceCap]

Has there been any mentoin abuot the Barons/North Stars merger work all dissolved to allow the old Barons to come back in form as the Sharks?? Nope I doubt it... unless there is solid proof of this, leave the Seals/Barons stats and etc separate from the Sharks stats and histoy, period...

I'm going to have to agree with the admiral here. The Sharks' formation represented the dissolution of the Barons/North Stars merger. The Sharks are very much the Seals/Golden Seals/Barons, despite what Bettman and co. say.

[gojetsgo]

Has there been any mentoin abuot the Barons/North Stars merger work all dissolved to allow the old Barons to come back in form as the Sharks?? Nope I doubt it... unless there is solid proof of this, leave the Seals/Barons stats and etc separate from the Sharks stats and histoy, period...

I'm going to have to agree with the admiral here. The Sharks' formation represented the dissolution of the Barons/North Stars merger. The Sharks are very much the Seals/Golden Seals/Barons, despite what Bettman and co. say.

I'm not sure why this is even up for debate. The connection between the San Jose Sharks and the original Seals/Barons is irrefutable.

An abbreviated timeline:

1967 California Golden Seals begin play as an expansion team

1976 Team is moved to Cleveland after being sold to George and Gordon Gund

1978 The team is merged with the Minnesota North Stars, The Gunds remain owners of the new merged team

Late 1980s The Gunds ask permission to move the North Stars to California

1990 The Gunds sell their share of the North Stars as part of an agreement with the league that a new expansion team is granted to the Bay area.

1991 Both the San Jose Sharks AND the Minnesota North Stars take part in the expansion draft.

So basically, the team was sort of merged, and then "unmerged" years later. The fact that the two teams shared in the expansion draft is proof that the two franchises (Sharks and Seals/Barons/North Stars/Stars) are linked.

Now that I think of it, this must be the most traveled franchise in league history (although some of the travels are just renaming):

California Seals

Oakland Seals

California Golden Seals

Cleveland Barons

Minnesota North Stars

(and sorta San Jose Sharks)

Dallas Stars

[NorthStar74]

Hmm well I would rather keep that separate somehow so it dont get confusing for me... I wanna keep teh California Seals/Cleveland Barons stats separate from the Minnesota North Stars/Dallas Stars stats as well as the San Jose Sharks stats... so it my way to keep everthing separate so it would be easier to know...

[dahatman]

If the NHL is to expand, they are going back to Canada. With the a salary cap, I think it could work out in places like Winnipeg, Quebec City or even Hamilton. There is already talk of the Predator possibly relocating there. I think the NHL will move out of the Sun Belt and go back to the Snow Belt. Don't be surprise to hear cities like Hartford, Portland, Indianapolis, Seattle come up in relocation. As we have seen, the NHL is not a TV sport so the size of the market is immaterial. As I read on a Winnipeg fansite, as an owner, I'd rather have 300,000 fans in a population of 700,000 than 20,000 fans in a market of 4,000,000

[PriestMVP31]

How long does Versus have the current TV contract? I just hope hockey can get on NBC full time or something like that so people can see what a great league it really is.

KC would be a great option for an expansion team, I'm a Chiefs fan and all the Kansas Citians I talk to would love to see a hockey team come to the Sprint Center, which I might add will be a stunning facility. I can't wait to live there and go to hockey games.

KC should get one team, and Portland should get the other. Honestly, all 4 major sports should have the 32 team format because it lends itself to the best scheduling and the best realigning of conferences/divisions. It's the perfect system, just look at the NFL.

[Patrick L. Kennedy]

For hockey to go full-time to NBC, wouldn't that require NBC to be a willing party? The NHL will be lucky if NBC remains on their contract long-term with the dismal ratings the Cup Final drew. Was it Game 3 that garnered the lowest rating in the primetime history of NBC? I'd love to see the league get more exposure, but I very much doubt that NBC has had an experience that would lead them to go deeper into the NHL.

Then again, hockey has got to be better than (insert reality show here) that NBC would otherwise show.